Donald Sterling is still the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers of the NBA. Mr. Sterling was a closet racist until his girlfriend outed him a couple of days ago. Mr. Sterling's wife says he's not a racist (I know, I still haven't figured this out yet; Mr. Sterling's in his eighties, his girlfriend is in her twenties, so I doubt this is an open marriage...but that's another point altogether). Today, the commissioner of the NBA permanently banned Mr. Sterling and is strongly recommending that the other owners force Mr. Sterling to sell the team which, apparently, is allowable under the bylaws of the NBA.
First, before anyone starts in about Free Speech, this isn't the government infringing Mr. Sterling's rights. This is a private institution whose rules, presumably, Mr. Sterling agreed to abide. Second, once the girlfriend made the statements public, they were no longer private. The girlfriend may herself be facing actions for taping Mr. Sterling and then publishing his comments, but that's not germane to this discussion. Third, plenty of people from different segments of the country are outraged, rightly, by Mr. Sterling's comments. But there are some problems with this.
To begin, Mr. Sterling should lose his franchise. The problem is that he's long been known to be a racist. Why other owners tolerated his conduct for this long is unanswerable. To act with high dudgeon now is a little disingenuous. Unfortunately, the sale of the team will only serve to enrich Mr. Sterling more, so he gets to ride into the sunset with one heck of a payday.
Next, this casts more aspersions on other whites. Despite never having uttered a racist word in private, blacks will continue to view us with a jaundiced eye. It's not entirely forgivable, but it is understandable, to a degree.
That blacks might be suspicious of other whites is one thing, but what took the local chapter of the NAACP so long to recognize it? From what I've read, Mr. Sterling has been taken to task several times in the past for his racism, has been revealed to be a racist by other whites and was even fined for his conduct, yet the NAACP of Los Angeles already gave him a lifetime achievement award for his support and was about to give him another lifetime award (as with the girlfriend/wife issue, this repetitive lifetime award business begs explanation). Since the kerfuffle became public, the chapter has rescinded its award, but what was it thinking offering him another award?
Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, rightly worries about a slippery slope. Say someone voices his opinion in private against gay marriage -- not gays, but gay marriage -- or abortion, or any other controversial topic that is a minority opinion. If public outrage ensues, at what point does the NBA say enough is enough and respect the opinion of an owner no matter how detestable a majority finds the opinion. In this instance, there is no question Mr. Sterling has to go, when the totality of the circumstances is examined. I still think that letting market forces determine the sale is better, but given the bylaws provide for this remedy, it's fine with me.
There is a double standard, however, that no one is discussing. When the likes of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson make offensive comments, are they going to be taken to task? Supporters will quickly point out that neither employs a majority of whites who could be offended by the comments. They'll say that unlike Mr. Sterling, neither has the kind of wealth he has. Even so, Mr. Jackson has substantial holdings and runs a couple of companies, and Mr. Sharpton, with the help of MSNBC, has had his image laundered and probably has sizable holdings himself. Will there be calls for their expulsion when they make similarly offensive comments?
Make no mistake: Mr. Sterling is wrong and doesn't deserve to own an NBA franchise. He must go. Greater scrutiny must be kept on public comments that are patently offensive. But it should be a blanket scrutiny combined with a blanket approach to punishment. Like Mr. Sterling, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton have uttered horribly offensive comments without being taken to task on them. That's wrong and completely contradictory to Martin Luther King's dictum to which I have referred several times before.
With any luck, the commissioner's stern and swift action on this will prove to naysayers that whites are serious about rooting out racism and not tolerating it. Blacks should do the same thing with their own racists.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Friday, April 25, 2014
Call for a Constitutional Convention
Article V of the United States Constitution allows for amendments to the Constitution and the ways in which amendments can be effected. The first is the way with which most Americans are familiar: The House and the Senate, with two-thirds majorities, pass resolutions that are then sent to the states for ratification. Lately, however, individual states have been calling for a Constitutional Convention for a variety of reasons, chief among them the need for an amendment that requires a balanced budget.
I'm not sure that a balanced budget amendment is a partisan goal. At least verbally, both sides support the idea. Each, however, plays accounting games that tend to turn the idea of a balanced budget into a mockery. More on that anon.
The problem with the call for the Convention is that numerous states have called for and then rescinded the call for a Convention. Others have called for, rescinded and then renewed their calls. The benchmark for a Convention is that two-thirds of the states must call for the Convention, and a few weeks back it appeared that Michigan's call for a Convention made it the thirty-fourth state to do so, thereby meeting the mandate that two-thirds of the states make calls. But there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether the number has been met.
What will happen is anyone's guess. But the notion of a balanced budget is, I think, a good thing. Why it's so difficult is beyond me, but of course, I'm neither a CPA nor a member of Congress. Still, for me the whole idea was wonderfully distilled and lampooned in my favorite political movie, Dave. Charles Grodin played Dave's best friend, and he's smuggled into the White House to help the president figure out how to cut out some of the pork so that he can fund one of the FLOTUS's pet projects. The scene is priceless:
If it weren't for all the entitlements that really weren't necessary, like funding studies of why people buy pickles and how bees mate, we might be able to afford the truly important things, like the military, securing our borders and universal health care. But where politicians lambaste the other side for their silly spending, they remain silent on the projects that bring pork back to their districts and almost certainly assure their reelection. It's a vicious cycle that could be broken with an amendment to balance the budget.
I fear, however, funny bookkeeping that would allow Congress to skirt the amendment. The SCOTUS would ultimately be called in to untangle the mess, and then Congress could pass laws that would allow it to vitiate the SCOTUS opinion, thereby beginning another vicious cycle.
It's truly senseless.
I could never be a politician.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
I'm not sure that a balanced budget amendment is a partisan goal. At least verbally, both sides support the idea. Each, however, plays accounting games that tend to turn the idea of a balanced budget into a mockery. More on that anon.
The problem with the call for the Convention is that numerous states have called for and then rescinded the call for a Convention. Others have called for, rescinded and then renewed their calls. The benchmark for a Convention is that two-thirds of the states must call for the Convention, and a few weeks back it appeared that Michigan's call for a Convention made it the thirty-fourth state to do so, thereby meeting the mandate that two-thirds of the states make calls. But there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether the number has been met.
What will happen is anyone's guess. But the notion of a balanced budget is, I think, a good thing. Why it's so difficult is beyond me, but of course, I'm neither a CPA nor a member of Congress. Still, for me the whole idea was wonderfully distilled and lampooned in my favorite political movie, Dave. Charles Grodin played Dave's best friend, and he's smuggled into the White House to help the president figure out how to cut out some of the pork so that he can fund one of the FLOTUS's pet projects. The scene is priceless:
If it weren't for all the entitlements that really weren't necessary, like funding studies of why people buy pickles and how bees mate, we might be able to afford the truly important things, like the military, securing our borders and universal health care. But where politicians lambaste the other side for their silly spending, they remain silent on the projects that bring pork back to their districts and almost certainly assure their reelection. It's a vicious cycle that could be broken with an amendment to balance the budget.
I fear, however, funny bookkeeping that would allow Congress to skirt the amendment. The SCOTUS would ultimately be called in to untangle the mess, and then Congress could pass laws that would allow it to vitiate the SCOTUS opinion, thereby beginning another vicious cycle.
It's truly senseless.
I could never be a politician.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
The Keystone Pipeline and Politics
By no means am I an expert on the Keystone Pipeline project, but it's become a hot-button issue once again after yet another delay on the decision whether to greenlight the project has been announced. This time the ostensible reason is that legal issues in Nebraska should be resolved before a final decision is made. Critics of the delay are crying foul, stating that politics and not real concern for the legal process is behind the delay. From what I can tell, the critics are correct.
Many different supporters are pushing for the final go-ahead: Canadian oil producers, American refineries, state and local governments eager for additional revenues, ordinary citizens looking for work, construction workers. Those that oppose it basically boil down to environmentalists who are concerned that the net effect of the approved project will be more global warming/climate change/whatever-the-next-euphemism-is.
There is probably some truth to the argument that the environment will be harmed by the construction and usage of the Pipeline. For that matter, name an activity that humans engage in that doesn't negatively affect the environment. Our mere footprints do damage. The issue is a matter of degree, a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be weighed by people competent to render such an opinion. From what I know, the EPA issued its study's findings in January and found that the Pipeline would be unlikely to alter global greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the most competent government department in the country within a government run by a man who disagrees with fossil fuel usage has said that the Pipeline would do no more harm to the environment. That should have cleared the way for its construction.
