The quest for ideological purity can be a dangerous thing. Especially when one applies this standard to politics. As the 19th century German Prussian politician, Otto Van Bismarck put it: "Politics is the art of the possible." I suppose you could amend this quote slightly and say that "politics is the art of compromise." However, if your policies and beliefs are so rigid that there can be no common ground, then you really ought to just do something else.
Which brings me to the Republican nominee for the senate in the state of Kentucky, Dr. Rand Paul.
Paul, the son of House Republican Ron Paul of Texas, roundly trounced Trey Grayson, the establishment candidate backed by Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, by over 20 percentage points in the Kentucky primary last Tuesday. Backed by the Tea Party, Paul provided the grass roots organization with their biggest victory yet. That's when the trouble started.
In an interview last month with the Louisville Courier-Journal, Paul was asked for his opinion on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is what he said: "I don't like the idea of telling private business owners-I abhor racism-I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind." The implication here is that no publicly funded Government entity should be able to practice any form of institutional racism, but private establishments? Well, he seemed to leave that open for debate.
Which is exactly what he got when he appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show this past Wednesday evening. In a withering exchange, Miss Maddow asked the good doctor in several different ways if he was against the portion of the Civil Rights Act that forced businesses and services open to the public to accept the patronage of those who may be of a different race than that of the business owner. Places like restaurants, gas stations, and rest rooms could no longer discriminate against people of color after the bill was signed into law. However, Dr. Paul found this portion of the Civil Rights Bill to be flawed. While he considered the policy of not allowing a certain racial group to access the goods and services of the business owner to be "abhorrent" and a "bad business decision," he seemed to defend their right to do so.
Using freedom of speech as a metaphor, Dr. Paul stated: "I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires."
Furthermore, Dr. Paul conflated gun rights with civil rights in this response: "[I]f you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant, even though the owner of the restaurant says, 'Well, no. We don't want to have guns in here.' The bar says we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other. Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"
In both cases, Paul is foolishly mixing metaphors that don't apply. How does free speech allow you to discriminate who you offer goods and services to based on their race? There is a profound difference between expressing one's opinion (no matter how heinous) and refusing to service a paying individual in your place of business based on the color of their skin.
Even worse is the gun metaphor. First of all, a person isn't a weapon. Secondly, saying that if you are forced to allow a certain race of people into your establishment then you will have no choice but to allow armed citizens in as well is akin to saying if we allow gay marriage then we must also allow people to marry their family dog if they so choose. Or, that if you must let black people swim in your pool, you must also allow a Kraken (see The Clash Of The Titans or the first Pirates Of The Caribbean for mythological reference) in as well. And lastly, states already have laws on the books about the rights of individuals to carry concealed or unconcealed weapons into public places.
By the end of the interview, Paul fell back on this last defense: "You bring up something that is really not an issue…a red herring, it's a political ploy…and that's the way it will be used."
Except here's the problem for Dr. Paul: It is still an issue. Last summer the Valley Swim Club in Philadelphia told a group of black children that they could not swim in their pool. Or how about the idiot Wal-Mart employee in New Jersey who announced "Attention Wal-Mart customers: All black people leave the store now" over the store P.A. in March of this year? If we apply Dr. Paul's philosophy to both incidents, then the Valley Swim Club and the New Jersey Wal-Mart store would have simply been exercising their "freedom."
It's not like this is the only questionable viewpoint held by the son of Ron Paul. Both of these flakes believe that the Department of Education should be abolished, and that the Fair Housing Act should be repealed along with the Americans with Disabilities Act. On the subject of the disabilities law, Paul stated: "I think a lot of things could be handled locally." "For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions."
I guess Dr. Paul isn't aware that some businesses have different departments on different floors. By his logic, would a disabled person have to work on the first floor receiving office instead of the second floor accounting office even if he was hired as a C.P.A.? Would he or she have an office next to the fork lift? Would he/she have to negotiate their wheel chair around skids of stacked boxes? This is the argument he wants to make? Seriously?
Not surprisingly, Dr. Paul is also against Government provided health insurance. Which is fascinating when you consider it was revealed that 50% of his patients are on Medicare. I guess he isn't so pure that he can't accept Government cash at his place of business.
The day after his Maddow provided beat down, Dr. Paul has come out in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Saying that he would have voted for it himself. Of course, if that's so true how come he couldn't say it on Maddow's show Wednesday night? Would it have been so hard? I'm betting the reason why he reversed course has more to do with politics than anything else. In fact, Paul himself said that going on Maddow's show was a "political mistake." Considering that when Paul decided to run for the Senate he announced it on Rachel's show, I find this terribly hypocritical. He can announce a run for Senate on her program but not be asked a question about his political philosophy? I think he's confusing his inability to answer the question with his dislike for the question.
Once again, this is the danger as presenting your self as "pure" or above politics. Clearly Dr. Paul wants to position himself as an outsider who with the help of the Tea Party, will "Take our country back." Which is what he said at his victory rally which took place in a private country club. My question to Dr. Paul is what country are you talking about? The one that ended segregation, provides health care for the aged, and reasonable allowances for the disabled? Or is he talking about the country that resides under that tousled mop of hair of his? Personally, I prefer the former country. You know, the one that actually exists. Here's to hoping the good people of Kentucky do as well.
Sumo-Pop
May 21, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Heavy Is The Head
The postmortem on the failure of the Cleveland Cavaliers to bring home a championship for their city has been severe and somewhat befuddling. The focus of course, is on Lebron James and his quest for a title. Because he is easily their best player, an inordinate amount of blame is being laid at his feet.
Take these quotes from a variety of sportswriters:
Michael Wilbon: "James seemed lethargic, without his usual blast furnace of energy, as if after seven years he simply buckled under the weight of being the hometown icon. He seemed, again, overwhelmed, boxed in by the expectations, by the specter of free agency and his pending decision."
