People who are in the United States illegally need to realize that
President Barack Obama's immigration proposal [even if he is
sincere] could a trap. People who identify themselves to the
government could be the first to be deported if Republicans
can get the courts to invalidate the plan or a Republican is
elected president in 2016. Those who are living in the United
States illegally need to "stay in the shadows" until they can be
guaranteed amnesty if they "come out of the shadows".
President Obama may mean well with his proposal, but,
considering his recent security problems, illegal immigrants can't
be sure something bad won't happen to him before there is actual
approval of an amnesty plan. Considering how
passionately some people have been on the immigration issue, Obama's
action may increase the likelihood that some crackpot will try to
attack him.
Another potential problem is that his unilateral action may
anger enough Congressional Republicans to reduce the potential for
Congressional action.
There certainly will be one or more attempts to have the courts
invalidate the plan. With Republicans in control
of both houses of Congress there could be a revival of the birth
certificate issue that would force Obama to produce his real birth
certificate or at least a better forgery than the last
one. The last "birth certificate" Obama posted on line
was an obvious forgery because it listed his father's race as
"African". The word "African" cannot be used for race
because two different so called races live in Africa: a dark
skinned "race" south of the Sahara and a lighted skinned "race"
north of the Sahara that is considered "white". If
Republicans could proved Obama is qualified to be president than any
immigration proposal he made would be invalid.
A moratorium on deportation of otherwise law abiding immigrants is
appropriate while there is a possibility of immigration
reform. It would be unfair to deport some family just before
action that would allow them to remain here legally.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Are Redskins Ashamed of Their Complexion?
I'm attempting to understand why some of the descendants of the
people Christopher Columbus called "Indians" say they are ashamed to
be called "redskins".
The only explanation I can think of is they are ashamed that they are not white or perhaps they are simply ashamed of their heritage.
In the 1950's many black Americans were ashamed of their color. They tried to bleach their skin and straighten their hair to look more like white people. In the early sixties someone discovered a statement abolitionist John Sweat Rock had made a century earlier. Rock said, "black is beautiful". Many black Americans recognized that Rock was correct.
Black is just as beautiful as white and so is red. Many white Americans think the complexion of the Navajo, Cherokee etc. is so much better than theirs that they are willing to bake themselves in the sun for hours to get their complexion the same color the Navajo and Cherokee are born with. So why would those who are born with such a desirable complexion be ashamed?
Over 200 years ago leaders of the Piankeshaw, Osage, Santee Sioux and Meskwaki nations referred to themselves as "redskins". The great Shawnee nation leader Tecumseh in his speech to the Osage nation in 1811 used the terms "red men" and "red children [of the Great Spirit]". If the original redskins found the term acceptable, why don't today's redskins? Do today's redskins think they are unworthy of the name used by their ancestors?
If people have a negative view of an ethnic group any word used to describe members of the group will be negative. In 1850, one of the worst things you could call someone was "Irish". In northern states they ranked below blacks. On southern docks they were given jobs too dangerous to risk the lives of slaves on
There were numerous slurs for the Irish. For example, blacks often called the Irish "white [n-word]s". Urban whites used the term "green [ n-word]" However, people didn't need to use a slur for the Irish because of the negative attitudes people had about the Irish. This attitude was most commonly shown in "Help Wanted" signs that included the phrase "no Irish need apply".
Incidentally, centuries before Andrew Jackson moved the Cherokee to Oklahoma, the English moved much of the Irish population from Ireland to North America and the West Indies.
The words "redskin" and "Irish" don't have any inherently negative implications as is the case with the n-word and the word "native". Using the word "redskins" provides a unique one word name for the peoples of the various North American nations .
Using color to distinguish one group of Americans from another implies the differences between them are only cosmetic and members of one group are not inherently better than members of the other group.
Using the word "Indian" for redskins requires adding the adjective "American" to distinguish them from the residents of India.
Using the word "native" requires adding the word "American" to distinguish them from all the different groups of peoples around the world called "native". In old movies and television shows the term "native" was used for unnamed primitive original residents of the areas white people were visiting or had taken over. The castaways on the "Gilligan's Island" television show were occasionally visited by "natives" from other islands.
The Irish didn't let slurs and mistreatment keep them down. They persevered and made "Irish" a respected name.
In 1968, James Brown released his most important song "Say it Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud". It became the theme song for the black power movement.
Redskins nee d to take similar pride in their complexions. They need to tell everyone they are proud their skin is "red".
The old leaders who called themselves "redskins" stood up to the white man. Native Americans take orders from whites.
Redskins were free and independent people. Native Americans often live on reservations overseen by the government.
The leaders who called themselves "redskins" were self reliant and self confident. Native Americans often appear to lack self confidence.
The only explanation I can think of is they are ashamed that they are not white or perhaps they are simply ashamed of their heritage.
In the 1950's many black Americans were ashamed of their color. They tried to bleach their skin and straighten their hair to look more like white people. In the early sixties someone discovered a statement abolitionist John Sweat Rock had made a century earlier. Rock said, "black is beautiful". Many black Americans recognized that Rock was correct.
Black is just as beautiful as white and so is red. Many white Americans think the complexion of the Navajo, Cherokee etc. is so much better than theirs that they are willing to bake themselves in the sun for hours to get their complexion the same color the Navajo and Cherokee are born with. So why would those who are born with such a desirable complexion be ashamed?
Over 200 years ago leaders of the Piankeshaw, Osage, Santee Sioux and Meskwaki nations referred to themselves as "redskins". The great Shawnee nation leader Tecumseh in his speech to the Osage nation in 1811 used the terms "red men" and "red children [of the Great Spirit]". If the original redskins found the term acceptable, why don't today's redskins? Do today's redskins think they are unworthy of the name used by their ancestors?
If people have a negative view of an ethnic group any word used to describe members of the group will be negative. In 1850, one of the worst things you could call someone was "Irish". In northern states they ranked below blacks. On southern docks they were given jobs too dangerous to risk the lives of slaves on
There were numerous slurs for the Irish. For example, blacks often called the Irish "white [n-word]s". Urban whites used the term "green [ n-word]" However, people didn't need to use a slur for the Irish because of the negative attitudes people had about the Irish. This attitude was most commonly shown in "Help Wanted" signs that included the phrase "no Irish need apply".
Incidentally, centuries before Andrew Jackson moved the Cherokee to Oklahoma, the English moved much of the Irish population from Ireland to North America and the West Indies.
The words "redskin" and "Irish" don't have any inherently negative implications as is the case with the n-word and the word "native". Using the word "redskins" provides a unique one word name for the peoples of the various North American nations .
Using color to distinguish one group of Americans from another implies the differences between them are only cosmetic and members of one group are not inherently better than members of the other group.
Using the word "Indian" for redskins requires adding the adjective "American" to distinguish them from the residents of India.
Using the word "native" requires adding the word "American" to distinguish them from all the different groups of peoples around the world called "native". In old movies and television shows the term "native" was used for unnamed primitive original residents of the areas white people were visiting or had taken over. The castaways on the "Gilligan's Island" television show were occasionally visited by "natives" from other islands.
The Irish didn't let slurs and mistreatment keep them down. They persevered and made "Irish" a respected name.