Ironically, without the Pipeline, the oil would be transported by either trucks or trains that would cause far more fossil fuel emissions, thereby harming the environment more than the Pipeline ever would. If environmentalists believe that by getting the Pipeline cancelled, less oil would be used, they're dreaming. It would simply go elsewhere, much to America's harm.
But this president does not accept results that are contrary to his mission. On one hand, that would be laudable. But in real terms, this stubbornness, when invoked on every single disagreement, is neither attractive nor good for the country. After all, the President was elected to run the country based on the will of the people. According to polls, sixty-six percent of Americans support the Pipeline. Considering that the effect on the environment would be negligible, jobs for nearly two thousand people for two years (and probably longer) would be created, dependence on foreign oil would be reduced, stronger ties with a friendly neighbor would be strenghtened and cheaper oil prices might result, it's not as if the public is supporting a return to separate but equal or the Korematsu decision. Disagreement does not mean that something is wrong. And just because the President believes something to be so doesn't mean that he's right about it.
What's troubling about this delay is that is continues the trend for this administration to bend the rules whenever it needs to do so to further its goals. With immigration and gay rights, the administration would not defer to local concerns. With the Pipeline, all of a sudden local concerns are paramount. As with the employer mandate in Obamacare, reworking deadlines by executive fiat is fine. That the result is inequality is of no matter.
The political impetus for this is huge. With midterm elections a mere six months away, the need to remove from discussion a somewhat controversial issue is convenient. That way no one has to answer for the administration and thereby offend a voting class. As with the employer mandate, any decision on the Pipeline is now to be made after the elections, when the fallout can't harm anyone in particular.
The problem is that already, Democratic senators from Louisiana and Arkansas are loudly condemning the decision, since the delay hurts their states. With recent calls from the White House to maintain the majority in the Senate and keep what seats they have in the House, this decision can't help. With the need for jobs still the highest priority, the President is miscalculating on the negative effect the Pipeline decision is going to have on his party. Between the employer mandate and the Pipeline decision, it's quite possible the President has handed control of Congress to the Republicans. If he's done enough damage, the decision can provide a veto-proof Congress. If that happens, Obamacare's in jeopardy. Presidential appointments will never see the light of day, thanks to the gutting of the filibuster by the forward-thinking Democratic senators and the grand legacy Mr. Obama envisioned for himself will dissipate like smoke from a campfire.
Sometimes, just graduating from an Ivy League school isn't enough.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Many different supporters are pushing for the final go-ahead: Canadian oil producers, American refineries, state and local governments eager for additional revenues, ordinary citizens looking for work, construction workers. Those that oppose it basically boil down to environmentalists who are concerned that the net effect of the approved project will be more global warming/climate change/whatever-the-next-euphemism-is.
There is probably some truth to the argument that the environment will be harmed by the construction and usage of the Pipeline. For that matter, name an activity that humans engage in that doesn't negatively affect the environment. Our mere footprints do damage. The issue is a matter of degree, a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be weighed by people competent to render such an opinion. From what I know, the EPA issued its study's findings in January and found that the Pipeline would be unlikely to alter global greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the most competent government department in the country within a government run by a man who disagrees with fossil fuel usage has said that the Pipeline would do no more harm to the environment. That should have cleared the way for its construction.
Ironically, without the Pipeline, the oil would be transported by either trucks or trains that would cause far more fossil fuel emissions, thereby harming the environment more than the Pipeline ever would. If environmentalists believe that by getting the Pipeline cancelled, less oil would be used, they're dreaming. It would simply go elsewhere, much to America's harm.
But this president does not accept results that are contrary to his mission. On one hand, that would be laudable. But in real terms, this stubbornness, when invoked on every single disagreement, is neither attractive nor good for the country. After all, the President was elected to run the country based on the will of the people. According to polls, sixty-six percent of Americans support the Pipeline. Considering that the effect on the environment would be negligible, jobs for nearly two thousand people for two years (and probably longer) would be created, dependence on foreign oil would be reduced, stronger ties with a friendly neighbor would be strenghtened and cheaper oil prices might result, it's not as if the public is supporting a return to separate but equal or the Korematsu decision. Disagreement does not mean that something is wrong. And just because the President believes something to be so doesn't mean that he's right about it.
What's troubling about this delay is that is continues the trend for this administration to bend the rules whenever it needs to do so to further its goals. With immigration and gay rights, the administration would not defer to local concerns. With the Pipeline, all of a sudden local concerns are paramount. As with the employer mandate in Obamacare, reworking deadlines by executive fiat is fine. That the result is inequality is of no matter.
The political impetus for this is huge. With midterm elections a mere six months away, the need to remove from discussion a somewhat controversial issue is convenient. That way no one has to answer for the administration and thereby offend a voting class. As with the employer mandate, any decision on the Pipeline is now to be made after the elections, when the fallout can't harm anyone in particular.
The problem is that already, Democratic senators from Louisiana and Arkansas are loudly condemning the decision, since the delay hurts their states. With recent calls from the White House to maintain the majority in the Senate and keep what seats they have in the House, this decision can't help. With the need for jobs still the highest priority, the President is miscalculating on the negative effect the Pipeline decision is going to have on his party. Between the employer mandate and the Pipeline decision, it's quite possible the President has handed control of Congress to the Republicans. If he's done enough damage, the decision can provide a veto-proof Congress. If that happens, Obamacare's in jeopardy. Presidential appointments will never see the light of day, thanks to the gutting of the filibuster by the forward-thinking Democratic senators and the grand legacy Mr. Obama envisioned for himself will dissipate like smoke from a campfire.
Sometimes, just graduating from an Ivy League school isn't enough.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, April 21, 2014
Memories of Spain
It seems like only yesterday, but twenty-nine years ago this year, I was in the home stretch of my year-long stay in Spain. By this time, I was having difficulty reconciling the need to go home with the desire to stay in Spain. I had fallen head over heels, holus-bolus in love with the country, its people and everything it had to offer. I often think of how different my life would have been had I stayed in Spain. If nothing else, however, I have wonderful memories of Spain.
There are certain things that I recall with such a vivid focus that it takes me back to the exact moment I lived them. These moments are indelibly etched not only in my mind but on my heart. Spain had the biggest influence on my adult life beyond anyone or anything but Karen.
I remember quite specifically one of the first meals I ever ate in Spain. I bought a pistola -- a loaf of bakery bread -- some manchego cheese, a bottle of red wine and some strawberries and sat in my room in the hostal, looking out the little window at the back of the buildings surrounding the plaza below and eating one of the most magnificently simple meals that I've ever enjoyed. I later had a similar meal along the banks of the Río Sella, with much the same food except for a can of Coke instead of a bottle of wine. I sat in the July sun eating beside the babbling river, alone with my food and camera while I waited for the bus to take me up to Covadonga, the site where the Reconquista began. It was just such a quiet, tranquil way to pass the afternoon.
There was the time I was standing outside the walled city of Avila talking with a bus driver from Soria. At once, I thought about a kid from the Midwest having a conversation beside the birthplace of St. Teresa talking with a guy from Soria, Spain, and wondered, Who'da thought? I also wondered what the high school Spanish teacher who underestimated me would think if she saw me.
The magical Christmas I spent with a woman from Colombia, a woman from Mexico and a Jew from Boston eating the turkey dinner I prepared. I doubt I'll ever relive such an eclectic Christmas again.
Sneaking into the five star hotel in El Saler, outside Valencia, was an anecdote for the ages. It was almost like a commando mission the way we hugged the walls, stayed out of the lights, coming in from the beach that was no more than thirty years from the Mediterranean. I still laugh when I think about getting to spend two nights in that hotel.
Talking with the Irish mason in Santillana de Mar under the stars, drinking beers and discussing politics. It was a magical evening.
Walking around Pamplona during the sanfermines, seeing people who came together every year from various parts of the globe to spend a week partying, was an eye-opener. Being in Tossa de Mar, seeing the Mediterranean from a vacationer's standpoint, was enchanting.
Reading books in the Biblioteca Nacional, seeing the putative remains of Columbus in the great cathedral in Sevilla and walking in the history of La Alhambra left me breathless at times.
I remember the sheer job of riding the narrow-gauge railway in Asturias, the bordeom of the desolation in Ribadeo, the quiet, contemplative countryside in which the monolithic El Escorial was constructed, the awe I had when I first saw the Acueducto in Segovia and the throwback in time when I had cordero asado and ate out of a communal salad bowl in Pedraza during my first puente. I remember the busrides to Valencia, the train rides in Andalucia and that last, overlong plane trip out of the country through Málaga and then back through Madrid.
I miss Spain.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
There are certain things that I recall with such a vivid focus that it takes me back to the exact moment I lived them. These moments are indelibly etched not only in my mind but on my heart. Spain had the biggest influence on my adult life beyond anyone or anything but Karen.