Chris Spielman (Columbus talk radio host): "Tell LeBron he's a leader. Tell him to act likes he cares."
Bill Livingston of the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "I believe James' right elbow was a problem. But the bigger problem was his disconnect in attitude."
ESPN's Skip Bayless even went as far to say that Lebron may have been exaggerating his injury to his elbow so he would have an excuse after the Cav's fell to the Celtics.
Now, there are a lot of things you can say about the Cavaliers and their melt down against the Boston Celtics, but blaming Lebron for the loss is like blaming Jordan for losing to the Pistons over and over again in the playoffs before the Bulls got over the hump. Sure, he has to take some of the blame, but laying it all at his feet is to practice unsound judgment.
There are many reasons why the Cav's lost to the Celtics. Here are a few (in order of significance):
1) Mike Brown: I have often defended Brown (if somewhat passively) as a fine defensive coach. However, it is clear from the last two seasons that he has been plainly out coached by Boston's Doc Rivers and last year, by Orlando's Stan Van Gundy. His inability to make adjustments is unsightly. He never had a single effective strategy against Rondo. His team was clueless against the pick and roll. His substitution strategy was desperate. And don't get me started on his inability to come up with anything more than give Lebron the ball and get out of the way on offense. If the Cav's want to advance next year, Brown has got to go.
2) Rajon Rondo: The Cav's knew that Rondo was the toughest match up for their guards going into the series, and boy were they ever right. For as much talk of the Celtics big three (Garnett, Pierce, and Allen) as there is, you would think Rondo was simply a complimentary player. Not true. Rondo is now unquestionably the best player on the Celtics. Look no further than the sick triple double Rondo put up in game 4 (29 points, 18 rebounds, 13 assists) for evidence. It didn't matter who the Cav's put on Rondo, he simply went around them like they were sitting in a chair.
3) Supporting cast: The Celtics have 4 "A" level players. Rondo, Garnett, Pierce, and Allen, while the Cav's have James and...well, James. Much was made of the Cav's improved roster going into the 2009-10 season. But upon a closer look, it's easy to see that these guys do not make up a championship level roster. The three best players on the team after Lebron are Mo Williams, Antawn Jamison, and Shaq. Williams is clearly a "B" level player. He can drain a jumper and get to the hole if you go to sleep on him. That's about it. Jamison has spent a career putting up big numbers on mediocre teams or worse. And Shaq? Well, Shaq is calcifying before our very eyes. To say that he lumbers up and down the court is an insult to lumbering. Yes, he still can impact a game with this size, but he gets killed on the pick and roll, and simply can't make up his defensive shortcomings anymore by being dominant on the offensive end.
4) Amare Stoudemire: What's that you say? Amare plays for the Suns not the Cav's? Exactly. There was a point this year when the Suns were looking to unload his contract and the Cav's went for Jamison instead of Stoudemire. Huge mistake. Did I say huge? Yes, indeed. The Cav's favored Jamison because of his outside shooting and the belief that Stoudemire and Shaq could not co-exist. Well, how did that work out? Jamison was the invisible man for most of the series against the Celtics, and to say that Stoudemire and Shaq could not play together is plainly false. As team mates on the Suns last year, Stoudemire averaged 21.4 points and 8.1 rebounds per game, while Shaq averaged 17.8 and 8.4 (well above this season). If that's an example of not being able to play together, then I will eat my hat.
5) Lebron's Elbow: James clearly wasn't 100% against the Celtics. Any one who saw their clinching victory in the previous round against the Bulls when at the end of game 4 James shot a free throw left handed, knows that he was hurting. Still, in the six game series, James averaged over 29 points per game and scored 27 to go along with 19 rebounds and 10 assists in game six. Hardly a choke.
Now, this doesn't mean that Lebron has no responsibility. If your nickname is "King James" and your ad slogan is "we are all witnesses," you are going to take some heat. In the end, he is the Cavalier most able to affect the outcome of a game. But he's not alone out there. Well, actually maybe he is. If you were watching game six, it certainly seemed that way. Before Lebron, the Cavaliers were often known as the "Cadavers" for their desultory play. Against Boston, that pejorative made a comeback. The fact that Lebron has been able to drag this slightly above average group to 60 plus wins the last two years is pretty remarkable.
At this point, James has become a victim of his own individual success. Consecutive MVP trophies coupled with those back to back 60 win seasons have increased expectations to typical--if unreasonable--levels. When you add on the accepted opinion that Lebron is the best overall player in the NBA, then the comparison that comes next is the cruelest of all...Michael Jordan.
The NBA is littered with "The next Michale Jordan." At one point or another, Kobe, Grant Hill, Carmelo Anthony, Dwayne Wade, and others have had this title thrust upon them. Can we please just retire this notion? There is no next Michael Jordan. Sure, Kobe comes the closest, but even he won 3 of his 4 titles while being the second best player on his team to an in his prime Shaquille O'Neal.
In fact, Lebron more like a more athletic Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan. Two guys who took their fair share of playoff lumps too.
It's easy to forget that Magic was considered a "choke artist" after they lost in the 1984 finals to the Celtics. His clutch time turnovers in that series had every sportswriter’s pen aghast at his performance.
As well, Jordan had to wait seven years before he got his first championship in 1991. For three years, the Pistons owned Jordan and the Bulls. It was only when Phil Jackson came aboard and Scottie Pippen became an elite player that Jordan's Bulls were able to take the title.
So, I would caution anybody who is writing Lebron's obituary at the tender age of 25. Anyone who bets against this guy ever winning a title is not practicing responsible prognostication. All Lebron needs is a better coach and one "A" level team mate to close the deal. I have no idea whether he will get that in Cleveland or not. But eventually, he will get it somewhere.
