Monday, March 23, 2015

College baseball player kicked off team?

For a tweet about Mone Davis!  Yeah he referred to her as a "slut".  Yes that's offensive. But to be removed from the team is even worse!  How can a college, a place where free speech should reign be so dismissive of a person's human right of expression?  I'm not questioning his legal right. But this idea that words on Twitter can get you in trouble is ridiculous!  In this case a word.  If he wrote "girl" or just "she" then it's ok.

People should be outraged by words that indicate real life danger, abuse, discrimination or something untoward.  That's why I opposed punishing Donald Sterling because his private words had no public relevance.  I opposed expelling Oklahoma students for racists chants because there wasn't any other allegation.  If this player is only accused of an offensive tweet, he should be back on the team and he deserves an apology.

It's strange that so many people have promoted the concept of free speech which holding various topics and ideas exempt.  It's depressing that most people really mean free speech with which  not vehemently opposed.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

In defense of Oklahoma students

Here are the facts that I'm opining on.  If they are incorrect, incomplete, or change then so might my opinion:

Students in a fraternity were secretly recorded singing an offensive song that had racist language about not allowing blacks in the group.  Specifically that they would lynch one before allow African Americans to join the group.  There was generous use of "nigger" in a derogatory way.

They were suspended from school once this recording became public.


---
If these are the facts, this is an outrage! No student should be punished by the government (Oklahima is a state school) for speaking or singing in a private setting.

Of course as a 45 year old black man who graduated from a predominantly white college, I don't approve of this song.  I disapprove of the notions they sung.  But as a person who listens and recites rap songs, and watches and enjoys numerous radio, Tv shows and movies that use clearly objectionable language and subject matter, I honestly believe in free speech.

To believe in it for real, means the old axiom is alive "I disagree but I'll fight for your right to say it".

It's disturbing that no ones accused of discrimination?
No ones accused of violence or threats.
Just singing? Now kicked out of school?

If they did this in front of a black student union meeting, I'd agree.
If they did this while rejecting potential black members, I'd agree.
If there was an implied violent threat I'd agree they should be expelled.

But we're left with political correctness.
Assuming they don't want black members, they have a right to associate or not.
They don't have a right to discriminate with public money, but they most certainly do in private, and with their own money.

These are distinctions that seem to be getting lost as "thought police" attempt to make some ideas illegal.

yeah I'm against racism so it's ok for me to ban other people's speech?

What about when I want to speak in support of traditional marriage and against gay rights? Expelled?

These students should fight for their and our rights.  I'm sure the Supreme Court would rule on the side of freedom.

No discrimination.
No threats.

Students have a right to sing a racist song.
This is America.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Be careful saying you're sure...

When someone is so certain of something or they guarantee it based on past history take a moment to notice how radical a time we are living in for things both big and small.  Here in 2015 are a few things in my lifetime that were once unthinkable by the average person.  Some good, some bad, some just are:

-  use of cellphones to replace alarm and types of  clocks, calculators, camera, video camera,  home phones, television, radio,    computers, vcr, music collection, notebooks, newspapers, letters, talking, and more (a good, not imaginable in 1999)

-over 2/3 of country lives in area where gay marriage is legal.  (A bad not imaginable in 2004)

-Barack Obama, a black man is a two-term President. (A good not imaginable in 2006)

- paperless economy where people get paid, pay bills, spend and save money without ever touching a dollar bill or a check  (a good, not imaginable 1995)

- Bill and Hillary Clinton would be relevant in 2015. She the front runner for President in 2016. (Not imaginable in 1998 or 2008)

-marijuana would be legal in some states and have a better reputation than cigarettes (not imaginable in 1995)

-the Internet and all its uses in business, communications and entertainment  (not imaginable in 1991)


Sunday, February 22, 2015

Why be a Democrat?



I am against gay rights.  The Democratic Party is totally in support of gay rights.  So why am I a Democrat?


The answer is that I was here first!  I have a right to believe all the things I think are correct, and the Democratic Party is better on balance than Republicans.


I totally respect that Democrats passed Obamacare.  It helps millions of people have access to quality affordable healthcare.  I especially like that they were upfront about the costs:  medicare cuts and tax increases.  Obamacare helps lower income inequality and actually transfers from the middle class to the poor.  That's probably why it is so unpopular.  Yet, Democrats did the best they could, and the right thing.


Democrats in general protect the weak from the strong.  Environmental rules are a good example.  In general, they are a good thing, There is an economic cost, but once again Democrats are as forthcoming about them as possible and still get elected.


Democrats support diversity.  Not enough for me in terms of ideology but it's a good thing.


I think it is noble to support a party that will raise your taxes to help society.  Of course this needs to be balanced, and done properfly.  But the fact is, many problems are best addressed from the federal level by the government.  Maybe not the implementation of programs so much, but certainly the coordination and funding.


Supporting more taxes and more services from the government is a way to do good and feel good about yourself.  You can honestly say you support Democrats and believe the government should handle varioius problems you might encounter throughout society.


Now if they only could stop hurting traditional marriage...

How gay marriage hurts your marriage

1.  In order to allow gay marriage and have it make any sense, we as a society have to change the purpose of marriage from being an inter-generational commitment made by the couple for the benefit of others into defining what makes an individual personally happy.  By definition, once they aren't happy anymore, there's no logical reason to stay married.  If we institutionalize the concept that marriage is permanently changed to being about one's happiness rather than an inter-generational commitment to your spouse and both of your families, every marriage will be vulnerable for break-up.  We know this because the gays seek marriage equality, which goes both ways.  So all marriages will be about personal desires and happiness.  Obviously, this has been happening over decades, but this change makes it permanent.


2.   Gay marriage promotes the idea that there are different kinds of families and all are equal.  This takes away whatever pressure was left to keep marriages intact because, once 2 men can marry, it is impossible to say any situation like divorce or living together, or whatever is bad.  It ushers in an era of low and no judgement which loosens the bonds of marriage for everybody since we will have marriage equality.


3.  If someone devalues and changes something you have that is sacred you are harmed.  For example, if a person could just become a Supreme Court Justice without any intellectual heft, legal training, or political acumen whatsoever, BUT by law must have JUSTICE EQUALITY.  The fact that person would be called Justice hurts the ones who are qualified and have the unique talents.  No longer would saying "I'm a Justice" mean something special and specific because legally it could mean something totally different.  The key here is if there can be no distinction between a person who went to law school, clerked, was a judge, and now a Justice, versus a person who was a basketball coach who is now a Justice.  It would change how people see themselves and how others respect them if you forced them to be "equal" with unequals.