In 1968, James Brown released his most important song "Say it Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud". It became the theme song for the black power movement.
Redskins nee d to take similar pride in their complexions. They need to tell everyone they are proud their skin is "red".
The old leaders who called themselves "redskins" stood up to the white man. Native Americans take orders from whites.
Redskins were free and independent people. Native Americans often live on reservations overseen by the government.
The leaders who called themselves "redskins" were self reliant and self confident. Native Americans often appear to lack self confidence.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Did Ukraine Air Force Cause MH17 Crash?
Did a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25 in effect guide a missile from
a Buk missile launcher to Malaysian flight MH17?
Did Russian separatists fire at an Su-25 which had dropped down
toward the ground after flying as an "escort" and then began
climbing back up toward MH17 with the missile on its tail?
[Note: I've delayed posting this because of recent reports attributed to unnamed American intelligence sources supporting a theory that a Ukrainian air force plane shot down MH17 after it deviated from the normal course. Ukrainian authorities could have interpreted the different course as an indication of a plane controlled by terrorists. We will need to watch this theory to see if it replaces the theory that a Buk missile brought down MH17. For now the Buk theory seems to provide the best explanation.]
Russian authorities report that there was an Su-25 approaching MH17 prior to the disaster. “A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km [about 3 miles],” the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov told a press conference. Air Force Lieutenant-General Igor Makushev said the Ukrainian jet was "scrambling in the direction of the Malaysian Boeing."
The Russian descriptions of the Su-25's flight is consistent with a plane coming up to the MH17 as would have been the case if it had dropped down to investigate or attack a ground target. If the Su-25 had merely been escorting MH17 it would have been flying at a constant height and been matching the speed of the airliner. It can climb at the rate of 2 miles per minute which means it could travel from near ground level to an elevation of 3-5 km below the MH17 in a couple of minutes.
Gen. Makushev's use of the word "scramble" is significant because the term is used to describe the behavior of a pilot getting in position to deal with a threat. A pilot attempting to get away from a missile would fly in a similar hurried way.
WashingtonsBlog reports that "a Youtube video made a month before Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down alleges that Ukranian fighter jets were hiding behind passenger planes, pulling away temporarily, dropping bombs on Ukrainian separatists, and then hiding again behind the plane. "
The Aviationist reports that Su-27 Flanker jets had been escorting civilian jets over Ukraine.
If Russian separatists were operating a Buk missile system that shot down MH17, they likely would have been inexperienced. They might not have understood the transponder codes in the radar readout or been too preoccupied with shooting down the Su-25 to notice MH17. Inexperienced operators would likely have relied on visual identification of potential targets and merely used the radar to guide the missile to its target. Smart guerrilla fighters know to keep the radar turned off unless they know they have a possible target because the enemy could detect the electronic signature of the radar. They might have visually identified the Su-25 and quickly fired without bothering to check to see if other aircraft were in the area. Aviation Week reports that the Buk system can have a problem distinguishing among different potential targets if it doesn't have the appropriate support equipment.
If the Su-25 was headed toward MH17, the MH17 might have been mistakenly been targeted or a slight change in course by the Su-25 could have resulted in MH17 becoming the target. I'm not familiar with the handling characteristics of the Buk missile, but a missile traveling at 2,000 mph [0.5 miles per second] requires a significant distance to change directions.
Separatists could have thought the presence of the Su-25's meant the larger plane was a high value target.
I recognize the possibility that Ukrainian troops might have shot down MH17 so they could blame the action on Russian separatists, but it seems unlikely Ukrainian troops would deliberately have taken a chance on firing at MH17 with their own jets so close. The site "abovetopsecret" claims that the U.S has satellite imagery indicating Ukrainian troops, who may have been fooling around while drinking, might have launched the missile either by accident or as a badly timed prank. Blacklisted.com also supports this scenario. We see this scenario occasionally in military themed comedy movies or television episodes but don't expect such things to happen in real life. This plausible scenario could explain why American authorities started calling the incident an "accident". In the movies such accidents result in victims in tattered clothes and apparent soot on exposed skin. Victims of real . life "accidents" are seldom so fortunate.
Ukrainian and American authorities have accused the Russian government of providing the Buk launcher to the separatists, but it isn't unusual for rebel forces to steal weapons and munitions from the government. Individuals in government sympathetic to the rebels sometimes aid this process. Ukrainian separatists likely have agents in the Ukrainian military like the Viet Cong did in the South Vietnamese army. Commanders who have had large items stolen might be reluctant to tell their superiors about their losses. They may lie and say the stolen items were destroyed. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong sometimes used stolen weapons against us.
If Russian weapons are being provided, individual commanders,rather than senior military officials might be responsible. Individual commanders might occasionally "loan" weapons to separatists who might be friends or relatives, Military units sometimes rely on "unofficial actions" in such situations. In the movies a crusty old 1st sergeant will take some action he knows his commanding officer wants done, but has been ordered not to do.
Both Russia and the United States have assisted rebel groups in many countries in recent decades. The Russian government is under pressure from friends and relatives of ethnic Russians in Ukraine to assist the separatists. In the 19th Century the United States went to war with Mexico to support "separatists" in Texas and California who wanted independence from Mexico.
[Note: I've delayed posting this because of recent reports attributed to unnamed American intelligence sources supporting a theory that a Ukrainian air force plane shot down MH17 after it deviated from the normal course. Ukrainian authorities could have interpreted the different course as an indication of a plane controlled by terrorists. We will need to watch this theory to see if it replaces the theory that a Buk missile brought down MH17. For now the Buk theory seems to provide the best explanation.]
Russian authorities report that there was an Su-25 approaching MH17 prior to the disaster. “A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km [about 3 miles],” the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov told a press conference. Air Force Lieutenant-General Igor Makushev said the Ukrainian jet was "scrambling in the direction of the Malaysian Boeing."
The Russian descriptions of the Su-25's flight is consistent with a plane coming up to the MH17 as would have been the case if it had dropped down to investigate or attack a ground target. If the Su-25 had merely been escorting MH17 it would have been flying at a constant height and been matching the speed of the airliner. It can climb at the rate of 2 miles per minute which means it could travel from near ground level to an elevation of 3-5 km below the MH17 in a couple of minutes.
Gen. Makushev's use of the word "scramble" is significant because the term is used to describe the behavior of a pilot getting in position to deal with a threat. A pilot attempting to get away from a missile would fly in a similar hurried way.
WashingtonsBlog reports that "a Youtube video made a month before Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down alleges that Ukranian fighter jets were hiding behind passenger planes, pulling away temporarily, dropping bombs on Ukrainian separatists, and then hiding again behind the plane. "
The Aviationist reports that Su-27 Flanker jets had been escorting civilian jets over Ukraine.
If Russian separatists were operating a Buk missile system that shot down MH17, they likely would have been inexperienced. They might not have understood the transponder codes in the radar readout or been too preoccupied with shooting down the Su-25 to notice MH17. Inexperienced operators would likely have relied on visual identification of potential targets and merely used the radar to guide the missile to its target. Smart guerrilla fighters know to keep the radar turned off unless they know they have a possible target because the enemy could detect the electronic signature of the radar. They might have visually identified the Su-25 and quickly fired without bothering to check to see if other aircraft were in the area. Aviation Week reports that the Buk system can have a problem distinguishing among different potential targets if it doesn't have the appropriate support equipment.