I remember quite specifically one of the first meals I ever ate in Spain. I bought a pistola -- a loaf of bakery bread -- some manchego cheese, a bottle of red wine and some strawberries and sat in my room in the hostal, looking out the little window at the back of the buildings surrounding the plaza below and eating one of the most magnificently simple meals that I've ever enjoyed. I later had a similar meal along the banks of the Río Sella, with much the same food except for a can of Coke instead of a bottle of wine. I sat in the July sun eating beside the babbling river, alone with my food and camera while I waited for the bus to take me up to Covadonga, the site where the Reconquista began. It was just such a quiet, tranquil way to pass the afternoon.
There was the time I was standing outside the walled city of Avila talking with a bus driver from Soria. At once, I thought about a kid from the Midwest having a conversation beside the birthplace of St. Teresa talking with a guy from Soria, Spain, and wondered, Who'da thought? I also wondered what the high school Spanish teacher who underestimated me would think if she saw me.
The magical Christmas I spent with a woman from Colombia, a woman from Mexico and a Jew from Boston eating the turkey dinner I prepared. I doubt I'll ever relive such an eclectic Christmas again.
Sneaking into the five star hotel in El Saler, outside Valencia, was an anecdote for the ages. It was almost like a commando mission the way we hugged the walls, stayed out of the lights, coming in from the beach that was no more than thirty years from the Mediterranean. I still laugh when I think about getting to spend two nights in that hotel.
Talking with the Irish mason in Santillana de Mar under the stars, drinking beers and discussing politics. It was a magical evening.
Walking around Pamplona during the sanfermines, seeing people who came together every year from various parts of the globe to spend a week partying, was an eye-opener. Being in Tossa de Mar, seeing the Mediterranean from a vacationer's standpoint, was enchanting.
Reading books in the Biblioteca Nacional, seeing the putative remains of Columbus in the great cathedral in Sevilla and walking in the history of La Alhambra left me breathless at times.
I remember the sheer job of riding the narrow-gauge railway in Asturias, the bordeom of the desolation in Ribadeo, the quiet, contemplative countryside in which the monolithic El Escorial was constructed, the awe I had when I first saw the Acueducto in Segovia and the throwback in time when I had cordero asado and ate out of a communal salad bowl in Pedraza during my first puente. I remember the busrides to Valencia, the train rides in Andalucia and that last, overlong plane trip out of the country through Málaga and then back through Madrid.
I miss Spain.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Kirsten Powers, Kickstarter and Liberal Intolerance
Kirsten Powers, a noted liberal pundit, recently exploded against her fellow liberals with a scathing column in the USA Today in which she complained about liberal mob rule. Specifically, she raised the issue related to a group called Kickstarter, which is described as the nation's biggest crowd-funding site, that refused to accept a film about convicted murder and abortionist Kermit Gosnell unless certain graphic passages describing how the abortions were carried out, e.g., by stabbing the babies in the back of their heads with scissors and then sucking out their brains. Apparently, this is too much for the liberal-minded people at Kickstarter.
Kickstarter demurred because the film's depiction of the murders didn't meet with its standards. I'm not fully versed with the standards, but according to Ms. Powers, they seek to enforce a culture of respect and consideration. Language used is to be specifically modified.
There's only one problem with this: Kickstarter applies its standards selectively, one might say capriciously. This leads to the great liberal mantra to be repeated: Do as we say, not as we do.
Other projects that Kickstarter accepted include an album by a group called Rachel Please entitled Incest is the Highest Form of Flattery. I'm too lazy to seek out the lyrics, but the title alone hardly seems to agree with the notion of a culture of respect and consideration, or language that is specifically modified. The page supporting the album lauds the artists and their music and says that I want Rachel (the group) to be done up right and we'll stop at nothing to make sure that this album is in the stores, on the charts and in the airwaves.... Supporting a group that either advocates incest or embraces a lurid saying related to incest is inimical to Kickstarter's rules.
Another project that it supports is a film called Die Sluts Die! That would seem to speak for itself. Again, Kickstarter has no difficulty with this project.
The last project supported by Kickstarter that Ms. Powers cites is called After Tiller, a movie that examines four abortionists after the murder of Dr. George Tiller, an abortionist. Ms. Powers describes this project:
...a hagiography of the abortionists who took over when Wichita doctor George Tiller was murdered. The film presumably doesn't belabor the process of late-term abortion, where babies are often stabbed in the neck with scissors and the contents of their skulls suctioned out. One wouldn't want to violate Kickstarter's culture of respect and consideration. Or provide factual information.
Like the MSM, liberal groups say one thing and do whatever their fancy tells them to do. Kickstarter supports art projects, but only selectively applies its standards to determine which projects it chooses. The MSM editorializes more than it reports, choosing not the stories that are most important but the ones it deems are most important. This pro-choice attitude stems from an intolerance for anything with which it has a disagreement. The disagreement stems from a fear that, if the opposite view were widely shared, the liberal viewpoint would lose adherents and therefore power. At the core of this fear is an acknowledgement, perhaps tacit, that the position held by liberals is intrinsically wrong. But an inherently incorrect position can be glossed over in the search for acceptance, power and lifestyle. This is something that the Left has mastered.
Anytime the Left is confronted by criticisms, it wraps itself in the Bill of Rights and proclaims its unfettered right to free speech...the very thing it denies to opposing views. Yet, when the opposing view finds a have, such as the movie Honor Diaries, the Left descries the right of its opponents to publish that viewpoint, resting its arguments on spurious supports that are nothing more than rotted totems. And yet the majority in this country allows it to happen.
Perhaps I'm getting too old. Perhaps my youthful enthusiasm for participation in this countries civic affairs has atrophied with my muscles. Yet me experience and my studies advise me that I'm not entirely wrong, that what I perceive is not right and that Alexander Hamilton was right more than two hundred years ago when he feared how the Constitution would rend apart the nation he labored so hard to build with the other Founding Fathers.
I only pray that before it's too late right-minded liberals like Ms. Powers wake up, realize the error of their ways and allow truly free speech.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Kickstarter demurred because the film's depiction of the murders didn't meet with its standards. I'm not fully versed with the standards, but according to Ms. Powers, they seek to enforce a culture of respect and consideration. Language used is to be specifically modified.
There's only one problem with this: Kickstarter applies its standards selectively, one might say capriciously. This leads to the great liberal mantra to be repeated: Do as we say, not as we do.
Other projects that Kickstarter accepted include an album by a group called Rachel Please entitled Incest is the Highest Form of Flattery. I'm too lazy to seek out the lyrics, but the title alone hardly seems to agree with the notion of a culture of respect and consideration, or language that is specifically modified. The page supporting the album lauds the artists and their music and says that I want Rachel (the group) to be done up right and we'll stop at nothing to make sure that this album is in the stores, on the charts and in the airwaves.... Supporting a group that either advocates incest or embraces a lurid saying related to incest is inimical to Kickstarter's rules.
Another project that it supports is a film called Die Sluts Die! That would seem to speak for itself. Again, Kickstarter has no difficulty with this project.
The last project supported by Kickstarter that Ms. Powers cites is called After Tiller, a movie that examines four abortionists after the murder of Dr. George Tiller, an abortionist. Ms. Powers describes this project:
...a hagiography of the abortionists who took over when Wichita doctor George Tiller was murdered. The film presumably doesn't belabor the process of late-term abortion, where babies are often stabbed in the neck with scissors and the contents of their skulls suctioned out. One wouldn't want to violate Kickstarter's culture of respect and consideration. Or provide factual information.
Like the MSM, liberal groups say one thing and do whatever their fancy tells them to do. Kickstarter supports art projects, but only selectively applies its standards to determine which projects it chooses. The MSM editorializes more than it reports, choosing not the stories that are most important but the ones it deems are most important. This pro-choice attitude stems from an intolerance for anything with which it has a disagreement. The disagreement stems from a fear that, if the opposite view were widely shared, the liberal viewpoint would lose adherents and therefore power. At the core of this fear is an acknowledgement, perhaps tacit, that the position held by liberals is intrinsically wrong. But an inherently incorrect position can be glossed over in the search for acceptance, power and lifestyle. This is something that the Left has mastered.
Anytime the Left is confronted by criticisms, it wraps itself in the Bill of Rights and proclaims its unfettered right to free speech...the very thing it denies to opposing views. Yet, when the opposing view finds a have, such as the movie Honor Diaries, the Left descries the right of its opponents to publish that viewpoint, resting its arguments on spurious supports that are nothing more than rotted totems. And yet the majority in this country allows it to happen.
