Just “Stuff” Today …

Antonio Brown is back in the news.  It should not be a great shock to learn that he is there not in a good way.  According to a report at tmz.com, Brown’s Snapchat account has been suspended because he posted “intimate” pictures of himself and the mother of his children.  Snapchat says that it has rules in place that prohibit “sexually explicit content and bullying or harassment of any kind.”

The woman’s name is Chelsie Kyriss; she and Brown are no longer together, and she said that she has “repeatedly” asked Brown not to share “the private parts of their former relationship”.  Somehow, that seems to be “a bridge too far” for Antonio Brown.

The picture at issue here which got Brown’s account suspended reportedly shows Ms. Kyriss performing oral sex on Brown.  Let me be clear:

1. I do not believe that oral sex is an activity that will condemn the participants to eternal damnation, nor do I believe that it should be illegal.
2. I do believe that it should be a private/intimate activity that need not be recorded for posterity.
3. And I firmly believe that if it is recorded in some way for some reason, it should not be shared beyond the immediate participants.

I have not spent even a nanosecond of my time following the broken relationship between Brown and Kyriss but another item in the TMZ report indicates to me that it is a sordid affair indeed.  There was a domestic violence incident involving these two people a few months ago and Ms. Kyriss alleges that in the heat of that event, Brown “sent explicit videos to their son’s phone”.  When I read about that, I stopped and took about a minute to try to concoct a scenario where I might think to myself:

• The next thing I need to do about now is to send an explicit video to a minor child.

Guess what.  I came up with nothing that got me close to pondering such an action probably because I was trying to be rational.

And because I have this proclivity for analytical thinking, I am once again reminded by this situation that one can never have “intimate photos/videos” circulating on the Internet if one abides by Precept #2 above.

Moving on …  I think there is an interesting situation that has evolved related to Brian Flores’ discrimination lawsuit against the NFL.  Recall that Flores alleges racial discrimination against him and Black candidates for head coaching jobs in the NFL as a class.  Flores was joined as co-plaintiffs in that suit by Ray Horton and Steve Wilks.  I am not an attorney and I have nowhere near sufficient information to comment on the merits or deficiencies of the plaintiffs’ case here.  I do think – from my perspective as a layman – that a dilemma exists for some of the plaintiffs.

Flores spent last season as the “senior defensive assistant and linebackers coach” for the Steelers.  Wilks began the 2022 NFL season as the “defensive passing game coordinator and secondary coach” but was elevated to the job of interim head coach of the Panthers when the team fired Matt Rhule as its head coach.

According to a report over the weekend, the Arizona Cardinals – the team that fired Steve Wilks after only one season on the job forming part of the basis for Wilks’ claims as a co-plaintiff in Flores’ lawsuit – have requested permission from the Steelers to interview Flores for their now vacant head coaching job.  So:

• Would Flores potentially damage his case by taking that interview specifically for a job with the team that allegedly wronged his co-plaintiff?
• Would Flores potentially damage his case by refusing to interview for a head coaching position in the NFL?
• And what if he were offered the head coaching job?

I know that there are several attorneys who read some of these rants on a periodic basis; I shall leave it to one of them to comment on the dilemma that I see in the current situation.  Maybe it is merely a figment of my hyper-active imagination?

Next up …  Mattress Mack is at it again.  According to the reader in Houston, “Mack” has bet $200K (a pittance compared to some of his other wagers) at +625 odds on the Dallas Cowboys to win the NFC Championship and then move on to the Super Bowl.  The sales promotion that goes along with that wager is this:

• Customers who bought 3 pieces of Yellowstone furniture in a certain time period will be reimbursed for the purchase price if the Cowboys indeed win the NFC Championship.

Finally, since I mentioned a dilemma above, let me close with this explanation of “dilemma” by Yair Lapid, a member of Israel’s Knesset:

“An old friend of mine, an economist by trade, once explained to me that the statistical definition of ‘dilemma’ is 49.9% in favor and 50.1% against.  If the gap is greater, there is no dilemma because the answer is clear.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………