(The funniest thing is that this kid had no idea who Michael Bisping was until he walked out; he just saw him and let instinct take over.)
You might recall that, amidst all the kerfuffle of visa and fighter licensing issues that threatened to derail the UFC’s trip to Boston for their FS1 network debut, city councilor Steven Murphy filed a resolution to ban minors from attending MMA fights. Backed by the Culinary Union’s “But Think of the Children!” division, Murphy’s bill argued that “extensive research has associated exposure to media violence with a variety of physical and mental health problems for children and adolescents, including aggressive and violent behavior, bullying, desensitization to violence, fear and depression.” That’s right, Murphy’s “extensively researched” argument boiled down a laughable criminal defense usually seen on an episode of Law & Order.
“You see, it was the video game that made my client go on a shooting spree! He couldn’t tell the difference between reality and virtual reality because VICE CITY BRAINWASHED HIS FRAGILE, INNOCENT MIND.”
Yes, despite the UFC’s fervent efforts to support the anti-bullying movement, it’s an organization that, according to Murphy, lacks proper role models like say, Aaron Hernandez. As one would expect in a society that absolutely refuses to place any responsibility or blame for a child’s behavior on the parents, the bill passed unanimously this afternoon, stating “children under the age of 16 years old be prohibited from attending live amateur and professional cage fighting events in the City of Boston unless accompanied by an adult.”
(The funniest thing is that this kid had no idea who Michael Bisping was until he walked out; he just saw him and let instinct take over.)
You might recall that, amidst all the kerfuffle of visa and fighter licensing issues that threatened to derail the UFC’s trip to Boston for their FS1 network debut, city councilor Steven Murphy filed a resolution to ban minors from attending MMA fights. Backed by the Culinary Union’s “But Think of the Children!” division, Murphy’s bill argued that “extensive research has associated exposure to media violence with a variety of physical and mental health problems for children and adolescents, including aggressive and violent behavior, bullying, desensitization to violence, fear and depression.” That’s right, Murphy’s “extensively researched” argument boiled down a laughable criminal defense usually seen on an episode of Law & Order.
“You see, it was the video game that made my client go on a shooting spree! He couldn’t tell the difference between reality and virtual reality because VICE CITY BRAINWASHED HIS FRAGILE, INNOCENT MIND.”
Yes, despite the UFC’s fervent efforts to support the anti-bullying movement, it’s an organization that, according to Murphy, lacks proper role models like say, Aaron Hernandez. As one would expect in a society that absolutely refuses to place any responsibility or blame for a child’s behavior on the parents, the bill passed unanimously this afternoon, stating “children under the age of 16 years old be prohibited from attending live amateur and professional cage fighting events in the City of Boston unless accompanied by an adult.”
You know the deal. Roll that beautiful bean footage…
Murphy’s original resolution called for the banning of any person under 18 from UFC events, so this neutered bill probably isn’t the home run he was hoping for. On the other side of the coin, the passing of the bill represents yet another step back in the “MMA is not a barbaric sport watched by skinhead heathens” debate.
The main problem with this bill is that it seems to operate under the assumption that the impact of MMA’s inherent violence is somehow heightened when witnessed live (or that children can only gain access to MMA content in a live setting). Without going down the “Why not ban violent movies and video games altogether?” rabbit hole, it’s safe to say that Murphy’s argument is fundamentally flawed. Placing the blame/responsibility on anyone but the individual has become standard operation nowadays, and this bill only enforces it.
Dana White’s reaction (via USA Today) was as you’d expect, although he managed to go almost three sentences without dropping an F-bomb in the process. Way to subvert the stereotype, DW!
This Murphy guy. You elect a politician to hopefully go out and bring in jobs, create revenue in your city, bring in events that bring revenue to your city. This guy comes out and he’s saying all this (bleeping) stuff like ’18 and under’ (not allowed at the event) and all this other stuff they’re doing to us. Then sure enough, this hearing, 25 of the Culinary Union members are there. And this guy busts out a video of Chael Sonnen talking about Anderson Silva in Brazil. First of all, this is the fight business. This isn’t the nice business. This is the fight business.