Perhaps I'm getting too old. Perhaps my youthful enthusiasm for participation in this countries civic affairs has atrophied with my muscles. Yet me experience and my studies advise me that I'm not entirely wrong, that what I perceive is not right and that Alexander Hamilton was right more than two hundred years ago when he feared how the Constitution would rend apart the nation he labored so hard to build with the other Founding Fathers.
I only pray that before it's too late right-minded liberals like Ms. Powers wake up, realize the error of their ways and allow truly free speech.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, April 14, 2014
My Girl and Television
Sometimes, the things my girl tickle me so much that I want to share them with everyone. One of those things is when she laughs at things in movies or television shows. Her laugh is uninhibited, infectious, and buoys everyone within earshot. I myself find it hard not to laugh when she's enjoying herself with a movie or television show.
But there are times that I find myself transfixed by what shows she enjoys. Make no mistake: I'm not pointing the finger here as if I'm an orthodox viewer. My own viewing list -- Blacklist, The Following, Big Bang Theory, The Amazing Race, Sunday Morning, The Five, Modern Family, NHL hockey and other sports programs. I also enjoy those shows on the Discovery channel that show how things are made. So my tastes are diverse as well.
But Karen's are...eclectic. I was going to say eccentric, but that could be said of mine as well.
Here are some of the shows I've walked in on her watching:
Dancing With the Stars: That millions of lemmings watch this show indicates that Karen's not alone in this, but at least she knows it's jumped the shark. I can't really blame her for watching it.
Revolution: The only thing that surprises me about this farce is that it's nothing more than Lost 2.0, and even Karen knows that. She felt defrauded by Lost (I never watched it, so I have no idea), so that she continues to watch this amazes me.
Honey Boo Boo: I categorize this under Train Wreck viewing, but I can't watch it for the simple reason that they have to put subtitles on the screen for Americans. But I agree with Karen that the family is lovingly close.
River Monsters: Because of her daddy, Karen is fascinated with shows about nature and the like. But she'll sit there for hours and watch some foreign dude pulling weird looking fish out of foreign river waters.
Wicked Tuna: Id. But she's also a groupie of this show.
Blacklist: I'm just as guilty. I didn't say she didn't have good taste.
Nova-like shows: Whether it's how this dome was built in the sixteenth century, where the stars point to the last known location of Noah's ark or the history of feminine clothing, Karen has a broad intellectual curiosity. I'll come home and pick some arcane subject and ask her if that's what she's watching. Typically, I'm not too far off.
The Voice: She says it's because of the quality of the singers, but I think it's all about Adam Levine.
Grimm: We both watch this, no matter how silly. I think we like seeing how the monsters look like our boys when they're yawning.
Alaska shows: I think she suffers through them for me. But she watches 'em.
Jewelry shows: I don't get jewelry at all. But she watches these shows with Southern belles cooing on stuff that I wouldn't pay a plugged nickel for and rates the quality of each item. The best ones are always cute.
Naked and Afraid: The premise of this show is that two survivalists go to a remote jungle area, one man and one woman, naked, and spend twenty-one days in the wild with nothing more than one tool -- a knife, a flint, whatever. I can discern no purpose for this show other than to titillate. The problem is that they blur out the good parts. Karen likes to see if the men's buttocks are bulbous. I just shake my head at the whole thing.
House Hunters International: A couple looks to be ex-pats and buy property overseas. Having lived abroad, I get the premise. But some of the places these people are given to choose from make me shake my head. Recently, a couple moving to Shanghai looked at property number 2 that had the air conditioning unit on the balcony, taking up the whole balcony, and the washer and dryer in the bathroom. It's like a freak show for interior designers.
National Geographic animal shows on the Animal Channel: Perhaps it was just dumb luck, but I've walked in on Karen two or three times watching shows on giant squids. I don't even eat squid, much less see them for entertainment. But she will sit there fascinated by them.
Medical shows: She watches these with regularity because she's really a doctor without a license. Not that she was guilty of malpractice. She just knows more than some doctors know. She self-diagnoses herself, for crying out loud.
The Big Bang Theory: She identifies me with Sheldon. Not his brains but his social awkwardness. I think she's looking for a clue to cure me.
Any Revolutionary War series: We watched John Adams. That was good. But she'll watch anything about the Revolutionary War because her ancestors fought in it. I understand this completely. I watch 'em because I like to see the Brits lose.
Game of Thrones: Karen read one of the books, but even she gets confused about who's who in this series. I just think the opening music and the CGI rendering of the rising towns is cool.
Ink Master and Bad Ink: My girl's been toying around with getting a tattoo, although I don't understand for the life of me the attraction, and she's an excellent artist, so these shows appeal to her for those reasons. I love Master because of the snark quotient and how brutally honest the judges are to the contestants.
As one can see, my girl has a diverse and eclectic taste when it comes to television. I think we'll leave movies for another day. But it's never boring watching television with Karen. Mostly, I like watching her when she's watching. That's more fun for me.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
But there are times that I find myself transfixed by what shows she enjoys. Make no mistake: I'm not pointing the finger here as if I'm an orthodox viewer. My own viewing list -- Blacklist, The Following, Big Bang Theory, The Amazing Race, Sunday Morning, The Five, Modern Family, NHL hockey and other sports programs. I also enjoy those shows on the Discovery channel that show how things are made. So my tastes are diverse as well.
But Karen's are...eclectic. I was going to say eccentric, but that could be said of mine as well.
Here are some of the shows I've walked in on her watching:
Dancing With the Stars: That millions of lemmings watch this show indicates that Karen's not alone in this, but at least she knows it's jumped the shark. I can't really blame her for watching it.
Revolution: The only thing that surprises me about this farce is that it's nothing more than Lost 2.0, and even Karen knows that. She felt defrauded by Lost (I never watched it, so I have no idea), so that she continues to watch this amazes me.
Honey Boo Boo: I categorize this under Train Wreck viewing, but I can't watch it for the simple reason that they have to put subtitles on the screen for Americans. But I agree with Karen that the family is lovingly close.
River Monsters: Because of her daddy, Karen is fascinated with shows about nature and the like. But she'll sit there for hours and watch some foreign dude pulling weird looking fish out of foreign river waters.
Wicked Tuna: Id. But she's also a groupie of this show.
Blacklist: I'm just as guilty. I didn't say she didn't have good taste.
Nova-like shows: Whether it's how this dome was built in the sixteenth century, where the stars point to the last known location of Noah's ark or the history of feminine clothing, Karen has a broad intellectual curiosity. I'll come home and pick some arcane subject and ask her if that's what she's watching. Typically, I'm not too far off.
The Voice: She says it's because of the quality of the singers, but I think it's all about Adam Levine.
Grimm: We both watch this, no matter how silly. I think we like seeing how the monsters look like our boys when they're yawning.
Alaska shows: I think she suffers through them for me. But she watches 'em.
Jewelry shows: I don't get jewelry at all. But she watches these shows with Southern belles cooing on stuff that I wouldn't pay a plugged nickel for and rates the quality of each item. The best ones are always cute.
Naked and Afraid: The premise of this show is that two survivalists go to a remote jungle area, one man and one woman, naked, and spend twenty-one days in the wild with nothing more than one tool -- a knife, a flint, whatever. I can discern no purpose for this show other than to titillate. The problem is that they blur out the good parts. Karen likes to see if the men's buttocks are bulbous. I just shake my head at the whole thing.
House Hunters International: A couple looks to be ex-pats and buy property overseas. Having lived abroad, I get the premise. But some of the places these people are given to choose from make me shake my head. Recently, a couple moving to Shanghai looked at property number 2 that had the air conditioning unit on the balcony, taking up the whole balcony, and the washer and dryer in the bathroom. It's like a freak show for interior designers.
National Geographic animal shows on the Animal Channel: Perhaps it was just dumb luck, but I've walked in on Karen two or three times watching shows on giant squids. I don't even eat squid, much less see them for entertainment. But she will sit there fascinated by them.
Medical shows: She watches these with regularity because she's really a doctor without a license. Not that she was guilty of malpractice. She just knows more than some doctors know. She self-diagnoses herself, for crying out loud.
The Big Bang Theory: She identifies me with Sheldon. Not his brains but his social awkwardness. I think she's looking for a clue to cure me.
Any Revolutionary War series: We watched John Adams. That was good. But she'll watch anything about the Revolutionary War because her ancestors fought in it. I understand this completely. I watch 'em because I like to see the Brits lose.
Game of Thrones: Karen read one of the books, but even she gets confused about who's who in this series. I just think the opening music and the CGI rendering of the rising towns is cool.
Ink Master and Bad Ink: My girl's been toying around with getting a tattoo, although I don't understand for the life of me the attraction, and she's an excellent artist, so these shows appeal to her for those reasons. I love Master because of the snark quotient and how brutally honest the judges are to the contestants.
