The National Football League just announced that they were hiring former FBI Head Robert Mueller to investigate who knew what and when in the Ray Rice domestic violence case.
It is my understanding that the investigation has nothing to do with whether Rice was guilty of anything since the video tape shows him slugging the woman, knocking her out cold on the elevator.
The focus of the Mueller investigation is the NFL itself. According to some news sources, the NFL was delivered the video months ago and it was reported that at least one person thought to be either an NFL executive or an assistant to the executive viewed the tape and commented on the content.
The outcry centers on whether the NFL knew long ago that Rice was a wife beater and willfully chose to ignore it because Ray Rice was a high profile player for the Baltimore Ravens.
Roger Goodell was asked when the NFL learned of the video and he said it was Monday of this week (September 8, 2014). Goodell was asked more than once to make certain he was sure he knew the importance of his answer. He then clarified that “to my knowledge, we did not know” or words to that effect.
Should we care when he knew? I don’t care, do you?
The moral outrage pushed by the press is laughable. Everyone knows businesses protect their image and make every effort to keep their dirty laundry out of the public eye.
For me, this is just another case similar to the NBA’s handling of Donald Sterling. Moral outrage over Sterling’s bigotry. If the press was actually doing their job every day, they would have turned up stories about racism, bigotry and domestic violence as it happened rather than weeks later.
The NBA knew Sterling was a bigot, but the video tape forced them to act out against Sterling because they didn’t want to be viewed as tolerant to bigotry. The truth is, rich guys like Sterling are all a little quirky and as a group NBA owners accept the quirks in each other because they don’t want their own to be exposed.
Once again, in the NFL case, the press is working to make a story. In this case they are focusing on the NFL cover-up rather than the substance of the event; domestic violence.
For me, I’m concerned about whether a crime was committed when Rice slugged the woman. If that was a crime and Rice wasn’t arrested then I’m concerned about the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction in the community where the crime took place. They had the tape, did they do their job?
If the event wasn’t viewed as a crime then what SHOULD be done? Is there a distinction between domestic violence that is criminal behavior and another type that is not criminal behavior? Is it okay to hit your girlfriend a little? At what point does slapping her around become a crime? At what point does it become unacceptable behavior even if it’s not a crime?
The issue of domestic violence in our country is wide spread, not just in the NFL. In this case, we are looking at a high profile football player who punches his girlfriend. A case where the girl friend absolutely refuses to press charges against Rice, a man who she married after the beating.
So is the important issue that should be investigated, the NFL, and whether they knew or didn’t know or whether domestic violence is acceptable behavior in our society regardless of the profession or line of work.
A “women’s” organization pointed out that more than fifty cases of domestic violence against professional football players have been filed with the courts without much more than a peep from the NFL. Seemingly, the NFL condones bad behavior because they choose to do nothing about it when they learn it exists.
It appears that the NFL came late to moral outrage. But without a formal investigation, they kicked Ray Rice out of the league. The Baltimore Ravens canceled Rice’s contract and released him. All of this took place without an investigation further than the one where the Ravens suspended Rice for two games. That would suggest that at least the Ravens knew the real substance of Rice’s behavior from the beginning and felt that two games was appropriate punishment. Then changed their mind when clear evidence showing Rice slugging the woman became public. What was the two game suspension for?
Keep in mind that they don’t kick players out of the league for clearly criminal acts. Drug dealing and homicide gets you jail time, but then you come back. Suspension for a short time, maybe. Ray Rice was kicked out… permanently.
If Americans want to be outraged about domestic violence then let’s do it right. Let’s look at baseball players, basketball players and hockey players. Then we should look at policemen, firemen, lawyers, doctors and beer truck drivers. The issue of domestic violence isn’t an issue unique to any one line of work; it’s everywhere. The question is how important it is in society and how tolerant we are when we find it.
The problem in our country is we have lost our morality. We’ve become a country that accepts bad behavior because it takes too much effort to stand up for the right thing(s). Ultimately, this is one of the flaws that will bring our country down.
How much bad behavior can we tolerate?
When you know the guy you work with beats his wife or girlfriend, you assume some of his guilt if you don’t do something to stop it. The time when you kept your mouth shut and mind your own business has passed. If we expect society to deal harshly with domestic violence or drug use or any other criminal behavior, it has to start with each of us standing up and demanding that we start at the grass roots level and work out way up from there. Or we can start at the top and demand that our leaders perform to a higher moral standard and work down. Either way we have to start.
I don’t view Ray Rice any different than I do a police officer who beats his wife.
Demanding that Roger Goodell be fired is ludicrous. I don’t even care if Goodell was flat out lying. Absent a conduct policy in the NFL that is enforced like the drug use policy, it’s up to the individual teams to deal with cases. It certainly suggests that a discussion is warranted at the highest levels in every sports organization to determine their tolerance or willingness to act regarding bad behavior.
Sadly, I’m not holding my breath. Just look at professional organizations for lawyers and doctors. When they know there are members of their profession who are of questionable moral standing, they just keep their heads down and their mouths shut because they don’t want to speak up and strip a fellow of his or her ability to make a living. Bad behavior is accepted practice.
School teachers, fire fighters, policemen, accountants, stockbrokers… you name it; bad behavior is acceptable behavior.
