Update: I basically assumed Mary McCarthy actually was guilty of leaking, which assumes too much. Glen Greenwald has various thoughts on this on his blog. My thought she is a scapegoat, however, seems true either way.
---
One of the stories on the AOL News menu concerned a quiet settlement between QB Michael Vick and a health care worker who accused him not only of giving her herpes (not only VD, but incurable VD), but doing so knowingly -- Vick apparently underwent treatment under a rather stupid pseudonym (Ron Mexico). Though a quick search suggested the controversy has been in the news before, this is the first time I heard of it. Meanwhile, a big deal (with much press) was made respecting some untoward behavior by Minnesota Vikings' players on a team cruise early last season. Behavior that did not match giving a woman herpes.
The terms of the settlement was not released, but no denial was supplied either. Just that a settlement was reached. So, I think it is pretty reasonable to suggest it is in a basic sense an accurate assumption. One expects that it was some large sum of money, though given the issue, this only takes one so far. You can live with the disease, but obviously it is particularly heinous to live with.*
More so to give it to someone via unprotected sex with someone you did not inform of the risks.* I basically liked Michael Vick -- he recently was overpaid, getting a hefty ten year contract though one doubts that his skills will be spread over that period of time, but is a fun player to watch. So are many who probably are in some fashion jerks (to cite less offensive sort, a former Mets player that added nice color to the team in the late '90s is a hunter), thus it is a good thing that we really do not know much about the off-field lives of such people. For instance, some are known to treat their wives or the mother of their children badly, or abuse drugs.
But, this goes to the next level. I personally cannot separate this from the field. A closer case is Barry Bonds. One local sportscaster who loves the Giants basically said that those who did not want him to do well really were not true fans. A true fan would keep his personality and assumed steroid abuse separate from the well being of the team, and wish him well. I wonder if said sportscaster had some line. What about rape? Or, this? The two are not really comparable, except as part of a pretty broad spectrum of bad activities (I despise thinking Bond will break Ruth's record, but I have perspective here). Still, it suggests how off field activity can taint the team itself.
And, sorry, giving a woman herpes just crosses the line Michael. It is a despicable act that should be a warning to others, especially young black men who unfortunately disproportionately take part in harmful activities, including of not treating women properly. Keith Hernandez chauvinistally criticizing the Padres' for allowing a female trainer (she's cute btw ... and unless her particular position is not allowed there, has every right to be in the dugout) in the dugout since "baseball is a man's game" (to paraphrase) has become a local story of some note.
Vick's actions should be a national story of much more ... like it or not, you are a role model. Or, rather, a man. A true man does not do things like that.
[This is an expression of my "values" and "morality." It is a product of my upbringing and experiences, not particularly my religious upbringing as such ... though I broadly understand "religion" as encompassing such things. Religion is in my view often lost among doctrine ... basic moral concepts is much more important in everyday life. Some understand this as a product of "God" (and furthered by etc.) in some core sense, but the two simply are not mutually exclusive.
I'd add apropos to Julia Sweeney, atheists are impressive in the sense they are assured that God does not exist. As the God is usually understood, this might be pretty straightforward on some level. OTOH, if we take every aspect of the word, it is a bit harder to be assured that there is no God. Thus, somewhat the weenie "who knows" aspect of agnosticism seems so much easier. But again, and I reference Jimmy Carter's book Endangered Values again, the underlining common morality likely to be shared by all three groups is most important.]
---
* It was not the first thing I thought, though it probably colors things somewhat, but I do know of someone in a related position. A friend of someone I know a long time back had the misfortune of catching herpes off someone who did not warn her of his condition. She later married someone else, but apparently was in some fashion pressured into the marriage given her situation -- the guy accepted her condition, and presumedly, in other situations, she might not have chose marriage.
This underlines a principle of mine -- equal respect, since in some fashion I probably know someone in a comparable situation. Not that I like to personalize things, but just to toss it out there.