As one can see, my girl has a diverse and eclectic taste when it comes to television. I think we'll leave movies for another day. But it's never boring watching television with Karen. Mostly, I like watching her when she's watching. That's more fun for me.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, April 11, 2014
Friday Randomness
It's been a long week, with an even longer weekend ahead. So here's some randomness heading into the weekend.
-- If Hillary were such a softball player, as she touted after the woman threw a shoe at her, why didn't she catch it?
-- Reverend Al Sharpton was an informant for the FBI out of the goodness of his heart and was being paid for his services? Why, then, did he blow all his money on those hideous track suits and that wild hairdo?
-- I have no clue where MH370 is.
-- Henry Aaron suffered real racist abuse. President Obama has suffered a fraction of what Mr. Aaron when through. For Mr. Aaron to liken the President's woes to his own is delusional.
-- On the same note, does not Eric Holder remember what Alberto González and Condoleeza Rice went through from Democratic committeemen? To suggest, however obliquely, that his showdown this week was motivated by racism was yet another attempt to deflect from the real issue.
-- So Ms. Sebelius' tenure is over at DHHS. She gets major points for loyalty, not so many for competence.
-- I can't tell whether Oscar Pistorios is crying more for his killing Reeva Steenkamp or for the fact that he may go to jail.
-- On a related note, how did Ms. Steenkamp not become a supermodel? While she was alive, of course.
-- I cannot believe how these so-called experts come out with mock drafts every week, months before the actual draft. Is it really that important in March to know who's going to be taken by whom in May?
-- There is a constitutional event brewing, and it'll be interesting to see how Congress addresses it.
-- Blacklist is just one heck of a ride. The Following isn't quite as good, but it's creepier.
-- I'm really curious to know just what the landgrab in Nevada is all about. I'm hearing conflicting stories. Apparently, there's also one going on in Texas, too.
-- Feminists claim to want the right to choose for women, but when one does the way Kirsten Dunst did recently, they protest because her choice doesn't fit their paradigm. Hypocrites, anyone?
-- The best playoffs this side of March Madness are about to start. Go Blackhawks!
-- Harry Reid has to be the most disingenuous liar I've ever seen in Congress. Well, he's the male version. Nancy Pelosi is the female equivalent.
-- What's been happening in Detroit lately with home invasions and homeowners shooting dead the intruders is both disheartening and inspiring.
-- Offshore debt collectors had better never get near me. I'll show them my bar number so up close and personally that they'd never forget it.
(c) 2104 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Honor Killings and Free Speech
We will use your laws to defeat you.
So said an Islamofascist, or something very similar, a couple of years after 9/11. Islamofascists have assiduously used the Constitution, combined with fear, to further their ultimate goal of establishing a world-wide caliphate for the greater glory of Islam. Americans should be very wary of this.
Recently, a documentary called Honor Diaries that details the twisted Islamic approach to women has been denied showings at the University of Michigan and, sadly, my alma mater, the University of Illinois, because of the supposed disrespect is conveys toward Islam. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has been protesting the release of this movie, allegedly not because of its content but because the distributor, Clarion, is run by Jews who have an anti-Islamic mission. The movie, of which I've only seen clips, is said to portray an unflattering picture of Islam's treatment of women.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a naturalized citizen originally from Somalia and a Muslim herself was about to get an honorary degree from Brandeis University until CAIR protested loudly enough to have Brandeis withdraw the honor. On The Kelly Files, Megyn Kelly tried to discuss this with Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR:
Note the combative style Mr. Hooper employs while stating his case.
The issue for me is this: If moderate Muslims are so concerned about radical Muslims and the bad light in which they are casting Islam, why are they so ready to defeat efforts to show what radicalism is doing to their religion? Why are they not able to disagree in a civil matter and allow the other side, with which they have a bitter disagreement, to air their views? What's more, why are moderate Muslims not more vocal about what radical Muslims do around the globe? Keeping silent doesn't lend much credibility to their cause.
More troubling to me is that these so-called moderate Muslims feel empowered to subject anyone with whom they disagree to a barrage of negative publicity, including veiled threats. The argument that a movie shouldn't be seen because of who distributes it is insane. If the essential truth about the movie is fairly presented, who cares who the distributor is? José Canseco was vilified by many people for claiming that there were PED's in baseball, but it turned out he was speaking the truth. Sometimes the canary in the mine isn't exactly what we envision it to be. What matters, however, is the truth of the message.
So long as Honor Diaries and Ms. Ali are not cooking up a story, their views deserved to be aired. Whether they make certain people uncomfortable isn't the point. To bring pressure on schools to ban the movie or withdraw an honor is senseless and un-American. I'm saddened that my alma mater didn't have the testicular fortitude to tell CAIR to take a hike. Michigan, too, is a fine school, and the freedom of thought should be championed, not shuttered. By trying to impose time, place and manner restrictions on outlets that air anti-Muslim speech is, first of all, improper, as the First Amendment forbids government infringement of speech, and against every American tradition, second.
This country has to find a way to allow Muslims their way in this society at the same time that it maintains as many of its rites and traditions as our laws will allow. Moderate Muslims, if indeed they are moderate, need to compromise a tad. But trying to use our laws against us to insinuate sharia law into this country should not be tolerated.
What's perhaps sadly ironic is that Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote that sunlight is the best disinfectant. For a school named after such an august and learned man to take this action is both antithetical to the man's philosophy and an invitation to other schools to act similarly.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
So said an Islamofascist, or something very similar, a couple of years after 9/11. Islamofascists have assiduously used the Constitution, combined with fear, to further their ultimate goal of establishing a world-wide caliphate for the greater glory of Islam. Americans should be very wary of this.
Recently, a documentary called Honor Diaries that details the twisted Islamic approach to women has been denied showings at the University of Michigan and, sadly, my alma mater, the University of Illinois, because of the supposed disrespect is conveys toward Islam. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has been protesting the release of this movie, allegedly not because of its content but because the distributor, Clarion, is run by Jews who have an anti-Islamic mission. The movie, of which I've only seen clips, is said to portray an unflattering picture of Islam's treatment of women.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a naturalized citizen originally from Somalia and a Muslim herself was about to get an honorary degree from Brandeis University until CAIR protested loudly enough to have Brandeis withdraw the honor. On The Kelly Files, Megyn Kelly tried to discuss this with Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR:
Note the combative style Mr. Hooper employs while stating his case.
The issue for me is this: If moderate Muslims are so concerned about radical Muslims and the bad light in which they are casting Islam, why are they so ready to defeat efforts to show what radicalism is doing to their religion? Why are they not able to disagree in a civil matter and allow the other side, with which they have a bitter disagreement, to air their views? What's more, why are moderate Muslims not more vocal about what radical Muslims do around the globe? Keeping silent doesn't lend much credibility to their cause.
More troubling to me is that these so-called moderate Muslims feel empowered to subject anyone with whom they disagree to a barrage of negative publicity, including veiled threats. The argument that a movie shouldn't be seen because of who distributes it is insane. If the essential truth about the movie is fairly presented, who cares who the distributor is? José Canseco was vilified by many people for claiming that there were PED's in baseball, but it turned out he was speaking the truth. Sometimes the canary in the mine isn't exactly what we envision it to be. What matters, however, is the truth of the message.
So long as Honor Diaries and Ms. Ali are not cooking up a story, their views deserved to be aired. Whether they make certain people uncomfortable isn't the point. To bring pressure on schools to ban the movie or withdraw an honor is senseless and un-American. I'm saddened that my alma mater didn't have the testicular fortitude to tell CAIR to take a hike. Michigan, too, is a fine school, and the freedom of thought should be championed, not shuttered. By trying to impose time, place and manner restrictions on outlets that air anti-Muslim speech is, first of all, improper, as the First Amendment forbids government infringement of speech, and against every American tradition, second.
This country has to find a way to allow Muslims their way in this society at the same time that it maintains as many of its rites and traditions as our laws will allow. Moderate Muslims, if indeed they are moderate, need to compromise a tad. But trying to use our laws against us to insinuate sharia law into this country should not be tolerated.
What's perhaps sadly ironic is that Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote that sunlight is the best disinfectant. For a school named after such an august and learned man to take this action is both antithetical to the man's philosophy and an invitation to other schools to act similarly.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Campaign Financing
A firestorm has erupted after the latest SCOTUS ruling involving campaign donations. In the McCutcheon case, the SCOTUS effectively eliminated restrictions on the amounts individuals can donate to campaigns. Following the Citizens United decision, SCOTUS has equated campaign donations with free speech. Critics complain that this allows elections to be bought. Most critics are liberal. That means that liberals fear that conservatives will now be able to leverage elections in their favor.