If the Su-25 was headed toward MH17, the MH17 might have been mistakenly been targeted or a slight change in course by the Su-25 could have resulted in MH17 becoming the target. I'm not familiar with the handling characteristics of the Buk missile, but a missile traveling at 2,000 mph [0.5 miles per second] requires a significant distance to change directions.
Separatists could have thought the presence of the Su-25's meant the larger plane was a high value target.
I recognize the possibility that Ukrainian troops might have shot down MH17 so they could blame the action on Russian separatists, but it seems unlikely Ukrainian troops would deliberately have taken a chance on firing at MH17 with their own jets so close. The site "abovetopsecret" claims that the U.S has satellite imagery indicating Ukrainian troops, who may have been fooling around while drinking, might have launched the missile either by accident or as a badly timed prank. Blacklisted.com also supports this scenario. We see this scenario occasionally in military themed comedy movies or television episodes but don't expect such things to happen in real life. This plausible scenario could explain why American authorities started calling the incident an "accident". In the movies such accidents result in victims in tattered clothes and apparent soot on exposed skin. Victims of real . life "accidents" are seldom so fortunate.
Ukrainian and American authorities have accused the Russian government of providing the Buk launcher to the separatists, but it isn't unusual for rebel forces to steal weapons and munitions from the government. Individuals in government sympathetic to the rebels sometimes aid this process. Ukrainian separatists likely have agents in the Ukrainian military like the Viet Cong did in the South Vietnamese army. Commanders who have had large items stolen might be reluctant to tell their superiors about their losses. They may lie and say the stolen items were destroyed. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong sometimes used stolen weapons against us.
If Russian weapons are being provided, individual commanders,rather than senior military officials might be responsible. Individual commanders might occasionally "loan" weapons to separatists who might be friends or relatives, Military units sometimes rely on "unofficial actions" in such situations. In the movies a crusty old 1st sergeant will take some action he knows his commanding officer wants done, but has been ordered not to do.
Both Russia and the United States have assisted rebel groups in many countries in recent decades. The Russian government is under pressure from friends and relatives of ethnic Russians in Ukraine to assist the separatists. In the 19th Century the United States went to war with Mexico to support "separatists" in Texas and California who wanted independence from Mexico.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
"Native Americans" a Much Worse Term than "Redskins"
The white hypocrites who complain about the term "redskins"
use the term "native American" which when used in the way they are
using it isn't much better than the other n-word. The
word "redskins" is a physically descriptive term that doesn't have
inherently negative characteristics. The word is one of
the English translations of the Ottawa term "Oklahoma".
If we consider the characteristics of the people the term "redskins"
was first applied to, it's a positive term.
The word "native" has two different uses. In general use the term "native " followed by a geographic region is used to indicate people who live in the area in which they are born. For example, a native New Yorker is someone who was born in New York and still lives there. In this context what counts is where the individual was born, not when his or her ancestors arrived from somewhere else. Those of us who were born in the United States are all native Americans even if we didn't have ancestors who called themselves Cherokee, Cheyenne or Lakota. Except for the eleven months I spent in Vietnam I've lived all my life in the United States so I would be a native American even if I hadn't had an ancestor who moved to the frontier shortly after the American Revolution and married a woman who was probably Shawnee or Kickapoo. Residents of Mexico and the other countries on the land mass called "America" are also natives of America.
The context in which whites have used the term "native" when referring to non-whites is highly negative. In movies made during the period European nations had colonies in Asia and Africa, when whites used the word "native" to refer to non-whites the implication was that the "natives" were inferior and possibly primitive, uncivilized or even "savages". The best example of this practice is the old jungle movie cliche "the natives are restless tonight" which was used when the natives were beating on drums and making other sounds. The white characters never considered the possibility that the "natives" just wanted to listen to drum music. If the natives were making noises they must have been "restless " about something. "Native" is used as a generic term for local residents whose identity isn't considered important.
Whites have often used the word "savage" to describe non-whites who use violence even though whites at times have used the same type of violence. The most recent example of white savagery is the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.
Those who criticize the term "redskin" ignore the characteristics of the people it referred to when it was used centuries ago. The original "redskins" lived on their own lands and provided for their own needs. They often lived alongside whites and sold land to them. They had their own medical knowledge, but much of it was lost because whites were too stupid to recognize its value. They had their own culture including music and the visual arts although they lacked an inexpensive permanent medium to record their literature. The Hopi even had an extended creation account which included mass extinction events involving fire and cold as well as a flood like Noah's. In recent years scholars who study earth's history have supported theories about mass extinctions caused by cold and fire.
The redskins sometimes lived at peace with each other and the white skins and at other times fought them. The white nations sometimes lived at peace with each other and sometimes fought each other. The white skins sometimes paid redskins to kill other white skins or paid for the scalps of redskins. Redskins were warriors who fought to protect their way of life. Captain French to Major Reno: "Too many blasted redskins with new Winchesters" defeated Custer at the Battle of Little Bighorn.
The redskins were not defeated. They were inundated by a flood of Europeans.
Referring to the original inhabitants as "redskins" is consistent with calling Europeans "whites". There is nothing inherently wrong with the color red. It is the color used in both the British and American flags. The British army during and after the colonial period wore red. Roman Catholic Cardinals wear red. In the Bible the words of Jesus Christ are sometimes printed in red. Various sports teams include the color red in their names: such as Boston Red Sox, Cincinnati Reds, University of Alabama Crimson Tide and Texas Tech University Red Raiders.
The redskins term doesn't have any inherently negative characteristics. Any negatives are based on the stereotyped view of the people it refers to.
"Redskins" is a much stronger name than "native American". Try sounding tough while saying "I'm a native American" Now try it saying "I'm a redskin". Redskins resisted being imprisoned on reservations. Native Americans live on them.
I don't know if my limited North American ancestry is enough for anyone to claim me, but I would rather be called a "redskin" than a "native American"[except in the context in which everyone born in the U.S. is a native American.]
Many Republicans are trying to have President Ronald Reagan's face placed on the $50 bill to replace President Ulysses S. Grant. A better choice would be to have Reagan replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Jackson's mistreatment of the Cherokee should disqualify him from having his face on money.
The word "native" has two different uses. In general use the term "native " followed by a geographic region is used to indicate people who live in the area in which they are born. For example, a native New Yorker is someone who was born in New York and still lives there. In this context what counts is where the individual was born, not when his or her ancestors arrived from somewhere else. Those of us who were born in the United States are all native Americans even if we didn't have ancestors who called themselves Cherokee, Cheyenne or Lakota. Except for the eleven months I spent in Vietnam I've lived all my life in the United States so I would be a native American even if I hadn't had an ancestor who moved to the frontier shortly after the American Revolution and married a woman who was probably Shawnee or Kickapoo. Residents of Mexico and the other countries on the land mass called "America" are also natives of America.