And when he does, all those criticisms will float away. Does anyone ever talk about Jordan's struggles against the Pistons, or Magic's bad series against the Celtics? Nope. All forgotten. I suspect that all these same sports scribes will have no trouble getting down with the king when James hoists his first trophy. Because if there is one thing american sports writer's like to do, it's tear down then exalt. Rinse and repeat.
Sumo-Pop
May 14, 2010
Take these quotes from a variety of sportswriters:
Michael Wilbon: "James seemed lethargic, without his usual blast furnace of energy, as if after seven years he simply buckled under the weight of being the hometown icon. He seemed, again, overwhelmed, boxed in by the expectations, by the specter of free agency and his pending decision."
Chris Spielman (Columbus talk radio host): "Tell LeBron he's a leader. Tell him to act likes he cares."
Bill Livingston of the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "I believe James' right elbow was a problem. But the bigger problem was his disconnect in attitude."
ESPN's Skip Bayless even went as far to say that Lebron may have been exaggerating his injury to his elbow so he would have an excuse after the Cav's fell to the Celtics.
Now, there are a lot of things you can say about the Cavaliers and their melt down against the Boston Celtics, but blaming Lebron for the loss is like blaming Jordan for losing to the Pistons over and over again in the playoffs before the Bulls got over the hump. Sure, he has to take some of the blame, but laying it all at his feet is to practice unsound judgment.
There are many reasons why the Cav's lost to the Celtics. Here are a few (in order of significance):
1) Mike Brown: I have often defended Brown (if somewhat passively) as a fine defensive coach. However, it is clear from the last two seasons that he has been plainly out coached by Boston's Doc Rivers and last year, by Orlando's Stan Van Gundy. His inability to make adjustments is unsightly. He never had a single effective strategy against Rondo. His team was clueless against the pick and roll. His substitution strategy was desperate. And don't get me started on his inability to come up with anything more than give Lebron the ball and get out of the way on offense. If the Cav's want to advance next year, Brown has got to go.
2) Rajon Rondo: The Cav's knew that Rondo was the toughest match up for their guards going into the series, and boy were they ever right. For as much talk of the Celtics big three (Garnett, Pierce, and Allen) as there is, you would think Rondo was simply a complimentary player. Not true. Rondo is now unquestionably the best player on the Celtics. Look no further than the sick triple double Rondo put up in game 4 (29 points, 18 rebounds, 13 assists) for evidence. It didn't matter who the Cav's put on Rondo, he simply went around them like they were sitting in a chair.
3) Supporting cast: The Celtics have 4 "A" level players. Rondo, Garnett, Pierce, and Allen, while the Cav's have James and...well, James. Much was made of the Cav's improved roster going into the 2009-10 season. But upon a closer look, it's easy to see that these guys do not make up a championship level roster. The three best players on the team after Lebron are Mo Williams, Antawn Jamison, and Shaq. Williams is clearly a "B" level player. He can drain a jumper and get to the hole if you go to sleep on him. That's about it. Jamison has spent a career putting up big numbers on mediocre teams or worse. And Shaq? Well, Shaq is calcifying before our very eyes. To say that he lumbers up and down the court is an insult to lumbering. Yes, he still can impact a game with this size, but he gets killed on the pick and roll, and simply can't make up his defensive shortcomings anymore by being dominant on the offensive end.
4) Amare Stoudemire: What's that you say? Amare plays for the Suns not the Cav's? Exactly. There was a point this year when the Suns were looking to unload his contract and the Cav's went for Jamison instead of Stoudemire. Huge mistake. Did I say huge? Yes, indeed. The Cav's favored Jamison because of his outside shooting and the belief that Stoudemire and Shaq could not co-exist. Well, how did that work out? Jamison was the invisible man for most of the series against the Celtics, and to say that Stoudemire and Shaq could not play together is plainly false. As team mates on the Suns last year, Stoudemire averaged 21.4 points and 8.1 rebounds per game, while Shaq averaged 17.8 and 8.4 (well above this season). If that's an example of not being able to play together, then I will eat my hat.
5) Lebron's Elbow: James clearly wasn't 100% against the Celtics. Any one who saw their clinching victory in the previous round against the Bulls when at the end of game 4 James shot a free throw left handed, knows that he was hurting. Still, in the six game series, James averaged over 29 points per game and scored 27 to go along with 19 rebounds and 10 assists in game six. Hardly a choke.
Now, this doesn't mean that Lebron has no responsibility. If your nickname is "King James" and your ad slogan is "we are all witnesses," you are going to take some heat. In the end, he is the Cavalier most able to affect the outcome of a game. But he's not alone out there. Well, actually maybe he is. If you were watching game six, it certainly seemed that way. Before Lebron, the Cavaliers were often known as the "Cadavers" for their desultory play. Against Boston, that pejorative made a comeback. The fact that Lebron has been able to drag this slightly above average group to 60 plus wins the last two years is pretty remarkable.
At this point, James has become a victim of his own individual success. Consecutive MVP trophies coupled with those back to back 60 win seasons have increased expectations to typical--if unreasonable--levels. When you add on the accepted opinion that Lebron is the best overall player in the NBA, then the comparison that comes next is the cruelest of all...Michael Jordan.
The NBA is littered with "The next Michale Jordan." At one point or another, Kobe, Grant Hill, Carmelo Anthony, Dwayne Wade, and others have had this title thrust upon them. Can we please just retire this notion? There is no next Michael Jordan. Sure, Kobe comes the closest, but even he won 3 of his 4 titles while being the second best player on his team to an in his prime Shaquille O'Neal.
In fact, Lebron more like a more athletic Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan. Two guys who took their fair share of playoff lumps too.