Hard to argue with the man. If you can’t tell the difference between Chael Sonnen the man and Chael Sonnen the character, well, you probably comment on MMAMania. ZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING.
Honestly, our opinion on this law can best be summed up by baddaykate, a Twitter user who responded to the news with the following:
(At first, I chose this image because I couldn’t think of anything appropriate to use for this piece. Now, I’m not sure there’s anything more appropriate. Via The Boston Jam.)
Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy – backed by “Parents Say No to UFC” – has filed a resolution that aims to ban minors from attending MMA fights. Before we go any further, two things are important to point out. Number one, obviously Parents Say No to UFC is run by the Culinary Union. Number two, this bill has no chance of becoming a law before the August 17th fight card, so don’t sell that ticket you bought for your son (or daughter!) yet.
So why is Murphy so opposed to allowing minors to watch MMA? His reasoning is pretty much the same mixture of cognitive dissonance and “Think of the goddamn children!” that you’d expect from a person who is likely being paid to be offended by a combat sport. Via BostonMagazine.com:
According to Murphy, fighters from the UFC, which is the professional level of the mixed-martial arts sport, have joked about rape, used foul and abusive language that’s demeaning to women, and used homophobic slurs, all of which, he said, set a bad example for Boston’s youth. He said the sport uses alcohol sponsors to fund the fights, which adds to the negative image that can be imposed on children.
(At first, I chose this image because I couldn’t think of anything appropriate to use for this piece. Now, I’m not sure there’s anything more appropriate. Via The Boston Jam.)
Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy – backed by “Parents Say No to UFC” – has filed a resolution that aims to ban minors from attending MMA fights. Before we go any further, two things are important to point out. Number one, obviously Parents Say No to UFC is run by the Culinary Union. Number two, this bill has no chance of becoming a law before the August 17th fight card, so don’t sell that ticket you bought for your son (or daughter!) yet.
So why is Murphy so opposed to allowing minors to watch MMA? His reasoning is pretty much the same mixture of cognitive dissonance and “Think of the goddamn children!” that you’d expect from a person who is likely being paid to be offended by a combat sport. Via BostonMagazine.com:
According to Murphy, fighters from the UFC, which is the professional level of the mixed-martial arts sport, have joked about rape, used foul and abusive language that’s demeaning to women, and used homophobic slurs, all of which, he said, set a bad example for Boston’s youth. He said the sport uses alcohol sponsors to fund the fights, which adds to the negative image that can be imposed on children.
Do I use this space to make a “I guess Boston’s athletic scene has enough realrapists and murderers” comment, point out the fact that all four of the city’s majorprofessionalsportsteams are sponsored by Anheuser-Busch, or do I just point out how ridiculous the concept of expecting a person to automatically be a great children’s role model because he/she is good at a sport is? I’ll pick the second option, because arguing that a professional sports league being sponsored by an alcoholic beverage company corrupts our children in ways that other professional sports leagues sponsored by alcoholic beverage companies aren’t requires such an advanced level of bullshitting that I admire anyone sleazy enough to do it with a straight face.
But Murphy isn’t alone in making generic arguments against letting the children of Boston watch MMA. We also have a plain old vanilla “violent entertainment ruins children’s minds” argument:
Diane Levin, a professor of early childhood education at Wheelock College, backed Murphy’s resolution, and “strongly urged” that the City Council pass it.
“Because of how children think, they are especially vulnerable to learning the harmful lessons that directly witnessing entertainment violence can teach—about how people treat each other, about the role of violence in society, that violence is fun and exciting with few consequences, and that grownups glorify and value it,” Levin said. “Everyone who cares about the wellbeing of children and the wider society should call for a ban on children attending Live Cage Fighting events.”
And an appearance from the Culinary Union themselves:
An advocacy group comprised of parents, doctors, and professors are also supporting Murphy’s efforts, and have started a petition and website sponsored by national movements like the National Organization for Women, the Boston Women’s Fund, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s Entertainment.
The group, known as “Parents Say No to UFC,” supplemented their campaign message and petition page with a video that shows gruesome shots from various professional fights, including bloody contenders punching each other in the head repeatedly.
