"Me First"

Let’s start with the Talmud, segue to NFL Football and end up at the White House.

Top that, popular blog destinations!

I recall very little of my very little amount of Talmudic studies at the Toronto Hebrew Day School,making this, in terms of personal understanding, a tenuous sliver of a tenuous sliver.

But that’s all I‘ve got so I’m using it.

Aside from the issues relating to your ox wandering onto your neighbor’s property (Who did it subsequently belong to?), which barely captured my attention, my family not owning an ox, I recall a more interesting conundrum concerning,

“If you and another person are stranded in the desert, and you have only enough water to sustain one of you, who gets to drink it – you, in which case the other person is a goner, or the other person, in which case youare?”

“And the answer is… “, cracking the envelope at the “Talmies”, the annual Talmud Awards extravaganza – 

“You drink it.”

To which my reaction is – and probably was when I was twelve –  

“Phew!”

Apparently, somewhere in the Bible, Talmudic scholars, poring assiduously over its contents, gleaned that “You drink it” was not a personal option – so no “Sydney Cartoning” it in the desert – it was “Divine Instruction.”

And who wants ignore that!  

And so, at least for Talmud followers, the Celestial Sanction for “Self-Preservation” was officially codified:

“If it comes down to you or them – you are instructed to save you.”  

Self-interested action was not deemed to be selfish.  It was the normal and natural – and Divinely ordained, for that matter – way to behave.

The question then is,

If self-interest is normal and natural, does the word “selfish” have any functional meaning at all, or was it just the “guilting” last word of a person, denied life-saving water in the desert?

Or any paralleling arrangement where someone puts themselves first and you angrily respond, “Don’t be like that.”

Okay, on to NFL Football.  More specifically a recent article in the newspaper (which for those of you scoring at home is the germinal genesis of this blog post.)  

NFL ratings are dropping.  Ten percent last season, after an eight percent tumble the season before. The football season is starting. A probing investigation seems thoroughly appropriate.

Reading that article, my interest was not about the NFL losing significant viewership.  I took note, instead, of the people quoted in it.

Specifically, what they said and, imaginably, why they said it.

First came Jim Nantz, a longtime network football announcer, meaning he’s prominent and he’s rich. (Two good things you want to hold on to.)  

In the context of the publicized issue of life-altering concussions and its affect on the popularity of the game, Nantz’s response, to whether he’d let his two year-old son play football (the words,  “… when he gets older” being naturally understood) was:

“It’s too early to make that decision… My wife, the daughter of a high school football coach – she’ll tell you ‘no’.  We’ll wait and see.  They are trying to make the game safer.  That is undeniable.”

Did you spot any screaming “self-interest” in that answer? Or is that me, being grumpily cynical?

Next.  (In the same article.)

“Even though the ratings have been down the last few years, {football’s} still very attractive to advertisers.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the ratings bounce back this year. I’m hoping that they do.”

Would it surprise youto learn that that cheery prognostiction was delivered by CBS Chairman Sean McManus? (Who reportedly paid close to a billion dollars for the rights to broadcast NFL ballgames?)  

How do you spell “self-interest”?  

Ignoring the facts and saying what helps you.

Finally – following the unwavering “Rule of Threes”, plus there was a topping pertinent example in the article – here’s Mike Mulvihill, executive vice president for research, league operations and strategy at Fox Sports (who also shelled out close to a cool billion for NFL broadcast rights):

“Because of the movement of scripted consumption to ad-free environments, I think out position as a seller is actually the strongest it’s ever been.”

Down 18% in two years. And their position is actually stronger than it’s ever been.

I wonder, do journalists bite their cheeks when they take down these prejudiced pronouncements?  Or do they think:  “These ludicrous whoppers are (“self-servingly”) good for my story.”  Pleasing their editors, and allowing people to joyfully snort milk out their noses while they’re reading it.

The “Final Jump” in this narrative Tic-Tac-Toe:

The White House.

If acting from “self interest” is strategically acceptable – even to “De Lawd” – how do you fault a president in serious legal difficulties for lying “self-servingly” to escape them?  

“Tell the truth?  That’s giving the last water the Mueller!”

No “Big Finish” here. The issue of “limiting boundaries” in this behavior is so dizzily confounding to me the best I can do is just lay the thing out.  

A “self-serving” disclaimer? 

Hey, back off.

I’m just joining the parade.