It's easy to forget that Magic was considered a "choke artist" after they lost in the 1984 finals to the Celtics. His clutch time turnovers in that series had every sportswriter’s pen aghast at his performance.
As well, Jordan had to wait seven years before he got his first championship in 1991. For three years, the Pistons owned Jordan and the Bulls. It was only when Phil Jackson came aboard and Scottie Pippen became an elite player that Jordan's Bulls were able to take the title.
So, I would caution anybody who is writing Lebron's obituary at the tender age of 25. Anyone who bets against this guy ever winning a title is not practicing responsible prognostication. All Lebron needs is a better coach and one "A" level team mate to close the deal. I have no idea whether he will get that in Cleveland or not. But eventually, he will get it somewhere.
And when he does, all those criticisms will float away. Does anyone ever talk about Jordan's struggles against the Pistons, or Magic's bad series against the Celtics? Nope. All forgotten. I suspect that all these same sports scribes will have no trouble getting down with the king when James hoists his first trophy. Because if there is one thing american sports writer's like to do, it's tear down then exalt. Rinse and repeat.
Sumo-Pop
May 14, 2010
Getting Over Gay
Growing up as a teen in the 80's, it was nothing to refer to someone as a "fag." It was as easy as "tool" and "douche bag" are now. It was also quite common to pick on an effeminate male or a butch female too. Since that time, much has changed on the surface, but I don't know how much things have really changed. I often wonder if the prejudice towards homosexuals is much like what black Americans go through. The odd looks, the whispers, that burning ear sensation one gets when you feel that someone is talking about you.
Sure, I think on balance things are better for homosexuals now. The progress made by people like Harvey Milk, Ellen Degeneres, Martina Navratilova, and others have allowed gays and lesbians to live "out" instead of in hiding. Movies, TV shows, books, and even politics (see Barney Frank) have increasingly larger numbers of gay representation. Ellen's daytime show is so successful that no one blinked an eye when she was added as a judge to that most American of phenomenons, American Idol.
Which is all well and good, but there are two frontiers left to be crossed, that of gay marriage and the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Regarding gay marriage, I just don't see how it's any of my business to tell two consenting adults that they can't have the same rights as my wife and I do just because they are of the same sex. Of course, most of the arguments against gay marriage are religion based. And I get that. I've read Leviticus; I've heard all the moral arguments against homosexuals getting married. Here are some I would like to debunk:
--It would destroy the institution of marriage- Well, with a divorce rate of nearly 50%, I think us heteros are doing everything we can to damage the fabric of commitment.
--It would force churches to marry homosexuals- Don't believe it. To get married in the Catholic Church, you have to convert to Catholicism (if you aren't already of that persuasion) and they will only marry divorcees if they have their prior marriage annulled. So basically, the Catholic Church has standards for whom they will marry and no one stops them. Which is just fine with me.
--God did not intend for gays to marry- Ok, that may be perfectly true, but please explain to me the legal rationale for disallowing gay people the same rights as the rest of us. I understand the moral concern that many of faith have with the thought of gay marriage, but I don't see how denying homosexuals the right to marry is anything other than discrimination. Once again, I am speaking from a legal perspective, not a religious one. Who are homosexuals harming if they get married? And when I say "harm," I don't mean the damage that it would do to society, which is not quantifiable and is more of a psychological issue. In short, if there is no injured party due to same-sex marriage, the fact that it "bothers" you is simply not a good enough reason to deny the right. Besides, if all sin is equal to God, then what's the difference between gay marriage and a lie to save some one's feelings? You know, like "That dress doesn't make you look fat." I'm really not trying to be trite here; I just don't believe we can make laws based around how something makes us "feel."
Not to mention, in the New Testament, Jesus doesn't mention homosexuals one time. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Now, far be it for me to put words in Jesus' mouth and say that he would be "for" gay marriage--I would never make that leap. However, I do know that the top concerns of Jesus were probably the ones he actually spoke about. Like love one another and take care of the poor. Maybe if our society focused more on that and less on the type of commitment two people make towards each other in private, we would all be better off.
Now, onto gays in the military. Which surprisingly, is a much less controversial subject. A recent gallup poll found that 70% of those surveyed were in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Even more interesting is that when you break down the polling demographically, all segments were in favor by a clear majority (including 53% of conservatives!).
This issue has been picking up steam since the Presidential election of 2008. Many gays expected a quick repeal of the infamous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy instituted by President Clinton in 1993. Unfortunately, they are still waiting. As usual, the will of the politicians is lagging behind the will of the people. I'm sure our current President remembers the heat that President Clinton took for taking this issue on so early in his first term. There are many things that can and have been said about Clinton both negative and positive. But his effort to allow gays to serve in the military was a genuinely brave one. While "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a compromised (and fatally flawed) policy, I genuinely believe it was the most Clinton could get at the time.
However, all the available polling data now states that the American people have truly turned around on this issue and are ready for a more honest and inclusive military. Clearly, even those who don't approve of the gay lifestyle are ready to accept gay servicemen and women. I suppose some of this notable change in opinion is due to more gays and lesbians living open lives. I imagine it's hard for people to continue to hate or dismiss homosexuals when they learn that they have family members who fit that description.
As well, in the 9/11 age, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been exposed as a failed policy. Since put in place, over 12,500 members of our armed forces have been discharged due to DADT. Several of whom speak Arabic. At a time when we are waging two wars in the Middle East, does that make sense to anyone? Can we really afford to have fewer people who speak the language of the people whose soil we fight on just because they are gay?
There is also a real financial toll that this policy has taken on our military budget. The estimated cost of training those 12,500 soldiers and replacing them is over 190 million dollars. Not to mention the loss of time, experience, and intelligence that is involved anytime you have to replace a person.