How wonderful.
Based on all of these super logical, totally original arguments against MMA, do you think that the sport is in any kind of real danger in Boston? Or is this just another minor inconvenience surrounding a card that has been full of them?
Suffice it to say, if you aren’t aware of all the downright despicable practices The Culinary Workers Union Local 226 has pulled over the years in regards to the UFC and MMA in general, you’ve probably been living in the dark. Operating under a thinly-veiled “concern” for the conduct of UFC fighters and a need to protect our children from the potty mouth of Dana White, the CU — often backed by one or more anti-women’s violence groups — has been the driving force behind the anti-MMA movement in New York. The fact that their continuous harassment of the UFC and laughable (not to mention libelous) smear campaigns have only hurt the economy of the state they are trying to “protect” is an irony that has apparently been lost on them.
In either case, it appears that the UFC has grown tired of seeing so many websites backed by the CU — websites that, like the CU itself, operate under a false front — popping up over the years, and has launched their own counter-website, TheTruthAboutCulinary226.com. The website aims to both expose the Culinary Union for the dissembling moralists that they truly are in addition to uncovering just how poorly the organization is managing its own member’s funds:
The Culinary Union has targeted Station Casinos because the company refuses to agree to a “card check” process whereby the Culinary Union may become the representative of its employees without being elected as such through a secret ballot election. Rather than simply following the secret ballot election process that U.S. federal law provides, the Culinary Union’s management has instead waged a dishonest campaign to pressure Station Casinos to capitulate to its demands. As part of that campaign, the Culinary Union has been engaging in harassment tactics that target all of the business interests of the Fertittas, including Station Casinos and the UFC.
The Culinary Union has criticized Zuffa for making political contributions of $231,650 in 2012. However, in 2012, UNITE HERE itself spent almost 5 ½ times more than Zuffa on cash disbursements for political activities and lobbying, totaling $1,252,676.Additionally, UNITE HERE paid a total of $1,158,598 to “consultants” in 2011.
Suffice it to say, if you aren’t aware of all the downright despicable practices The Culinary Workers Union Local 226 has pulled over the years in regards to the UFC and MMA in general, you’ve probably been living in the dark. Operating under a thinly-veiled “concern” for the conduct of UFC fighters and a need to protect our children from the potty mouth of Dana White, the CU — often backed by one or more anti-women’s violence groups — has been the driving force behind the anti-MMA movement in New York. The fact that their continuous harassment of the UFC and laughable (not to mention libelous) smear campaigns have only hurt the economy of the state they are trying to “protect” is an irony that has apparently been lost on them.
In either case, it appears that the UFC has grown tired of seeing so many websites backed by the CU — websites that, like the CU itself, operate under a false front — popping up over the years, and has launched their own counter-website, TheTruthAboutCulinary226.com. The website aims to both expose the Culinary Union for the dissembling moralists that they truly are in addition to uncovering just how poorly the organization is managing its own member’s funds:
The Culinary Union has targeted Station Casinos because the company refuses to agree to a “card check” process whereby the Culinary Union may become the representative of its employees without being elected as such through a secret ballot election. Rather than simply following the secret ballot election process that U.S. federal law provides, the Culinary Union’s management has instead waged a dishonest campaign to pressure Station Casinos to capitulate to its demands. As part of that campaign, the Culinary Union has been engaging in harassment tactics that target all of the business interests of the Fertittas, including Station Casinos and the UFC.
The Culinary Union has criticized Zuffa for making political contributions of $231,650 in 2012. However, in 2012, UNITE HERE itself spent almost 5 ½ times more than Zuffa on cash disbursements for political activities and lobbying, totaling $1,252,676.Additionally, UNITE HERE paid a total of $1,158,598 to “consultants” in 2011.
TheTruthAboutCulinary226 also cites several lawsuits and complaints that have been filed against local unions including 226 over the years, and wouldn’t you know it, the allegations aimed at many of the CU’s members are far more reprehensible and corrupt than anything they’ve been able to dig up on the UFC thus far. Hypocrisy at it’s finest, Nation. A few examples:
– On October 22, 1992, a Complaint was filed with the United States government against HERE Local 100 and former officers of the local. The Complaint alleged that the local was influenced and controlled by members of organized crime. On October 23, 1992, a Consent Decree was filed, pursuant to which a monitor was appointed to investigate wrongdoing and review the international union trustee’s actions.The trusteeship concluded on August 23, 1994.