The context in which whites have used the term "native" when referring to non-whites is highly negative. In movies made during the period European nations had colonies in Asia and Africa, when whites used the word "native" to refer to non-whites the implication was that the "natives" were inferior and possibly primitive, uncivilized or even "savages". The best example of this practice is the old jungle movie cliche "the natives are restless tonight" which was used when the natives were beating on drums and making other sounds. The white characters never considered the possibility that the "natives" just wanted to listen to drum music. If the natives were making noises they must have been "restless " about something. "Native" is used as a generic term for local residents whose identity isn't considered important.
Whites have often used the word "savage" to describe non-whites who use violence even though whites at times have used the same type of violence. The most recent example of white savagery is the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.
Those who criticize the term "redskin" ignore the characteristics of the people it referred to when it was used centuries ago. The original "redskins" lived on their own lands and provided for their own needs. They often lived alongside whites and sold land to them. They had their own medical knowledge, but much of it was lost because whites were too stupid to recognize its value. They had their own culture including music and the visual arts although they lacked an inexpensive permanent medium to record their literature. The Hopi even had an extended creation account which included mass extinction events involving fire and cold as well as a flood like Noah's. In recent years scholars who study earth's history have supported theories about mass extinctions caused by cold and fire.
The redskins sometimes lived at peace with each other and the white skins and at other times fought them. The white nations sometimes lived at peace with each other and sometimes fought each other. The white skins sometimes paid redskins to kill other white skins or paid for the scalps of redskins. Redskins were warriors who fought to protect their way of life. Captain French to Major Reno: "Too many blasted redskins with new Winchesters" defeated Custer at the Battle of Little Bighorn.
The redskins were not defeated. They were inundated by a flood of Europeans.
Referring to the original inhabitants as "redskins" is consistent with calling Europeans "whites". There is nothing inherently wrong with the color red. It is the color used in both the British and American flags. The British army during and after the colonial period wore red. Roman Catholic Cardinals wear red. In the Bible the words of Jesus Christ are sometimes printed in red. Various sports teams include the color red in their names: such as Boston Red Sox, Cincinnati Reds, University of Alabama Crimson Tide and Texas Tech University Red Raiders.
The redskins term doesn't have any inherently negative characteristics. Any negatives are based on the stereotyped view of the people it refers to.
"Redskins" is a much stronger name than "native American". Try sounding tough while saying "I'm a native American" Now try it saying "I'm a redskin". Redskins resisted being imprisoned on reservations. Native Americans live on them.
I don't know if my limited North American ancestry is enough for anyone to claim me, but I would rather be called a "redskin" than a "native American"[except in the context in which everyone born in the U.S. is a native American.]
Many Republicans are trying to have President Ronald Reagan's face placed on the $50 bill to replace President Ulysses S. Grant. A better choice would be to have Reagan replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Jackson's mistreatment of the Cherokee should disqualify him from having his face on money.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Is the NBA Above the Law?
The NBA's handling of the Donald Sterling controversy has a
definite odor to it and it's not from sweaty socks. In
April, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver decided that the NBA was
above the law and thus didn't have to obey laws that interfered in
the NBA's decisions. In its haste to get rid of Los
Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling the NBA violated a
California law that prohibits use of statements made in secret
private recordings as a basis of punishment for an individual.
On April 25, TMZ released a secretly made illegal recording of an argument between Sterling and his girl friend V. Stiviano about her male companions. A controversy developed when some claimed Sterling's comments were racist. Four days later after what was likely only a cursory investigation, Silver imposed a fine, banned Sterling from NBA events and ordered the sale of the team.
California law explicitly bans recording a person's voice without his knowledge. The law further states that such secret recordings cannot be used against a person in a court of law. If government cannot use such evidence to take a person's property, how can a private business do so? Is the NBA more powerful than the State of California? Is the NBA above the law?
Our system of justice is based on the philosophy that it is more important for government to obey the law than to punish lawbreakers. If a police officer fails to advise someone he arrests of the suspect's constitutional rights and the individual confesses to murder, the confession must be thrown out because the law requires that those who are arrested be advised of their rights.
It Sterling had confessed to murder in a secret recording, the state would not have been able to use the recording to convict him. So where does the NBA get the authority to punish him for saying something unpopular during a lovers' quarrel? When people quarrel with people they are emotionally involved with they often say things they don't mean and wouldn't normally say. For example, a little girl arguing with her mother might say "I hate you" under the effect of the emotions involved in an argument.
The fine and lifetime ban imposed on Sterling by NBA commissioner Adam Silver are illegal and should be rescinded. The order to sell the team is also illegal, but the incident created such a negative public attitude to the Sterlings association with the team that Shelley Sterling had no real choice but to sell.
The negative attitude means the new owner should seriously consider moving the team and changing its name. When people develop a negative attitude to an individual or organization the negative attitude may remain long after they have forgotten why they developed the negative attitude. Many people will remember the controversial statements as coming from the "owner of the Clippers" rather than someone named Donald Sterling. These individuals may ignore the change in ownership and think the new owner made the statements.
Some have suggested that Sterling has a "plantation owner's attitude" to the team. I suspect many sports franchise owners have some degree of this attitude and it has nothing to do with the color of the athletes on the team. For example the decision by National Football League owners to ignore a concussion problem among NFL players might indicate a "plantation owner's attitude".
Adam Silver's seems to have a "Godfather's" attitude toward those in his organization. He feels he can ignore the law when dealing with those in his organization. Our system of laws is of little value if private organizations can ignore the laws of evidence and impose whatever punishments they want to impose. The word "vigilante" is used to describe those who convict individuals and impose penalties outside the law,
On April 25, TMZ released a secretly made illegal recording of an argument between Sterling and his girl friend V. Stiviano about her male companions. A controversy developed when some claimed Sterling's comments were racist. Four days later after what was likely only a cursory investigation, Silver imposed a fine, banned Sterling from NBA events and ordered the sale of the team.
California law explicitly bans recording a person's voice without his knowledge. The law further states that such secret recordings cannot be used against a person in a court of law. If government cannot use such evidence to take a person's property, how can a private business do so? Is the NBA more powerful than the State of California? Is the NBA above the law?
Our system of justice is based on the philosophy that it is more important for government to obey the law than to punish lawbreakers. If a police officer fails to advise someone he arrests of the suspect's constitutional rights and the individual confesses to murder, the confession must be thrown out because the law requires that those who are arrested be advised of their rights.
It Sterling had confessed to murder in a secret recording, the state would not have been able to use the recording to convict him. So where does the NBA get the authority to punish him for saying something unpopular during a lovers' quarrel? When people quarrel with people they are emotionally involved with they often say things they don't mean and wouldn't normally say. For example, a little girl arguing with her mother might say "I hate you" under the effect of the emotions involved in an argument.
The fine and lifetime ban imposed on Sterling by NBA commissioner Adam Silver are illegal and should be rescinded. The order to sell the team is also illegal, but the incident created such a negative public attitude to the Sterlings association with the team that Shelley Sterling had no real choice but to sell.
The negative attitude means the new owner should seriously consider moving the team and changing its name. When people develop a negative attitude to an individual or organization the negative attitude may remain long after they have forgotten why they developed the negative attitude. Many people will remember the controversial statements as coming from the "owner of the Clippers" rather than someone named Donald Sterling. These individuals may ignore the change in ownership and think the new owner made the statements.