For many years, it was believed that having openly gay soldiers would negatively impact the morale of their fellow service members. But I don't think that gives our men and women in uniform enough credit. My dad served in Vietnam, and his greatest concern was whether the guy next to him would cover his ass (so to speak) in a fire fight or not. Of course, I'm well aware that many soldiers who were thought to be gay were hazed and treated with abuse by fellow soldiers and even military brass. But I think--if these polls are to be believed--we have evolved since then.
The recent nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court has put this issue back on the front burner. While Kagan was the Dean of the Harvard Law School she upheld a policy that prevented military recruiters from performing their duties on campus because she felt that DADT was discriminatory. And isn't it? Can we really say that someone isn't qualified for a job due to their sexual orientation? Is there any other employer who could get away with this? If not, why in the world should the military be exempt? I do realize that the military is a unique employer, but in a land where all people are supposed to be created equally, how is it that gays can be allowed to do anything but this?
I think I know the answer. The only reason that gays can't marry or join the military is that they are somehow considered lesser because of their well, gayness. It's an almost casual form of bigotry. How else can one explain it? If we really think that the fundamental rights of fairness apply to all people then shouldn't they apply to gays? Are they not people? Do they not want the same things that the rest of us want? A good life, a decent job, and someone to grow old with?
I know we like to hold our country up as the paragon of democracy. And we do have a lot to be proud of. But make no mistake; we are pretty good at this discrimination thing. Follow the trail of the broken treaties with the American Indian. Recall the ships that brought over the African men and women whom would help build this country and even after their release from slavery were considered 3/5 of a person. Women could not vote until the 20th century. Asian Americans were placed in internment camps during WWII. And in just a couple of short months, Latinos in Arizona will be stopped and told "I need to see your papers" (just for kicks, say that out loud and with a German accent).
But it doesn't have to be this way. Tolerance does not have to equal acceptance. I tolerate Glenn Beck, but I certainly don't accept him. It just means you have to get the hell out of the way and let everyone enjoy the same legal rights that you do. Unless of course, you think that you are somehow more "equal" than "they" are.
Sumo-Pop
May 14, 2010
Sure, I think on balance things are better for homosexuals now. The progress made by people like Harvey Milk, Ellen Degeneres, Martina Navratilova, and others have allowed gays and lesbians to live "out" instead of in hiding. Movies, TV shows, books, and even politics (see Barney Frank) have increasingly larger numbers of gay representation. Ellen's daytime show is so successful that no one blinked an eye when she was added as a judge to that most American of phenomenons, American Idol.
Which is all well and good, but there are two frontiers left to be crossed, that of gay marriage and the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Regarding gay marriage, I just don't see how it's any of my business to tell two consenting adults that they can't have the same rights as my wife and I do just because they are of the same sex. Of course, most of the arguments against gay marriage are religion based. And I get that. I've read Leviticus; I've heard all the moral arguments against homosexuals getting married. Here are some I would like to debunk:
--It would destroy the institution of marriage- Well, with a divorce rate of nearly 50%, I think us heteros are doing everything we can to damage the fabric of commitment.
--It would force churches to marry homosexuals- Don't believe it. To get married in the Catholic Church, you have to convert to Catholicism (if you aren't already of that persuasion) and they will only marry divorcees if they have their prior marriage annulled. So basically, the Catholic Church has standards for whom they will marry and no one stops them. Which is just fine with me.
--God did not intend for gays to marry- Ok, that may be perfectly true, but please explain to me the legal rationale for disallowing gay people the same rights as the rest of us. I understand the moral concern that many of faith have with the thought of gay marriage, but I don't see how denying homosexuals the right to marry is anything other than discrimination. Once again, I am speaking from a legal perspective, not a religious one. Who are homosexuals harming if they get married? And when I say "harm," I don't mean the damage that it would do to society, which is not quantifiable and is more of a psychological issue. In short, if there is no injured party due to same-sex marriage, the fact that it "bothers" you is simply not a good enough reason to deny the right. Besides, if all sin is equal to God, then what's the difference between gay marriage and a lie to save some one's feelings? You know, like "That dress doesn't make you look fat." I'm really not trying to be trite here; I just don't believe we can make laws based around how something makes us "feel."
Not to mention, in the New Testament, Jesus doesn't mention homosexuals one time. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Now, far be it for me to put words in Jesus' mouth and say that he would be "for" gay marriage--I would never make that leap. However, I do know that the top concerns of Jesus were probably the ones he actually spoke about. Like love one another and take care of the poor. Maybe if our society focused more on that and less on the type of commitment two people make towards each other in private, we would all be better off.
Now, onto gays in the military. Which surprisingly, is a much less controversial subject. A recent gallup poll found that 70% of those surveyed were in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Even more interesting is that when you break down the polling demographically, all segments were in favor by a clear majority (including 53% of conservatives!).
This issue has been picking up steam since the Presidential election of 2008. Many gays expected a quick repeal of the infamous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy instituted by President Clinton in 1993. Unfortunately, they are still waiting. As usual, the will of the politicians is lagging behind the will of the people. I'm sure our current President remembers the heat that President Clinton took for taking this issue on so early in his first term. There are many things that can and have been said about Clinton both negative and positive. But his effort to allow gays to serve in the military was a genuinely brave one. While "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a compromised (and fatally flawed) policy, I genuinely believe it was the most Clinton could get at the time.
However, all the available polling data now states that the American people have truly turned around on this issue and are ready for a more honest and inclusive military. Clearly, even those who don't approve of the gay lifestyle are ready to accept gay servicemen and women. I suppose some of this notable change in opinion is due to more gays and lesbians living open lives. I imagine it's hard for people to continue to hate or dismiss homosexuals when they learn that they have family members who fit that description.