What's ironic about this rending of garments and gnashing of teeth is that shortly before the Court issued the McCutcheon opinion, opensecrets.org, an outfit that labels itself as the Center for Responsive Politics, issued a report on the top donors for the period from 1989 through 2014. With a couple of tweaks, it includes anyone who donated big money to either Democratic or Republican candidates during that time period. The results are startling, to say the least.
For anyone who's interested, here's the link to the report: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Taking just the top twenty donors -- the list includes 156 names -- whose cumulative donations range from a high of $100,887,828M to $31,654.912M, only two -- TWO!!!! -- are listed as leaning Republican, which means that between 60-69% of the money donated by that group went to Republicans. Of the remaining eighteen donors, six are distributed between Democrats and Republicans, leaving twelve as being heavy donors to Democratic candidates. It's worth noting that the two heavy Republican donors landed at numbers 17 and 19 on the list.
Why liberals should be so fearful of McCutcheon and Citizens United defies explanation. The rest of the list, although it includes more conservative-leaning donors, still includes plenty of liberal-leaning donors. Barring a statistical analysis, an eyeball test seems to show that liberal donors at least match if not outspend conservative donors. I'd have to review the actual totals of money given to both parties (and the amount that's claimed to be split evenly between them), but I'd bet that there isn't a great discrepancy between the money given to the two parties by their supporters.
What makes this at all topical is that lately -- with a nod to Pat Buchanan -- that nattering nabob of nuttiness, Harry Reid, has been attacking the Koch brothers, conservatives who give to many politically neutral charities as well as funding the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, for trying to buy the next elections. It's as if, to hear Mr. Reid tell it, the Koch brothers are bribing and suborning and persuading people solely with their money to vote for Republicans. There are a couple of problems with this argument.
First, Koch Industries only comes in at number 59 on the Open Secrets report. At a mere $18,283,448, they're dwarfed by several unions in the top fifteen that donate heavily to Democratic candidates. Why should the Koch brothers and their companies be targeted by Mr. Reid? The answer is very simple: Deflection. Given Democrats' vulnerability due to the outlandish failures of the Obama regime, not the least of which was Obamacare that most Democrats supported, they have to not only run away from that but also have something, anything, to hang in effigy. What better than to find a pair of old rich white men who donate to causes that are hardly regarded as progressive to set up as the target? What's more, as anyone who's ever looked at statistics for more than five minutes knows, statistics can be made to mean anything. By painting a less than full picture not only of the Koch brothers but also political donations in general, Mr. Reid hopes to whip up liberal voters and energize them to help Democrats retain power in Washington.
What's laughable about this, were it not so sad, is that the Democrats have their own heavy hitter when it comes to donations. George Soros, who once said it was his life's mission to oust George W. Bush from the White House, notoriously gives oodles of money to liberal candidates. Hollywood, as I've mentioned countless times, gives to liberal candidates, liberally. These are not people making donations of $25 or $50. The fundraisers attended by liberals in support of their candidates are no less awesome in the amounts of money thrown around than those attended by conservatives.
Harry Reid, to put it simply, is a tool. Unfortunately, the people of Nevada continue to overlook this out of self-interest, stupidity or both. Dick Durbin's constituents share the same problems. For them to suggest that the Koch brothers are un-American when their own supporters funnel at least as much money to their campaign coffers is ludicrous.
The American people deserve better than these charlatans.
(c) 2104 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
What's ironic about this rending of garments and gnashing of teeth is that shortly before the Court issued the McCutcheon opinion, opensecrets.org, an outfit that labels itself as the Center for Responsive Politics, issued a report on the top donors for the period from 1989 through 2014. With a couple of tweaks, it includes anyone who donated big money to either Democratic or Republican candidates during that time period. The results are startling, to say the least.
For anyone who's interested, here's the link to the report: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Taking just the top twenty donors -- the list includes 156 names -- whose cumulative donations range from a high of $100,887,828M to $31,654.912M, only two -- TWO!!!! -- are listed as leaning Republican, which means that between 60-69% of the money donated by that group went to Republicans. Of the remaining eighteen donors, six are distributed between Democrats and Republicans, leaving twelve as being heavy donors to Democratic candidates. It's worth noting that the two heavy Republican donors landed at numbers 17 and 19 on the list.
Why liberals should be so fearful of McCutcheon and Citizens United defies explanation. The rest of the list, although it includes more conservative-leaning donors, still includes plenty of liberal-leaning donors. Barring a statistical analysis, an eyeball test seems to show that liberal donors at least match if not outspend conservative donors. I'd have to review the actual totals of money given to both parties (and the amount that's claimed to be split evenly between them), but I'd bet that there isn't a great discrepancy between the money given to the two parties by their supporters.
What makes this at all topical is that lately -- with a nod to Pat Buchanan -- that nattering nabob of nuttiness, Harry Reid, has been attacking the Koch brothers, conservatives who give to many politically neutral charities as well as funding the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, for trying to buy the next elections. It's as if, to hear Mr. Reid tell it, the Koch brothers are bribing and suborning and persuading people solely with their money to vote for Republicans. There are a couple of problems with this argument.
First, Koch Industries only comes in at number 59 on the Open Secrets report. At a mere $18,283,448, they're dwarfed by several unions in the top fifteen that donate heavily to Democratic candidates. Why should the Koch brothers and their companies be targeted by Mr. Reid? The answer is very simple: Deflection. Given Democrats' vulnerability due to the outlandish failures of the Obama regime, not the least of which was Obamacare that most Democrats supported, they have to not only run away from that but also have something, anything, to hang in effigy. What better than to find a pair of old rich white men who donate to causes that are hardly regarded as progressive to set up as the target? What's more, as anyone who's ever looked at statistics for more than five minutes knows, statistics can be made to mean anything. By painting a less than full picture not only of the Koch brothers but also political donations in general, Mr. Reid hopes to whip up liberal voters and energize them to help Democrats retain power in Washington.
What's laughable about this, were it not so sad, is that the Democrats have their own heavy hitter when it comes to donations. George Soros, who once said it was his life's mission to oust George W. Bush from the White House, notoriously gives oodles of money to liberal candidates. Hollywood, as I've mentioned countless times, gives to liberal candidates, liberally. These are not people making donations of $25 or $50. The fundraisers attended by liberals in support of their candidates are no less awesome in the amounts of money thrown around than those attended by conservatives.
Harry Reid, to put it simply, is a tool. Unfortunately, the people of Nevada continue to overlook this out of self-interest, stupidity or both. Dick Durbin's constituents share the same problems. For them to suggest that the Koch brothers are un-American when their own supporters funnel at least as much money to their campaign coffers is ludicrous.
The American people deserve better than these charlatans.
(c) 2104 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, April 7, 2014
Defining Hate Crimes
Hate crimes didn't exist prior to the 1960's. In truth, it wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the country began to penalize racist or discriminatory behavior. After that, with the rise of gay rights in the 70's, 80's and especially 90's, civil rights protections were extended to gays as well as members of racial minorities. Considering that the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been with us since 1868, it's surprising yet sad that it took so long for every American citizen to enjoy those freedoms and protections.
Since hate crimes have been used over the last couple of decades, it's been axiomatic that the perpetrators of such crimes were white and male, sometimes white and female. Yet the Equal Protection Clause doesn't distinguish between genders and races when establishing the coverage. When it mentions equal, that should be extended to anyone, regardless of who the victim is.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case at all. Far too often, the minute a minority is the victim, the suggestion that a hate crime -- which only adds an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing; the underlying crime stands irrespective of the inclusion of a hate crime charge -- could possibly have been committed by a minority against a white person is ludicrous. Well, it's treated as such. Police officers seem constitutionally incapable of suggesting such to the district attorneys, and district attorneys shy away from bringing such charges. It's laughable.
Yet there are plenty of good examples where crimes committed against whites by minorities at least raise the specter of a hate crime. Not every crime committed by a minority against a white person qualifies, by any means. But the converse is also true: Not every crime committed by a white person against a minority is a hate crime, either. Supporters of Trayvon Martin might be surprised to learn that.
Recently, outside Detroit a white man who drove the same route every morning on his way to work hit a young boy who darted out into the street. There's actually footage from a gas station security camera that shows the boy running out so closely to the truck that there's no doubt it was a tragic accident. As he was liable to do, legally, the man, Steven Yutash, stopped his vehicle to check on the boy, who is black. He was set upon by a gang of black youths and young adults who beat the man into a pulp. Mr. Yutesh is now in an induced coma fighting for his life. Only two people have been arrested, and they ain't talking. It's more important not to be a snitch and keep one's street cred than to do the right thing, as Mr. Yutesh did.