Some have suggested that Sterling has a "plantation owner's attitude" to the team. I suspect many sports franchise owners have some degree of this attitude and it has nothing to do with the color of the athletes on the team. For example the decision by National Football League owners to ignore a concussion problem among NFL players might indicate a "plantation owner's attitude".
Adam Silver's seems to have a "Godfather's" attitude toward those in his organization. He feels he can ignore the law when dealing with those in his organization. Our system of laws is of little value if private organizations can ignore the laws of evidence and impose whatever punishments they want to impose. The word "vigilante" is used to describe those who convict individuals and impose penalties outside the law,
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
NBA Action More Racist than Sterling's Statements
The NBA has criticized L.A. Clipper owner Donald Sterling for his
statements that many regard as racist. However, shortly after the
recording of his conversation became public the NBA took an
action that was a racist insult to the black players of the L.A.
Clippers. The NBA offered to make a "grief
counselor" available to the Clippers.
Grief counselors are often provided to children to help them cope with the death of a classmate. The NBA commissioner's office essentially was indicating that it believed the Clippers were such immature children that a minor questionable statement was the emotional equivalent of a death. I can understand the black players being upset by Sterling's statement, but not grieving about the statement.
Discussion of Sterling's comment to V. Stiviano about attending games with black athletes has focused on what was said and ignored the situation itself. His decision to order her not to attend games with black athletes is consistent with the behavior of a man who is having trouble getting a daughter or granddaughter to follow his advice.
He doesn't explain his reasoning very well, a common occurrence when a man tries to offer dating advice to someone young enough to be his granddaughter. He appears have been attempting to warn her of the sexist stereotype image of NBA players, especially black players, that comics have encouraged with jokes about NBA players leaving children all over the country. I don't know the attitudes of L.A. residents, but, putting it bluntly, Sterling is suggesting that people will think she's just some kind of a sex toy if she attends a game with black athletes, especially admitted lothario Magic Johnson. He seems to have been attempting to warn her of the attitudes of others rather than talking about his own attitudes.
Johnson along with the late Wilt Chamberlain are largely responsible for creating the [probably exaggerated] image that NBA players are frogs rather than princes. A frog jumps from bed to bed. A prince is devoted to his princess. Chamberlain claimed to have sex with over 20,000 women. Johnson claimed he once had 300- 500 sex partners per year.
A passage from a book by Jerry West says: “That November, as a new season was set to open, Magic Johnson announced to the world that he was HIV positive, a stunning event that brought revelations about the climate of sexual frivolity around the Lakers. Johnson admitted he had been sleeping with 300-500 people a year. The team’s locker room, and its sauna, had been a place where the star and other players had entertained women, even right after games. Johnson would retire to the sauna after a game, have sex, then put on a robe and return to the locker room for his post-game media interviews. How far had the team gone in condoning such questionable behavior? ‘I cared,’ West said in his interviews for this book. ‘I did things for those guys. It was ridiculous, some of the things I did for those guys. If the public knew they’d be outraged. It was a pretty crazy period for us.’"
Kobe Bryant was arrested for rape in 2003 when he misinterpreted a visit by a female hotel employee and thought she was there for sex like the other women he normally attracted.
After my first post on this subject I received an email about Rev. Russ Weaver's sermon titled "Easily Offended" that he delivered that week on Cowboy Church. Weaver's most important is that people can choose to be a "Victim" who lets himself be offended or a "Victor" who doesn't allow someone to control him with mere words. I'll remind readers that I'm a Vietnam Vet so I know what it's like to be called names.
Grief counselors are often provided to children to help them cope with the death of a classmate. The NBA commissioner's office essentially was indicating that it believed the Clippers were such immature children that a minor questionable statement was the emotional equivalent of a death. I can understand the black players being upset by Sterling's statement, but not grieving about the statement.
Discussion of Sterling's comment to V. Stiviano about attending games with black athletes has focused on what was said and ignored the situation itself. His decision to order her not to attend games with black athletes is consistent with the behavior of a man who is having trouble getting a daughter or granddaughter to follow his advice.
He doesn't explain his reasoning very well, a common occurrence when a man tries to offer dating advice to someone young enough to be his granddaughter. He appears have been attempting to warn her of the sexist stereotype image of NBA players, especially black players, that comics have encouraged with jokes about NBA players leaving children all over the country. I don't know the attitudes of L.A. residents, but, putting it bluntly, Sterling is suggesting that people will think she's just some kind of a sex toy if she attends a game with black athletes, especially admitted lothario Magic Johnson. He seems to have been attempting to warn her of the attitudes of others rather than talking about his own attitudes.
Johnson along with the late Wilt Chamberlain are largely responsible for creating the [probably exaggerated] image that NBA players are frogs rather than princes. A frog jumps from bed to bed. A prince is devoted to his princess. Chamberlain claimed to have sex with over 20,000 women. Johnson claimed he once had 300- 500 sex partners per year.
A passage from a book by Jerry West says: “That November, as a new season was set to open, Magic Johnson announced to the world that he was HIV positive, a stunning event that brought revelations about the climate of sexual frivolity around the Lakers. Johnson admitted he had been sleeping with 300-500 people a year. The team’s locker room, and its sauna, had been a place where the star and other players had entertained women, even right after games. Johnson would retire to the sauna after a game, have sex, then put on a robe and return to the locker room for his post-game media interviews. How far had the team gone in condoning such questionable behavior? ‘I cared,’ West said in his interviews for this book. ‘I did things for those guys. It was ridiculous, some of the things I did for those guys. If the public knew they’d be outraged. It was a pretty crazy period for us.’"
Kobe Bryant was arrested for rape in 2003 when he misinterpreted a visit by a female hotel employee and thought she was there for sex like the other women he normally attracted.
After my first post on this subject I received an email about Rev. Russ Weaver's sermon titled "Easily Offended" that he delivered that week on Cowboy Church. Weaver's most important is that people can choose to be a "Victim" who lets himself be offended or a "Victor" who doesn't allow someone to control him with mere words. I'll remind readers that I'm a Vietnam Vet so I know what it's like to be called names.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Did NBA Violate California Law in Action Against Donald Sterling?
Stories about the recording of controversial statements by L.A.
Clippers Donald Sterling indicate the recording was made secretly
which implies the recording was made without his knowledge or
consent. It would seem unlikely that he would have agreed to
recording such a conversation unless he wasn't fully aware of what
was going on. Most of us would become suspicious if someone
other than a reporter or police officer asked to record a
conversation. How often do people decide to record
conversations with each other?
California is one of the states that prohibits private citizens from making audio recordings of people engaged in private conversations without the awareness and consent of all parties to the conversation.
Section 630-638 of the California Penal Code authorizes punishment of those who make such unauthorized recordings
If illegally recorded conversations cannot be used in a court of law, then they shouldn't be usable as evidence by private organizations such as the NBA.
Did the NBA ask Sterling if he was aware his conversation with V, Stiviano was being recorded? Did the NBA request a medical/mental evaluation of Sterling to determine if his medical condition including age and cancer treatment could have affected his participation in the conversation?