As well, in the 9/11 age, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been exposed as a failed policy. Since put in place, over 12,500 members of our armed forces have been discharged due to DADT. Several of whom speak Arabic. At a time when we are waging two wars in the Middle East, does that make sense to anyone? Can we really afford to have fewer people who speak the language of the people whose soil we fight on just because they are gay?
There is also a real financial toll that this policy has taken on our military budget. The estimated cost of training those 12,500 soldiers and replacing them is over 190 million dollars. Not to mention the loss of time, experience, and intelligence that is involved anytime you have to replace a person.
For many years, it was believed that having openly gay soldiers would negatively impact the morale of their fellow service members. But I don't think that gives our men and women in uniform enough credit. My dad served in Vietnam, and his greatest concern was whether the guy next to him would cover his ass (so to speak) in a fire fight or not. Of course, I'm well aware that many soldiers who were thought to be gay were hazed and treated with abuse by fellow soldiers and even military brass. But I think--if these polls are to be believed--we have evolved since then.
The recent nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court has put this issue back on the front burner. While Kagan was the Dean of the Harvard Law School she upheld a policy that prevented military recruiters from performing their duties on campus because she felt that DADT was discriminatory. And isn't it? Can we really say that someone isn't qualified for a job due to their sexual orientation? Is there any other employer who could get away with this? If not, why in the world should the military be exempt? I do realize that the military is a unique employer, but in a land where all people are supposed to be created equally, how is it that gays can be allowed to do anything but this?
I think I know the answer. The only reason that gays can't marry or join the military is that they are somehow considered lesser because of their well, gayness. It's an almost casual form of bigotry. How else can one explain it? If we really think that the fundamental rights of fairness apply to all people then shouldn't they apply to gays? Are they not people? Do they not want the same things that the rest of us want? A good life, a decent job, and someone to grow old with?
I know we like to hold our country up as the paragon of democracy. And we do have a lot to be proud of. But make no mistake; we are pretty good at this discrimination thing. Follow the trail of the broken treaties with the American Indian. Recall the ships that brought over the African men and women whom would help build this country and even after their release from slavery were considered 3/5 of a person. Women could not vote until the 20th century. Asian Americans were placed in internment camps during WWII. And in just a couple of short months, Latinos in Arizona will be stopped and told "I need to see your papers" (just for kicks, say that out loud and with a German accent).
But it doesn't have to be this way. Tolerance does not have to equal acceptance. I tolerate Glenn Beck, but I certainly don't accept him. It just means you have to get the hell out of the way and let everyone enjoy the same legal rights that you do. Unless of course, you think that you are somehow more "equal" than "they" are.
Sumo-Pop
May 14, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Los Suns
It's not very often that you find an athlete or an organization that takes a stand on a social issue anymore. Most team owners don't want to take the chance of offending a potential ticket buyer, and today's athletes are more likely to be self-centered and focused on their next buck. Sure, there are many athletes and franchises that do wonderful, non-controversial work in local communities and abroad. But when was the last time you heard of either standing up for or against a local, state, or federal policy?
This hasn't always been the case. During the Civil Rights movement you had Jackie Robinson, Jim Brown, Bill Russell, and Muhammad Ali who were willing to challenge their government and their sport in an effort to push towards a true equality not only for the black athlete, but for African-Americans at large.
Unfortunately, the sacrifices made by these athletes and others have been largely taken for granted in the era of the "me first" sports star. Too often, today's top athletes are only available for innocuous and cliched comments that avoid any potential for backlash. Of course, there are plenty of star athletes that get themselves into trouble with their words and their deeds. People like Terrell Owens, Ben Roethlisberger and such. But I'm not talking about those that exhibit loutish behavior, I'm referring to those willing to take a stand for something greater than their own self interest.
People like Steve Nash and Robert Sarver of the Phoenix Suns.
In protest of the execrable new immigration bill that was signed into law by Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010, the Phoenix Suns became "Los Suns" for their playoff game on Cinco De Mayo versus the San Antonio Spurs. Sarver, the team's owner, wanted to show solidarity with the Latino-American citizens of his state and decided to have new jerseys made for the club that said "Los Suns" on the front. The face of the franchise, point guard Steve Nash, has made his feelings about the new law clear as well. In an interview this week with Tony Kornheiser, Nash was asked what he thought of the new law. He plainly stated that he was "against it" and felt that it did not represent the state of Arizona or the country as a whole very well at all.
I suppose this may not seem like that big of a deal. So they changed the name on their uniform and a guy said he was "against it." However, this awful law is thus far very popular in the state of Arizona and even polls well nationally. Therefore, taking a stand against this law creates the potential for very real discomfort for Sarver and Nash. And for this act of courage they should be commended.
As I mentioned before, this is a pretty popular law right now. So, I guess I ought to state why I--like Nash and Sarver--am against it too.
Basically, this law states that Arizona police officers must stop anyone they "suspect" of being an illegal immigrant. During this stop, the individual would be required to produce proof of citizenship. If proof cannot be shown, the individual can be arrested and held until proof is given.
So why is that so bad? I'll tell ya why. What in the hell does "suspicious" mean!? Well, I think I know what it means. It means Mexican, Hispanic, Latino, or more simply put: Brown people. Does anyone really think the police will be stopping white folks and asking them for their papers? Considering that 1/3 of Arizona's population is made up of legal Hispanic-American citizens, the potential for harassment is off the charts. Ask them for their papers? This was a very popular sentence in Nazi Germany. Now, we'll be doing the same thing here. Great.
Now, I know that Arizona has a big problem with illegal immigration. The border control is porous, and the influx of undocumented workers can depress wages for legal citizens. Plus, there is a hot bed of violence that is coming through border towns due to the Mexican drug trade. Obviously, the state of Arizona has a right to be concerned and frustrated. And I don't blame the Governor and the state legislature for wanting to address the problem. However, this law doesn't do that. Not even close.