Last year, a World War II vet was killed by a couple of young black men. Officials were quick to note that this wasn't a hate crime, but a simple robbery that escalated to murder.
In Oklahoma last year, an Australian exchange student was murdered -- shot in the back as he jogged -- because his teen assailants were bored. It was later discovered that one of the youths posted racist tweets saying that 90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM and Ayeee I knocced [sic] out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:) lol shit ima keep sleepin shit! #ayeee. Woods is apparently a derogatory term for white people. Officials declined to pursue hate crime charges, saying that the teens made those posts for effect.
If those posts were only for effect, why was everyone so quick to suggest that George Zimmerman acted out of racist motives, when he made no such comments and in fact had a history of positive interaction with black people?
It is a certainty that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can find a hate crime in anything. Just look at Tawana Brawley or the Duke lacrosse players cases. To be sure, there are racists and skinheads and Aryan Brotherhood members among us. But not every crime involves a racist element. At the same time, not every crime committed by a black person against a white person is the result of a lack of opportunity or a shortcoming of education.
There are black people who ran to rescue Mr. Yutesh. There are good black people all over the country. But there are evil black people as well, people to whom Sharpton and Jackson pander with their well-tuned Forever Selma campaigns. Sensible black leaders combat this neverending drama, noting that to find civil rights violations in every crime lessens the value and importance of such crimes when they really happen.
Black leaders must also, instead of simply descrying the violence, advocate for those people who commit true hate crimes to be charged with them instead of having them explained away with convenient totems. If in fact we're going to heed Dr. King's dictum, those black criminals who commit hate crimes must be charged with them the same way white criminals are. Otherwise, Dr. King's dictum is not being followed, because the color of the criminal's skin is being used as an excuse not to charge him with a hate crime, and that's no more fair than charging him with a crime he didn't commit because he's black.
Something has to change, soon.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Since hate crimes have been used over the last couple of decades, it's been axiomatic that the perpetrators of such crimes were white and male, sometimes white and female. Yet the Equal Protection Clause doesn't distinguish between genders and races when establishing the coverage. When it mentions equal, that should be extended to anyone, regardless of who the victim is.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case at all. Far too often, the minute a minority is the victim, the suggestion that a hate crime -- which only adds an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing; the underlying crime stands irrespective of the inclusion of a hate crime charge -- could possibly have been committed by a minority against a white person is ludicrous. Well, it's treated as such. Police officers seem constitutionally incapable of suggesting such to the district attorneys, and district attorneys shy away from bringing such charges. It's laughable.
Yet there are plenty of good examples where crimes committed against whites by minorities at least raise the specter of a hate crime. Not every crime committed by a minority against a white person qualifies, by any means. But the converse is also true: Not every crime committed by a white person against a minority is a hate crime, either. Supporters of Trayvon Martin might be surprised to learn that.
Recently, outside Detroit a white man who drove the same route every morning on his way to work hit a young boy who darted out into the street. There's actually footage from a gas station security camera that shows the boy running out so closely to the truck that there's no doubt it was a tragic accident. As he was liable to do, legally, the man, Steven Yutash, stopped his vehicle to check on the boy, who is black. He was set upon by a gang of black youths and young adults who beat the man into a pulp. Mr. Yutesh is now in an induced coma fighting for his life. Only two people have been arrested, and they ain't talking. It's more important not to be a snitch and keep one's street cred than to do the right thing, as Mr. Yutesh did.
Last year, a World War II vet was killed by a couple of young black men. Officials were quick to note that this wasn't a hate crime, but a simple robbery that escalated to murder.
In Oklahoma last year, an Australian exchange student was murdered -- shot in the back as he jogged -- because his teen assailants were bored. It was later discovered that one of the youths posted racist tweets saying that 90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM and Ayeee I knocced [sic] out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:) lol shit ima keep sleepin shit! #ayeee. Woods is apparently a derogatory term for white people. Officials declined to pursue hate crime charges, saying that the teens made those posts for effect.
If those posts were only for effect, why was everyone so quick to suggest that George Zimmerman acted out of racist motives, when he made no such comments and in fact had a history of positive interaction with black people?
It is a certainty that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can find a hate crime in anything. Just look at Tawana Brawley or the Duke lacrosse players cases. To be sure, there are racists and skinheads and Aryan Brotherhood members among us. But not every crime involves a racist element. At the same time, not every crime committed by a black person against a white person is the result of a lack of opportunity or a shortcoming of education.
There are black people who ran to rescue Mr. Yutesh. There are good black people all over the country. But there are evil black people as well, people to whom Sharpton and Jackson pander with their well-tuned Forever Selma campaigns. Sensible black leaders combat this neverending drama, noting that to find civil rights violations in every crime lessens the value and importance of such crimes when they really happen.
Black leaders must also, instead of simply descrying the violence, advocate for those people who commit true hate crimes to be charged with them instead of having them explained away with convenient totems. If in fact we're going to heed Dr. King's dictum, those black criminals who commit hate crimes must be charged with them the same way white criminals are. Otherwise, Dr. King's dictum is not being followed, because the color of the criminal's skin is being used as an excuse not to charge him with a hate crime, and that's no more fair than charging him with a crime he didn't commit because he's black.
Something has to change, soon.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Political Correctness in Education and the MSM
Lately, there have been some stories floating around the internet -- because the MSM will never report on them -- about the rising tide of political correctness in our nation's elementary and secondary schools. I'd be hard-pressed to invent these stories because they're so absurd. Yet these stories happen with unnerving regularity...and still the MSM ignores them.
Let's start with Jesus. In January, a California grade schooler was told not to mention Jesus's name because it might offend other students. There are just a couple of problems -- constitutional ones at that -- with this. First, the First Amendment doesn't allow infringement on free speech, with certain time, place and manner restrictions, none of which would apply in this case. Although the teacher isn't the government, per se, because she works for a public school, she's the school's agent, and that makes this a case of government suppression of free speech. That the child is a grade schooler doesn't render the constitutional guarantee null and void. If anything, it should magnify it.
The second infringement with this is that the girl was obviously invoking the First Amendment in expressing her religious views. That mention of Jesus might offend a fellow student is irrelevant. If anything, the teacher should instruct other students to be tolerant of differing viewpoints and religions. Again, rather than us to teach tolerance, suppression of religious freedom is the answer. An obvious question is what would happen if a Muslim child invoked Allah in a paper or speech. Would the teacher ask the student to refrain from mentioning Allah, and if he or she did, would the MSM cover the story?
Next, a grade schooler in North Carolina cited Jesus Christ as his hero. The teacher -- never having gone to law school, obviously -- wrote: Do you need to mention Jesus? Again, the double standard with Islam rears its ugly head. Perhaps it's atheism. But as in the first case, there are clear First Amendment issues that transcend someone's discomfort with no time, place or manner issues. Constitutional rights are not just for adults.
Then, in Michigan, the Department of Justice has ordered a school to tear down seating that was put up at the high school's baseball field. Why? Because the seating -- paid for with money earned from private funds earned at bake sales and other private fundraisers and installed with labor provided by volunteers -- was superior to the existing bleachers at the softball field and therefore resulted in an inequitable facility. Equal protection mandated, according to DoJ, that it be torn down.
Lunacy, thy name is political correctness.
It makes little sense to tear down something that was bought and installed by private means. If anything, the backers of the softball team should imitate the baseball set, raise the necessary funds, volunteer their time and services and build comparable seating. That the seating built by the baseball field must be torn down because of some twisted reading of Title IX makes no sense whatsoever. That someone got her panties in a bunch because another person outworked her and built something because of the sweat of her brow does not mean that equal protection has not been afforded.
Political correctness has run amok. There needs to be a correction that replaces it with common sense. Not every resulting inequality is the result of unfairness. I wish I were 6'6", but I'm not. I wish I had the body of a movie star, but I don't. I wish I had the wealth of anyone but me, but I don't. But there is no violation of my constitutional rights in either situation.
Alexander Hamilton said it best more than two hundred years ago:
Ah, this is the constitution. Now, mark my words. So long as we area young and virtuous people, this instrument will bind us together in mutual interests, mutual welfare, and mutual happiness. But when we become old and corrupt, it will bind us no longer.
Apparently, we are now old and corrupt.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Let's start with Jesus. In January, a California grade schooler was told not to mention Jesus's name because it might offend other students. There are just a couple of problems -- constitutional ones at that -- with this. First, the First Amendment doesn't allow infringement on free speech, with certain time, place and manner restrictions, none of which would apply in this case. Although the teacher isn't the government, per se, because she works for a public school, she's the school's agent, and that makes this a case of government suppression of free speech. That the child is a grade schooler doesn't render the constitutional guarantee null and void. If anything, it should magnify it.