It could be argued that some of Sterling's comments are irrational. For example, he said he didn't mind Stiviano having sex with some individuals whom he didn't think she should be seen in public with. Some medical conditions might be detectable from his speech by an experienced doctor,
The most common interpretation of Sterling's statement about Stiviano coming to games with black players is that he is racist. However, he might have been attempting to warn her about the racism of others in an ineffective manner. Some comedians like to joke about NBA players fathering children all over the country based in part on the bragging of former NBA players such as Magic Johnson and the late Wilt Chamberlain. I suspect that the whole situation is exaggerated, but many people believe it. Sterling may have been worried that those who believe this stereotype might think Stiviano is sleeping around.
The whole incident involving Donald Sterlings smells. It sounds like a bad soap opera story line. Why would V. Stiviano make such a recording unless she was conspiring with someone to discredit Sterling? If the purpose of the recording was to get the NBA to take the franchise away from Sterling, the NBA needs to investigate because someone who would use such a tactic to gain control of an NBA franchise is morally unfit to own a professional sports franchise. For example, a person who engages in morally questionable actions might be potentially subject to blackmail by gamblers who might seek inside information about players' medical conditions.
California is one of the states that prohibits private citizens from making audio recordings of people engaged in private conversations without the awareness and consent of all parties to the conversation.
Section 630-638 of the California Penal Code authorizes punishment of those who make such unauthorized recordings
"by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,"Furthermore.
Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.
If illegally recorded conversations cannot be used in a court of law, then they shouldn't be usable as evidence by private organizations such as the NBA.
Did the NBA ask Sterling if he was aware his conversation with V, Stiviano was being recorded? Did the NBA request a medical/mental evaluation of Sterling to determine if his medical condition including age and cancer treatment could have affected his participation in the conversation?
It could be argued that some of Sterling's comments are irrational. For example, he said he didn't mind Stiviano having sex with some individuals whom he didn't think she should be seen in public with. Some medical conditions might be detectable from his speech by an experienced doctor,
The most common interpretation of Sterling's statement about Stiviano coming to games with black players is that he is racist. However, he might have been attempting to warn her about the racism of others in an ineffective manner. Some comedians like to joke about NBA players fathering children all over the country based in part on the bragging of former NBA players such as Magic Johnson and the late Wilt Chamberlain. I suspect that the whole situation is exaggerated, but many people believe it. Sterling may have been worried that those who believe this stereotype might think Stiviano is sleeping around.
The whole incident involving Donald Sterlings smells. It sounds like a bad soap opera story line. Why would V. Stiviano make such a recording unless she was conspiring with someone to discredit Sterling? If the purpose of the recording was to get the NBA to take the franchise away from Sterling, the NBA needs to investigate because someone who would use such a tactic to gain control of an NBA franchise is morally unfit to own a professional sports franchise. For example, a person who engages in morally questionable actions might be potentially subject to blackmail by gamblers who might seek inside information about players' medical conditions.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
NBA and Media Beat Up Man Fighting Cancer
Did the NBA in effect punish L.A. Clippers 80 year old owner Donald
Sterling because he is fighting prostate cancer?
The NBA has voted to force L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling to sell his team because of a secret recording in which he told his black girl friend he didn't want her to be seen in public, such as at Clippers games, with black men such as former basketball star Magic Johnson. He said he didn't mind her going to bed with such men. He just didn't want her to be in public with them.
I don't know the specifics of the current status of Sterling's prostate cancer, but it is possible his condition or treatment caused his comments to his girl friend V. Stiviano. I don't know if Sterling was undergoing chemotherapy at the time of his comments or whether the condition known as "chemo brain" might have affected his statement.
Prostate cancer can adversely affect a man's sexual abilities which could be particularly frustrating for a man who associates with an attractive young woman. NBA players have a reputation, at least among some comics, of being very sexually active. This reputation is due in part to former players such as Magic Johnson bragging about their sexual activities. I suspect that the reputation is exaggerated and based in part on racist beliefs about black men, but Sterling could have been especially frustrated seeing Stiviano with men whom he believed could easily do what he might be unable to do because of his cancer.
We aren't always consciously aware of why we feel a certain way or say certain things. The reasons may be locked in our subconscious. People sometimes hire professionals like tv's Dr. Phil to learn why they feel the way they do. Sterling may not have been consciously aware of why he said what he did to Stiviano and may have a mental block that prevents him from understanding why some people are upset by the statement.
Sterling's statement to Stiviano sounds more like frustration and jealousy than racism. He said he didn't mind her being with black men so long as he didn't see her with them. He was saying he didn't want her reminding him that someone else might be able to satisfy her in ways he would like to but cannot because of his cancer. He was probably too embarrassed to talk about his frustration to Stiviano directly. He was asking her in an intimate conversation to not do something that hurt him without explaining why that action hurt him.
The NBA's action against Sterling might be justifiable if he had made a public statement. However, the NBA had no business punishing Sterling for an intimate statement made to a close personal friend that may have been misrepresented by sensation seeking journalists who think everybody is as motivated by so-called "racial" differences as they are. It is the media that continues to push the myth that differences in skin color constitute racial differences by referring to Americans of different complexions as being of different races.
Stress can cause all of us to say things we don't really mean. We may even say things that hurt those we would not think of hurting in normal circumstances. Fighting cancer can be an extremely stressful situation.
Many of us were raised to believe that you shouldn't kick a man when he is down. America's media sharks seem to believe that is the best time to attack because the victim is less able to defend himself.
It would serve the NBA right if cancer survivors and those currently fighting cancer would boycott the NBA for mistreating a cancer patient.
The NBA has voted to force L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling to sell his team because of a secret recording in which he told his black girl friend he didn't want her to be seen in public, such as at Clippers games, with black men such as former basketball star Magic Johnson. He said he didn't mind her going to bed with such men. He just didn't want her to be in public with them.
I don't know the specifics of the current status of Sterling's prostate cancer, but it is possible his condition or treatment caused his comments to his girl friend V. Stiviano. I don't know if Sterling was undergoing chemotherapy at the time of his comments or whether the condition known as "chemo brain" might have affected his statement.
Prostate cancer can adversely affect a man's sexual abilities which could be particularly frustrating for a man who associates with an attractive young woman. NBA players have a reputation, at least among some comics, of being very sexually active. This reputation is due in part to former players such as Magic Johnson bragging about their sexual activities. I suspect that the reputation is exaggerated and based in part on racist beliefs about black men, but Sterling could have been especially frustrated seeing Stiviano with men whom he believed could easily do what he might be unable to do because of his cancer.
We aren't always consciously aware of why we feel a certain way or say certain things. The reasons may be locked in our subconscious. People sometimes hire professionals like tv's Dr. Phil to learn why they feel the way they do. Sterling may not have been consciously aware of why he said what he did to Stiviano and may have a mental block that prevents him from understanding why some people are upset by the statement.
Sterling's statement to Stiviano sounds more like frustration and jealousy than racism. He said he didn't mind her being with black men so long as he didn't see her with them. He was saying he didn't want her reminding him that someone else might be able to satisfy her in ways he would like to but cannot because of his cancer. He was probably too embarrassed to talk about his frustration to Stiviano directly. He was asking her in an intimate conversation to not do something that hurt him without explaining why that action hurt him.