Ask yourself: Why do so many Mexican citizens cross the border to come to America? They do so at great risk of deportation, or even loss of life. So, once again, why do they come here? First off, their country is very poor with an alarmingly high underemployment rate of 25%. By far, most illegal aliens come here for work. For the want of a better life for themselves and their families. Obviously, coming here without going through proper immigration channels is wrong. But, if the situation were reversed, and the USA had no jobs (yes, I know it's tough right now, but we ain't Mexico) and Mexico did, how many of us would not do the same? Would we not cross a border if it meant feeding ourselves and our family? As I said before, I'm not trying to excuse illegal immigration. But I do think it's important to try and understand it.
What I don't understand though is how a law that cracks down only on the immigrant will be effective. If most of the illegals are coming here for work, shouldn't we be going after those that are knowingly hiring undocumented workers? These employers that hire illegals (mostly in agriculture and construction) are making out like bandits. They get to pay these workers below the legally mandated minimum wage, they pay no benefits or taxes on them, and they can treat them like shit if they choose to because what recourse does the undocumented worker have? So, yes, the non-citizen that crosses the border is at fault for doing so, but aren't we, who provide a market for their services, at greater fault? These bastards that want cheap, untaxed labor with no legal obligations toward the worker are among the lowest of the low in my book. And this law makes no great effort to address them.
Even if we could round up all the illegal aliens in Arizona and the rest of the country (impossible, but for the sake of argument) and shipped them back home, wouldn't they just come back? If they were willing to risk life and limb to get here in the first place what is going to stop their return if there are still employers willing to hire them? I think we know the answer.
I also think we know the answer as to why this law does not address these employers. In short, those people vote and illegal aliens don't. This chickenshit law was created by chickenshit politicians who want to please their base but not lose any votes. However, I believe they are in for a rude awakening.
The republican led Governorship and state house is taking a very short-sighted view with this law. If 1/3 of your constituency is Hispanic and growing at the fastest rate of any minority in the country, well, it doesn't take a genius to see what the future political fortunes of the controlling party will be. As well, what will be the financial impact on the state's tourism business? Already, several businesses have cancelled conventions in the Phoenix area. And if you are an American of Latino descent, are you going to go anywhere near the state? I doubt the supporters of this law gave that possibility much thought.
Not to mention, where are all the strict constitutionalists at on this one? Where are all those folks who show up to rallies with tea bags hanging from their hats shouting about freedom, liberty, and government overreach? How can they support a law that allows an individual to be stopped for being "suspicious" without ever defining what "suspicious" means? Do they only want liberty and freedom to apply to their klan, er, clan?
And here's another point that we may not want to admit: We actually need many of these illegals to come here and work. Can you imagine what the price of produce would rise to if we actually paid a living wage to the pickers? Does anyone out there really want to pay $8.00 for a tomato? This could be resolved by instituting a robust guest worker program and a path to citizenship for those already here. Which of course, is not reflected in the law either.
As far as the drug trade issue goes--well, it's practically the same issue. Why are Mexican drug cartels bringing drugs into the U.S.? Because we'll buy them. If there were no demand for their product, don't you think they would just go somewhere else?
Basically, what we have here is a law that is vague, unconstitutional, racist, and ineffective. It has been created to make certain people feel like something is being done, when in reality the only thing that is likely to change all that much is the level of harassment and lawsuits against the police force. Hell, did you know that it is written in the law that if a citizen feels the police are not making enough stops then they can sue their police force? That means law enforcement will be getting it from both ends. If they stop too many people, they'll get sued for harassment by those they detain, and if some "concerned" citizen feels they aren't racially profiling enough, well, then they can be sued for that too. Talk about a no-win situation.
Maybe the citizens and politicians of Arizona will feel good that we are going after "them," or "those people." However, the fact is "they" aren't the problem. They are only doing what anyone in their situation would do. No. The problem is us. And until "us" is willing to deal with our own desires for cheap labor and illicit drugs, we will just keep spinning in circles, never addressing the real issue.
I imagine these same politicians will point to the overall popularity of the law as a defense. But sometimes, what is popular is not the same as what is right. This would be one of those times. Even the owner of a sports team and a "dumb jock" can see that. I wonder, why can't we?
Sumo-Pop
May 7, 2010
This hasn't always been the case. During the Civil Rights movement you had Jackie Robinson, Jim Brown, Bill Russell, and Muhammad Ali who were willing to challenge their government and their sport in an effort to push towards a true equality not only for the black athlete, but for African-Americans at large.
Unfortunately, the sacrifices made by these athletes and others have been largely taken for granted in the era of the "me first" sports star. Too often, today's top athletes are only available for innocuous and cliched comments that avoid any potential for backlash. Of course, there are plenty of star athletes that get themselves into trouble with their words and their deeds. People like Terrell Owens, Ben Roethlisberger and such. But I'm not talking about those that exhibit loutish behavior, I'm referring to those willing to take a stand for something greater than their own self interest.
People like Steve Nash and Robert Sarver of the Phoenix Suns.
In protest of the execrable new immigration bill that was signed into law by Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010, the Phoenix Suns became "Los Suns" for their playoff game on Cinco De Mayo versus the San Antonio Spurs. Sarver, the team's owner, wanted to show solidarity with the Latino-American citizens of his state and decided to have new jerseys made for the club that said "Los Suns" on the front. The face of the franchise, point guard Steve Nash, has made his feelings about the new law clear as well. In an interview this week with Tony Kornheiser, Nash was asked what he thought of the new law. He plainly stated that he was "against it" and felt that it did not represent the state of Arizona or the country as a whole very well at all.