Unless we stand up and demand better at a local level.
No Loss for Words 
USING AI WITHOUT LOSING YOURSELF
by Steve DanaA Practical Guide for Thinking People in a Changing World
We are living through a quiet shift.
Not the kind that announces itself with headlines or breaking news, but the kind that slips into our lives one small convenience at a time. We ask a question, and an answer appears. We need help writing, and the words come together faster than we expected. We wonder about something we’ve never quite understood, and suddenly it makes sense.
Artificial Intelligence is not coming. It’s here. And like most things that make life easier, it doesn’t seem to ask much from us in return.
At least… that’s how it feels.
But if you’ve lived long enough to see a few cycles of change—and I suspect many of my readers have—you know that nothing this powerful comes without consequences. The question isn’t whether AI is useful. It clearly is.
The question is whether we are using it… or whether, little by little, it is beginning to use us.
The Promise: Why AI Is Worth Learning
Let’s start with the part that’s easy to overlook if you only listen to the warnings.
AI is an extraordinary tool.
For people who are curious—and that’s a trait I’ve always valued—it opens doors that used to require years of study or access to the right expert. Now you can ask questions, follow up, challenge the answer, and go deeper, all in a matter of minutes.
That’s not trivial.
It means someone who is willing to think can learn faster, write better, and organize ideas more clearly than ever before. It levels the playing field in a way that should not be dismissed.
I’ve seen it in my own work. It doesn’t replace thinking. It sharpens it.
It helps take a rough idea and turn it into something that can be communicated. It forces you to clarify what you mean, because if you don’t, the result doesn’t quite land.
And for those who feel like technology has passed them by, particularly older adults, this may be one of the first tools that actually invites them back into the conversation. That matters. Because a society that stops learning eventually stops thinking.
The Reality: Data Is the Currency
Now let’s talk about the part that makes people uneasy—and should. Every interaction you have with technology leaves a trace. That’s not new. It’s been happening for years. What’s different now is the level of sophistication in how that information is used. We are no longer just collecting data. We are interpreting it. Patterns are identified. Preferences are mapped. Behavior is anticipated. And that information has value.
It is used to shape what you see, what you read, and increasingly, what you are likely to believe. Not in a heavy-handed way, but in a gradual one. The kind that feels natural.
That’s where people get into trouble. Because it doesn’t feel like manipulation. It feels like information.
The Mistake: Treating AI Like a Private Conversation
There’s a habit forming that deserves a little pushback. People are starting to treat AI tools like they are having a private conversation with a trusted assistant. They are not.
These systems may feel conversational, but they are still systems. Anything you type has the potential to be stored, analyzed, or used to improve the tool itself.
That doesn’t mean you should avoid using AI. But it does mean you should draw a line. There are things that should remain yours:
If the information would cause you concern if it became public, it doesn’t belong in a prompt. That’s not fear. That’s common sense.
At the same time, there is a wide range of safe and productive uses:
The key is not avoidance. It’s discipline.
The Subtle Risk: Influence Without Awareness
The greater concern isn’t just data collection. It’s influence.
We’ve already seen what happens when algorithms decide what we see. Social media showed us that. People began living in information environments that reinforced what they already believed. AI has the potential to take that further.
Instead of simply showing you more of what you like, it can tailor responses in ways that are more likely to resonate with you personally. Not dramatically. Not obviously. But consistently.
Over time, that can narrow your perspective without you realizing it. It can make your world feel more certain than it actually is. And that’s where thinking people need to be careful. Because the danger isn’t that AI will tell you what to think.
The danger is that it might make you feel like you’ve already thought enough.
The Balance: Using the Tool Without Becoming the Product
So where does that leave us?
We don’t need to run from this technology. And we don’t need to blindly embrace it either. What we need is balance. Use AI to expand your thinking, not replace it. Use it to clarify your ideas, not make decisions for you. Use it as a tool, not as a companion. And perhaps most importantly:
Don’t give it more of yourself than a stranger should reasonably know.
That one principle, if followed consistently, will protect you from most of the downside.
The Bigger Question
There’s a larger issue sitting just beneath the surface.
AI doesn’t operate on its own.
It is built, trained, and deployed by people and organizations. Many of those organizations have incentives—financial, political, or otherwise—that shape how these tools are developed and used. That doesn’t make them evil. But it does mean they are not neutral. Power has always required oversight. That hasn’t changed.
What has changed is the scale.
The Responsibility We Still Carry
It’s easy to look at a tool like this and assume the responsibility lies somewhere else. With the developers. With the companies. With the regulators. But the truth is more uncomfortable. The responsibility still rests with us. We decide what to share. We decide what to believe. We decide whether we continue to think for ourselves.
AI can assist that process. It cannot replace it.
Final Thought
We have built something powerful. There’s no going back from that. But forward doesn’t have to mean careless. We can use this tool to become more informed, more capable, and more thoughtful. Or we can use it in a way that slowly erodes those very qualities. The difference won’t be determined by the technology, it will be determined by the people using it.
And that brings us right back to where we started.
The question isn’t whether AI is part of our future. It’s whether we will remain fully ourselves in the process.
Posted in AI Artificial Intelligence, Education, Political commentary, Social Commentary, Steve Dana Issues | Leave a Comment »