The NBA's action against Sterling might be justifiable if he had made a public statement. However, the NBA had no business punishing Sterling for an intimate statement made to a close personal friend that may have been misrepresented by sensation seeking journalists who think everybody is as motivated by so-called "racial" differences as they are. It is the media that continues to push the myth that differences in skin color constitute racial differences by referring to Americans of different complexions as being of different races.
Stress can cause all of us to say things we don't really mean. We may even say things that hurt those we would not think of hurting in normal circumstances. Fighting cancer can be an extremely stressful situation.
Many of us were raised to believe that you shouldn't kick a man when he is down. America's media sharks seem to believe that is the best time to attack because the victim is less able to defend himself.
It would serve the NBA right if cancer survivors and those currently fighting cancer would boycott the NBA for mistreating a cancer patient.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Russia Should Follow U.S. Example in Eastern Ukraine
Russia should respond to the situation in the Ukraine by following
the precedent set by the United States in a comparable situation.
Russia should offer to purchase the Russian populated areas
whose residents want to leave Ukraine much like the United States purchased California from Mexico.
In the 1840's people from the United States had settled in parts of Mexico, but were not happy with the Mexican government. U.S. citizens in the Texas region had openly revolted and gained independence from Mexico. People in California were also interested in leaving Mexico. The United States annexed Texas and a border dispute led to war between the United States and Mexico. The United States won the war but instead of simply taking other territory from Mexico forced Mexico to sell California and additional areas to the United States. The United States also assumed some debts that Mexico owed to U.S citizens.
The Russians in the eastern Ukraine don't want to be part of Ukraine any more than the U.S. citizens in California and Texas wanted to be part of Mexico. Russia should help them leave by offering to purchase the region from Ukraine once the people of Ukraine vote for a new government. Government officials chosen in an election have authority from the people to act. Officials who came to power as a result of mob action have no authority from the people to act.
Russia should also consider compensating Ukraine for the its loss of Crimea. The separation of Crimea from Ukraine was comparable to a divorce. Often one party to a divorce will compensate the other by paying alimony to the other/ Russia could undermine claims that it "stole" Crimea by paying alimony to Ukraine. Paying for something isn't stealing.
The mob overthrow of a president from eastern Ukraine and talk of eliminating Russian as an official language indicates that many Ukrainians don't want Russians in their country. The presences of racist elements in the anti-government mob indicates the overthrow may have been in part motivated by ethnic prejudice. Russians in Ukraine fear that failure to allow the Russian region to leave Ukraine could result in use of violence against them.
Failure to allow the Russian region to leave could lead to prolonged efforts against the Ukraine government. European ethnic conflicts [such as the Basque conflict in Spain and the conflict between Irish Catholics and English Protestants in Northern Ireland] can last for generations.
Americans tend to think of ethnic conflicts in terms of differences in skin color, but differences in culture can produce the same results as was the case in Adolf Hitler's efforts to exterminate the Jewish people.
During the collapse of the Soviet empire, the residents of Czechoslovakia recognized that they would have a better chance of success if they split into two countries. Ukrainians made a mistake by keeping the arbitrary political boundaries set by the old Soviet Union. The Soviet Union to a large extent was a Russian empire. Keeping Russian regions in Ukraine means Ukrainians are still subject to control by politicians chosen in part by Russians. Eliminating the Russian regions from Ukraine would make Ukrainians truly independent of Russia.
In the 1840's people from the United States had settled in parts of Mexico, but were not happy with the Mexican government. U.S. citizens in the Texas region had openly revolted and gained independence from Mexico. People in California were also interested in leaving Mexico. The United States annexed Texas and a border dispute led to war between the United States and Mexico. The United States won the war but instead of simply taking other territory from Mexico forced Mexico to sell California and additional areas to the United States. The United States also assumed some debts that Mexico owed to U.S citizens.
The Russians in the eastern Ukraine don't want to be part of Ukraine any more than the U.S. citizens in California and Texas wanted to be part of Mexico. Russia should help them leave by offering to purchase the region from Ukraine once the people of Ukraine vote for a new government. Government officials chosen in an election have authority from the people to act. Officials who came to power as a result of mob action have no authority from the people to act.
Russia should also consider compensating Ukraine for the its loss of Crimea. The separation of Crimea from Ukraine was comparable to a divorce. Often one party to a divorce will compensate the other by paying alimony to the other/ Russia could undermine claims that it "stole" Crimea by paying alimony to Ukraine. Paying for something isn't stealing.
The mob overthrow of a president from eastern Ukraine and talk of eliminating Russian as an official language indicates that many Ukrainians don't want Russians in their country. The presences of racist elements in the anti-government mob indicates the overthrow may have been in part motivated by ethnic prejudice. Russians in Ukraine fear that failure to allow the Russian region to leave Ukraine could result in use of violence against them.
Failure to allow the Russian region to leave could lead to prolonged efforts against the Ukraine government. European ethnic conflicts [such as the Basque conflict in Spain and the conflict between Irish Catholics and English Protestants in Northern Ireland] can last for generations.
Americans tend to think of ethnic conflicts in terms of differences in skin color, but differences in culture can produce the same results as was the case in Adolf Hitler's efforts to exterminate the Jewish people.
During the collapse of the Soviet empire, the residents of Czechoslovakia recognized that they would have a better chance of success if they split into two countries. Ukrainians made a mistake by keeping the arbitrary political boundaries set by the old Soviet Union. The Soviet Union to a large extent was a Russian empire. Keeping Russian regions in Ukraine means Ukrainians are still subject to control by politicians chosen in part by Russians. Eliminating the Russian regions from Ukraine would make Ukrainians truly independent of Russia.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Tired of Whining Homosexuals
I feel sorry for homosexuals because they are afflicted with a birth
defect they seem unable to understand. However, I'm tired of
them and their supporters harassing those who don't accept their
peculiar social views.
A growing body of scientific research indicates that homosexuals are born with the brain of one sex and the body of the other. A homosexual male's brain is similar to a heterosexual female's brain. A homosexual female's brain is similar to a heterosexual male's brain. In other words the people who think they are homosexuals are really transsexuals. Thus, homosexuality might be treatable with a sex change operation.
New York City and Boston homosexuals recently got upset because the organizers of the St. Patrick Day parades in those cities wouldn't let homosexuals convert the parades into events celebrating homosexuality. If homosexuals want to celebrate their condition, they should conduct their own parades instead on trying to hijack other people's parades. I sometimes wonder if the emphasis on "gay pride" is designed to convince us they are happy with their condition, or to convince themselves.
A few months ago the poor little things got all upset because one of the "Duck Dynasty" stars said homosexual behavior was morally wrong. They wanted him to be fired. If people could claim that those of us who were serving our country in Vietnam were doing something morally wrong, then people should be able to say homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Many religions call homosexual behavior a sin.
I wonder if the reason some homosexuals get upset when people say they are doing something wrong is because they feel guilty about being homosexual. People who believe what they are doing is right don't worry about "misguided" people who say what they are doing is wrong. I didn't listen to those who claimed my participation in the Vietnam War was wrong.