– HERE International Union was reported to have “a documented relationship with the Chicago “Outfit” of La Cosa Nostra at the international level, and subject to the influence of the Gambino, Colombo, and Philadelphia La Cosa Nostra families at the local level” in the President’s Commission on Organized Crime presented to President Ronald Reagan in 1986 (emphasis included in original).
– In that same report, HEREIU Local 54, located in Atlantic City, was described as “a classic case study in organized crime and labor racketeering. Several of the officers of this union and its predecessor unions boast convictions for murder, arson, extortion, drugs, bribes, kickbacks, and racketeering…”
– In 2010, a complaint was filed against Local 226 charging the union with using coercive and intimidating tactics with union members at early voting sites around the Las Vegas valley.
You can read up on the history of the Culinary Unions corrupt tactics, the mismanagement of their own funds, and the UFC’s continuous community efforts here.
Words cannot express how much we dislike the group of two-faced, propaganda pushing arseholes that are The Culinary Union (although we sure do try), but we have to admit that they’ve raised an interesting debate whilst digging up dirt on some of the fighters participating at UFC on FOX 5. First, they rallied to get Jeremy Stephens removed from the card as a result of his past transgressions, and now they’ve uncovered some information about undercard fighter and debuting UFC lightweight Abel “Killa” Trujillo that is simply too glaring to overlook:
Abel Nazario Trujillo, another cage fighter scheduled to compete on the UFC fight card on Dec. 8th in Seattle, has twice pleaded guilty to Domestic Abuse Assault Causing Bodily Injury, an aggravated misdemeanor. In both cases, the victim was identified as the mother of his child. In May 2007, Trujillo also pleaded guilty to Obstruction of an Emergency Communication.
In the plea agreement, Trujillo acknowledged that the crime required the State to prove that his alleged assault victim was making a 911 call, Trujillo knew that she was making a 911 call, and Trujillo hung up the phone. Trujillo competes under the nickname “Killa.”
Jesus. That is some cold-blooded shit right there.
Now, we feel that there is one major discrepancy between the cases of Trujillo and Stephens that needs to be addressed. For starters, Stephens has yet to be convicted of anything. His trial date is set for January 9th, and despite the evidence against him, Stephens should not receive a mandatory/preemptive punished in a country whose legal system declares that we are all innocent until proven guilty.
Trujillo, on the other hand…
Words cannot express how much we dislike the group of two-faced, propaganda pushing arseholes that are The Culinary Union (although we sure do try), but we have to admit that they’ve raised an interesting debate whilst digging up dirt on some of the fighters participating at UFC on FOX 5. First, they rallied to get Jeremy Stephens removed from the card as a result of his past transgressions, and now they’ve uncovered some information about undercard fighter and debuting UFC lightweight Abel “Killa” Trujillo that is simply too glaring to overlook:
Abel Nazario Trujillo, another cage fighter scheduled to compete on the UFC fight card on Dec. 8th in Seattle, has twice pleaded guilty to Domestic Abuse Assault Causing Bodily Injury, an aggravated misdemeanor. In both cases, the victim was identified as the mother of his child. In May 2007, Trujillo also pleaded guilty to Obstruction of an Emergency Communication.
In the plea agreement, Trujillo acknowledged that the crime required the State to prove that his alleged assault victim was making a 911 call, Trujillo knew that she was making a 911 call, and Trujillo hung up the phone. Trujillo competes under the nickname “Killa.”
Jesus. That is some cold-blooded shit right there.
Now, we feel that there is one major discrepancy between the cases of Trujillo and Stephens that needs to be addressed. For starters, Stephens has yet to be convicted of anything. His trial date is set for January 9th, and despite the evidence against him, Stephens should not receive a mandatory/preemptive punished in a country whose legal system declares that we are all innocent until proven guilty.