I suppose this may not seem like that big of a deal. So they changed the name on their uniform and a guy said he was "against it." However, this awful law is thus far very popular in the state of Arizona and even polls well nationally. Therefore, taking a stand against this law creates the potential for very real discomfort for Sarver and Nash. And for this act of courage they should be commended.
As I mentioned before, this is a pretty popular law right now. So, I guess I ought to state why I--like Nash and Sarver--am against it too.
Basically, this law states that Arizona police officers must stop anyone they "suspect" of being an illegal immigrant. During this stop, the individual would be required to produce proof of citizenship. If proof cannot be shown, the individual can be arrested and held until proof is given.
So why is that so bad? I'll tell ya why. What in the hell does "suspicious" mean!? Well, I think I know what it means. It means Mexican, Hispanic, Latino, or more simply put: Brown people. Does anyone really think the police will be stopping white folks and asking them for their papers? Considering that 1/3 of Arizona's population is made up of legal Hispanic-American citizens, the potential for harassment is off the charts. Ask them for their papers? This was a very popular sentence in Nazi Germany. Now, we'll be doing the same thing here. Great.
Now, I know that Arizona has a big problem with illegal immigration. The border control is porous, and the influx of undocumented workers can depress wages for legal citizens. Plus, there is a hot bed of violence that is coming through border towns due to the Mexican drug trade. Obviously, the state of Arizona has a right to be concerned and frustrated. And I don't blame the Governor and the state legislature for wanting to address the problem. However, this law doesn't do that. Not even close.
Ask yourself: Why do so many Mexican citizens cross the border to come to America? They do so at great risk of deportation, or even loss of life. So, once again, why do they come here? First off, their country is very poor with an alarmingly high underemployment rate of 25%. By far, most illegal aliens come here for work. For the want of a better life for themselves and their families. Obviously, coming here without going through proper immigration channels is wrong. But, if the situation were reversed, and the USA had no jobs (yes, I know it's tough right now, but we ain't Mexico) and Mexico did, how many of us would not do the same? Would we not cross a border if it meant feeding ourselves and our family? As I said before, I'm not trying to excuse illegal immigration. But I do think it's important to try and understand it.
What I don't understand though is how a law that cracks down only on the immigrant will be effective. If most of the illegals are coming here for work, shouldn't we be going after those that are knowingly hiring undocumented workers? These employers that hire illegals (mostly in agriculture and construction) are making out like bandits. They get to pay these workers below the legally mandated minimum wage, they pay no benefits or taxes on them, and they can treat them like shit if they choose to because what recourse does the undocumented worker have? So, yes, the non-citizen that crosses the border is at fault for doing so, but aren't we, who provide a market for their services, at greater fault? These bastards that want cheap, untaxed labor with no legal obligations toward the worker are among the lowest of the low in my book. And this law makes no great effort to address them.
Even if we could round up all the illegal aliens in Arizona and the rest of the country (impossible, but for the sake of argument) and shipped them back home, wouldn't they just come back? If they were willing to risk life and limb to get here in the first place what is going to stop their return if there are still employers willing to hire them? I think we know the answer.
I also think we know the answer as to why this law does not address these employers. In short, those people vote and illegal aliens don't. This chickenshit law was created by chickenshit politicians who want to please their base but not lose any votes. However, I believe they are in for a rude awakening.
The republican led Governorship and state house is taking a very short-sighted view with this law. If 1/3 of your constituency is Hispanic and growing at the fastest rate of any minority in the country, well, it doesn't take a genius to see what the future political fortunes of the controlling party will be. As well, what will be the financial impact on the state's tourism business? Already, several businesses have cancelled conventions in the Phoenix area. And if you are an American of Latino descent, are you going to go anywhere near the state? I doubt the supporters of this law gave that possibility much thought.
Not to mention, where are all the strict constitutionalists at on this one? Where are all those folks who show up to rallies with tea bags hanging from their hats shouting about freedom, liberty, and government overreach? How can they support a law that allows an individual to be stopped for being "suspicious" without ever defining what "suspicious" means? Do they only want liberty and freedom to apply to their klan, er, clan?
And here's another point that we may not want to admit: We actually need many of these illegals to come here and work. Can you imagine what the price of produce would rise to if we actually paid a living wage to the pickers? Does anyone out there really want to pay $8.00 for a tomato? This could be resolved by instituting a robust guest worker program and a path to citizenship for those already here. Which of course, is not reflected in the law either.
As far as the drug trade issue goes--well, it's practically the same issue. Why are Mexican drug cartels bringing drugs into the U.S.? Because we'll buy them. If there were no demand for their product, don't you think they would just go somewhere else?
Basically, what we have here is a law that is vague, unconstitutional, racist, and ineffective. It has been created to make certain people feel like something is being done, when in reality the only thing that is likely to change all that much is the level of harassment and lawsuits against the police force. Hell, did you know that it is written in the law that if a citizen feels the police are not making enough stops then they can sue their police force? That means law enforcement will be getting it from both ends. If they stop too many people, they'll get sued for harassment by those they detain, and if some "concerned" citizen feels they aren't racially profiling enough, well, then they can be sued for that too. Talk about a no-win situation.
Maybe the citizens and politicians of Arizona will feel good that we are going after "them," or "those people." However, the fact is "they" aren't the problem. They are only doing what anyone in their situation would do. No. The problem is us. And until "us" is willing to deal with our own desires for cheap labor and illicit drugs, we will just keep spinning in circles, never addressing the real issue.
I imagine these same politicians will point to the overall popularity of the law as a defense. But sometimes, what is popular is not the same as what is right. This would be one of those times. Even the owner of a sports team and a "dumb jock" can see that. I wonder, why can't we?
Sumo-Pop
May 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)