The second infringement with this is that the girl was obviously invoking the First Amendment in expressing her religious views. That mention of Jesus might offend a fellow student is irrelevant. If anything, the teacher should instruct other students to be tolerant of differing viewpoints and religions. Again, rather than us to teach tolerance, suppression of religious freedom is the answer. An obvious question is what would happen if a Muslim child invoked Allah in a paper or speech. Would the teacher ask the student to refrain from mentioning Allah, and if he or she did, would the MSM cover the story?
Next, a grade schooler in North Carolina cited Jesus Christ as his hero. The teacher -- never having gone to law school, obviously -- wrote: Do you need to mention Jesus? Again, the double standard with Islam rears its ugly head. Perhaps it's atheism. But as in the first case, there are clear First Amendment issues that transcend someone's discomfort with no time, place or manner issues. Constitutional rights are not just for adults.
Then, in Michigan, the Department of Justice has ordered a school to tear down seating that was put up at the high school's baseball field. Why? Because the seating -- paid for with money earned from private funds earned at bake sales and other private fundraisers and installed with labor provided by volunteers -- was superior to the existing bleachers at the softball field and therefore resulted in an inequitable facility. Equal protection mandated, according to DoJ, that it be torn down.
Lunacy, thy name is political correctness.
It makes little sense to tear down something that was bought and installed by private means. If anything, the backers of the softball team should imitate the baseball set, raise the necessary funds, volunteer their time and services and build comparable seating. That the seating built by the baseball field must be torn down because of some twisted reading of Title IX makes no sense whatsoever. That someone got her panties in a bunch because another person outworked her and built something because of the sweat of her brow does not mean that equal protection has not been afforded.
Political correctness has run amok. There needs to be a correction that replaces it with common sense. Not every resulting inequality is the result of unfairness. I wish I were 6'6", but I'm not. I wish I had the body of a movie star, but I don't. I wish I had the wealth of anyone but me, but I don't. But there is no violation of my constitutional rights in either situation.
Alexander Hamilton said it best more than two hundred years ago:
Ah, this is the constitution. Now, mark my words. So long as we area young and virtuous people, this instrument will bind us together in mutual interests, mutual welfare, and mutual happiness. But when we become old and corrupt, it will bind us no longer.
Apparently, we are now old and corrupt.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Random Reactions
It's Opening Day in baseball, at least in this town, so I'm not going to focus on any one thing as I listen to the game on the radio. Instead, it's going to be short reactions to stories in the news and odds and ends from the weekend:
-- The FLOTUS went to China with her daughters. I don't begrudge her and them that trip, as I think it's a wonderful opportunity for them. But could they just lighten the golf trips to Hawaii while people are struggling to comply with Obamacare?
-- For once, I may actually pay attention to the mid-term elections. This could be fun.
-- I don't know where flight 370 is and at this point I no longer care. We had three citizens on that plane, and we've dedicated more than enough resources to finding it. The Chinese have many more people on that flight, it's closer to them and they own our debt. Let them find the darned thing.
-- So Piers Morgan went out defiantly last week. Good riddance. This is what happens when you put a yappy, snobby, self-absorbed know-it-all Brit in charge of discussions about American culture.
-- Meanwhile, Bill Maher had a surprise segment on racism and how kneejerk reactions are often wrong. It's either a full moon phase or Earth is spinning off its axis.
-- Nick Cannon appeared on something called Instagram in whiteface to promote some project. Reacting to criticism of the move, Mr. Cannon said there's a difference between humor and oppression. Apparently, blacks can decide for whites what's offensive, but white's can't find something humorous that could offend blacks. I feel a blogpost on double standards coming.
-- I'm not sure which Redbox offering was more confusing: the latest Thor installment or The Counselor.
-- Aaron Burr was a genuine jackass.
-- Never was I happier to have a faulty olfactory sense than yesterday when I picked up thirty pounds of bulldog ordure left over from our long winter.
-- While in Costco Saturday, some guy actually tried to run me over with a shopping cart. I'm not sure if that made me madder than the same problem I have finding parking at that store, but someone almost had a problem that required a trip to the hospital, and it wasn't me.
-- I still don't understand the attraction of the Insane Clown Posse. But their followers are no more gangsters than are college football fans.
-- Some attorney has asserted a unique defense for his client accused of rape: He's too handsome to rape a woman. I wonder if Ted Bundy had tried that he'd have been acquitted of murder.
-- Mudslides, brushfires, earthquakes and flash floods. Worse still, Hollywood is located there. Why would anyone want to live in California?
-- I really don't get the fuss about zombies. Between them and superheroes, Hollywood never has to write a thoughtful script again. Just trot out the make believe monsters and heroes and watch the cash come in.
-- The Department of Justice made a school take down bleachers for the baseball field that were paid for and put up by the parents and not the school because they were better than the ones at the girls' softball field. There is a blogpost coming on political correctness in the near future, with this as its centerpiece.
-- How can anyone want defend the Brits after a hospital there used upwards of 15,000 fetuses to heat the building? Is Godwin's Law going to forbid comparison of this with the concentration camps crematoria?
-- Lately, there have been some very, very immature and shortsighted children on Facebook laughing at our servicemen and the injuries they've suffered to let twits like them continue to utter their inanities. It's time mandatory military service were reestablished.
-- Jonathan Pollard must never be let out of prison. Treason deserves a life sentence without chance or parole, if not death.
-- I can't figure gas prices. One day it's $3.43 a gallon, the next it's $3.85, then a couple of days later it's down to $3.63. Are prices fluctuating every time Vladimir Putin has a bowel movement?
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
-- The FLOTUS went to China with her daughters. I don't begrudge her and them that trip, as I think it's a wonderful opportunity for them. But could they just lighten the golf trips to Hawaii while people are struggling to comply with Obamacare?
-- For once, I may actually pay attention to the mid-term elections. This could be fun.
-- I don't know where flight 370 is and at this point I no longer care. We had three citizens on that plane, and we've dedicated more than enough resources to finding it. The Chinese have many more people on that flight, it's closer to them and they own our debt. Let them find the darned thing.
-- So Piers Morgan went out defiantly last week. Good riddance. This is what happens when you put a yappy, snobby, self-absorbed know-it-all Brit in charge of discussions about American culture.
-- Meanwhile, Bill Maher had a surprise segment on racism and how kneejerk reactions are often wrong. It's either a full moon phase or Earth is spinning off its axis.
-- Nick Cannon appeared on something called Instagram in whiteface to promote some project. Reacting to criticism of the move, Mr. Cannon said there's a difference between humor and oppression. Apparently, blacks can decide for whites what's offensive, but white's can't find something humorous that could offend blacks. I feel a blogpost on double standards coming.
-- I'm not sure which Redbox offering was more confusing: the latest Thor installment or The Counselor.
-- Aaron Burr was a genuine jackass.
-- Never was I happier to have a faulty olfactory sense than yesterday when I picked up thirty pounds of bulldog ordure left over from our long winter.
-- While in Costco Saturday, some guy actually tried to run me over with a shopping cart. I'm not sure if that made me madder than the same problem I have finding parking at that store, but someone almost had a problem that required a trip to the hospital, and it wasn't me.
-- I still don't understand the attraction of the Insane Clown Posse. But their followers are no more gangsters than are college football fans.
-- Some attorney has asserted a unique defense for his client accused of rape: He's too handsome to rape a woman. I wonder if Ted Bundy had tried that he'd have been acquitted of murder.
-- Mudslides, brushfires, earthquakes and flash floods. Worse still, Hollywood is located there. Why would anyone want to live in California?
-- I really don't get the fuss about zombies. Between them and superheroes, Hollywood never has to write a thoughtful script again. Just trot out the make believe monsters and heroes and watch the cash come in.
-- The Department of Justice made a school take down bleachers for the baseball field that were paid for and put up by the parents and not the school because they were better than the ones at the girls' softball field. There is a blogpost coming on political correctness in the near future, with this as its centerpiece.
-- How can anyone want defend the Brits after a hospital there used upwards of 15,000 fetuses to heat the building? Is Godwin's Law going to forbid comparison of this with the concentration camps crematoria?
-- Lately, there have been some very, very immature and shortsighted children on Facebook laughing at our servicemen and the injuries they've suffered to let twits like them continue to utter their inanities. It's time mandatory military service were reestablished.
-- Jonathan Pollard must never be let out of prison. Treason deserves a life sentence without chance or parole, if not death.
-- I can't figure gas prices. One day it's $3.43 a gallon, the next it's $3.85, then a couple of days later it's down to $3.63. Are prices fluctuating every time Vladimir Putin has a bowel movement?
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)