Trujillo’s case, on the other hand, is not exactly so cut and dry. As the report said, he has twice pled guilty to the domestic assault of the same woman — the mother of his children, nonetheless — and to the aforementioned charge of Obstruction of an Emergency Communication. Although these charges aren’t exactly on the level of our favorite Nazi pedophile MMA fighter Brandon Saling, they are nearly on the level of Brett Rogers, who was fired from Strikeforce just hours after being arrested for multiple felonious assault charges. So the discrepancy (at least in the UFC’s mind) seems to lie in the fact that Trujillo has never been convicted of a felony, but rather of several misdemeanors. It’s a thin line to traipse, for sure. Just ask Rampage Jackson.
Of course, the UFC isn’t exactly leading the charge in employing former criminals. Both Rogers and War Machine have signed to Bellator since being released from their stays in the pen, and Bellator is somewhat despicably using Machine’s past as a hype tool for his return. And let’s not even get into the whole Dan McGuane debacle they underwent recently.
But speaking of an interesting past, Trujillo’s opponent, 18-3 Tim “Dirty Bird” Means, has probably the most insane story of them all. I’ve posted most of his revealing interview with MMASucka (really?) below, but to sum it up in a few words: Gunshot, painkiller addiction, battery, prison stint.
On getting shot and nearly dying: “We wound up at a local business late at night. I was out with my buddies, not old enough to get in the bar, but we had ways to get in. I wind up at a local fast food place and had some words with this guy about supposedly cutting in line. I’m not sure if we did or didn’t, to be honest I was intoxicated, but I know we shook hands and called it cool but I noticed the guy in the corner on the phone. Usually I would of left the situation but I felt like superman that night. Later that night we walked outside, I guess the guy called his cousin and the dude shot 15 rounds at us. I’m lucky to only get hit one time in the leg, and now we can laugh and talk about it, but it was a serious incident. No hard feelings to the individual who shot me, there’s no telling the story he cousin told him maybe he said we jumped him, but the guy who called him, that’s a coward’s act, you can’t forgive him. But that’s the past and onto the future.”
On the painkiller addiction that led to his prison stint: “I had a prescription for Vicodin and morphine. I felt like I was on top of the world. That shit is awesome, but before you know it you’re abusing it and it’s not helping you get back on track. You want to stay fuzzy and tingly and it’s not helping you out. But you’re on a prescription and the doctors said if I had some pain, they signed it off without really thinking about a whole lot. It’s not their fault, it’s mine, but once they stopped signing off I starting doing cocaine and meth to get my fix. I didn’t know anything about meth at the time but it made me feel real good like I was on top of the world. But two, three years into that stuff I start look backing at my life and I have nothing to show for it. Wearing dirty clothes, living in a house I’m about to be evicted out of, I didn’t recognize myself in the mirror. It was starting to become someone I didn’t want to be anymore. I was wanting to get off meths and around that time I was facing new charges for an aggravated battery charge for punching a man who broke into my house. From then on I got on probation, they were giving me drug tests, and I was trying to hide the drug tests which meant not showing up to take them or not answering my probation officers phone calls to take them and the judge put me in jail. I realized freedom wasn’t what I needed at the time, I needed to buckle down and look at my addictions that’s what I did. I went to prison, and focused on correcting myself, got out in 2009, and have been running ever since.”
So now we come to the crux of the debate: Do any of you feel as if the UFC should more clearly define the degree of past convictions that could prevent fighters from competing in their organization, or is the current “No felony, no problem” rule seem fit enough?
It’s easy to judge someone for their troubles in the past. Hell, I’ve been arrested before and I’m sure there’s a fair number of you readers who have had their run-ins with the law as well (feel free to describe said run-ins in excruciating detail in the comments section if you’re up to it). It’s not as easy, however, to believe that a person has truly evolved beyond that which previously defined them in the public eye, hence why we are having this debate. Have Means and Trujillo earned the right to be forgiven? Or should an organization that showcases violence on as grand a scale as the UFC tread a little more lightly when dealing with the kind of fighters that could soil the name they’ve worked so hard to build and protect?