Christianity defines many behaviors, in addition to homosexuality, as sinful/ America's favorite sin is gluttony -- eating too much. Many people don't realize that neglecting the poor is a sin. According to Ezekiel 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
Cry babies at Mozilla recently pressured newly appointed CEO Brendan Eich into resigning because he didn't support the childish idea of same sex marriage. The term "marriage" refers to the human mating practice in \which one member of each sex unites to form a unit that contains a complete set of human sexual traits. Traditionally the goal was to produce children, but not as many people are interested in being parents today.
Marriage allows heterosexuals to gain a feeling of completeness by joining with someone who possesses the characteristics of the opposite sex. A husband may refer to his wife as his "better half". A wife may call her husband her "other half".
\
No state prevents homosexuals from participating in a marriage to a member of the other sex. But, homosexuals don't want to attempt the difficult task of having a relationship with someone who is different from them. Homosexuals want to treat a simple relationship with someone who is the same as them as if it were the same as a relationship with someone who is physiologically and psychologically different..
Homosexuals who want to pretend their relationships are "marriages" remind me of little girls playing house. If they cannot find a boy willing to play the daddy one of the girls will play daddy.
Homosexuals who want to play like their relationships are marriages are implying they don't want to be homosexual. They want to copy a heterosexual relationship because they would prefer to be normal heterosexuals. They don't understand that they can become heterosexual by having an operation to put their bodies on the same sexual page as their brains.
Newsweek in a May, 2012, cover article dubbed Barack Obama the "First Gay President". WND says in an article based on confidential interviews of members of Trinity United Church of Christ where Obama is a member that Obama is "Down Low" as many black male homosexuals refer to themselves. Those who are Down Low keep a low profile and marry women, some times without telling them about their homosexuality. I mention this claim because WND isn't the only source of claims that Obama is homosexual and because online sources have often revealed activities or statements by politicians well ahead of the mainstream media. Amazon even carries a book dealing with an alleged homosexual affair Obama had. The American people deserve to know if Obama is supporting homosexual causes because he is one.
On the other hand, considering Obama's support for homosexuals on various political issues, wouldn't he admit it if he is homosexual? The WND article states that Obama's pastor arranged marriages between homosexual men and women who were having trouble finding husbands, but Michelle.doesn't look like a woman who would have trouble finding a husband. Obviously Obama doesn't consider homosexual behavior to be wrong. Knowing that the President of the United States is homosexual would provide a major boost to homosexuals and would encourage those who are "Down Low" to publicly acknowledge their condition. Maybe he needs some encouragement from homosexuals to come out of the closet. Maybe the mainstream media could help resolve the issue by investigating it.
A growing body of scientific research indicates that homosexuals are born with the brain of one sex and the body of the other. A homosexual male's brain is similar to a heterosexual female's brain. A homosexual female's brain is similar to a heterosexual male's brain. In other words the people who think they are homosexuals are really transsexuals. Thus, homosexuality might be treatable with a sex change operation.
New York City and Boston homosexuals recently got upset because the organizers of the St. Patrick Day parades in those cities wouldn't let homosexuals convert the parades into events celebrating homosexuality. If homosexuals want to celebrate their condition, they should conduct their own parades instead on trying to hijack other people's parades. I sometimes wonder if the emphasis on "gay pride" is designed to convince us they are happy with their condition, or to convince themselves.
A few months ago the poor little things got all upset because one of the "Duck Dynasty" stars said homosexual behavior was morally wrong. They wanted him to be fired. If people could claim that those of us who were serving our country in Vietnam were doing something morally wrong, then people should be able to say homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Many religions call homosexual behavior a sin.
I wonder if the reason some homosexuals get upset when people say they are doing something wrong is because they feel guilty about being homosexual. People who believe what they are doing is right don't worry about "misguided" people who say what they are doing is wrong. I didn't listen to those who claimed my participation in the Vietnam War was wrong.
Christianity defines many behaviors, in addition to homosexuality, as sinful/ America's favorite sin is gluttony -- eating too much. Many people don't realize that neglecting the poor is a sin. According to Ezekiel 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
Cry babies at Mozilla recently pressured newly appointed CEO Brendan Eich into resigning because he didn't support the childish idea of same sex marriage. The term "marriage" refers to the human mating practice in \which one member of each sex unites to form a unit that contains a complete set of human sexual traits. Traditionally the goal was to produce children, but not as many people are interested in being parents today.
Marriage allows heterosexuals to gain a feeling of completeness by joining with someone who possesses the characteristics of the opposite sex. A husband may refer to his wife as his "better half". A wife may call her husband her "other half".
\
No state prevents homosexuals from participating in a marriage to a member of the other sex. But, homosexuals don't want to attempt the difficult task of having a relationship with someone who is different from them. Homosexuals want to treat a simple relationship with someone who is the same as them as if it were the same as a relationship with someone who is physiologically and psychologically different..
Homosexuals who want to pretend their relationships are "marriages" remind me of little girls playing house. If they cannot find a boy willing to play the daddy one of the girls will play daddy.
Homosexuals who want to play like their relationships are marriages are implying they don't want to be homosexual. They want to copy a heterosexual relationship because they would prefer to be normal heterosexuals. They don't understand that they can become heterosexual by having an operation to put their bodies on the same sexual page as their brains.
Newsweek in a May, 2012, cover article dubbed Barack Obama the "First Gay President". WND says in an article based on confidential interviews of members of Trinity United Church of Christ where Obama is a member that Obama is "Down Low" as many black male homosexuals refer to themselves. Those who are Down Low keep a low profile and marry women, some times without telling them about their homosexuality. I mention this claim because WND isn't the only source of claims that Obama is homosexual and because online sources have often revealed activities or statements by politicians well ahead of the mainstream media. Amazon even carries a book dealing with an alleged homosexual affair Obama had. The American people deserve to know if Obama is supporting homosexual causes because he is one.
On the other hand, considering Obama's support for homosexuals on various political issues, wouldn't he admit it if he is homosexual? The WND article states that Obama's pastor arranged marriages between homosexual men and women who were having trouble finding husbands, but Michelle.doesn't look like a woman who would have trouble finding a husband. Obviously Obama doesn't consider homosexual behavior to be wrong. Knowing that the President of the United States is homosexual would provide a major boost to homosexuals and would encourage those who are "Down Low" to publicly acknowledge their condition. Maybe he needs some encouragement from homosexuals to come out of the closet. Maybe the mainstream media could help resolve the issue by investigating it.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Protesting Obamacare 60's Style
No, I'm not suggesting anyone should burn a draft card or stage a sit-in in the office of Secretary Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius. Those who feel Obamacare will adversely affect them should conduct a "sue-in". They should file individual lawsuits challenging the law on grounds it will harm them as individuals.
The class action lawsuits various states filed against the law didn't force the courts to deal with the hardships the law would create for some individuals. Individual cases can present the courts with actual evidence of individuals who would be adversely affected being forced to purchase insurance. General government guidelines may not allow for the financial situations of everyone. Some individuals will lose their ability to obtain the health care they need if they have to purchase insurance that won't cover their treatment.
In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court stated that health care decisions involve the right to privacy. Requiring people to pay for health treatment by purchasing insurance could be portrayed as being inconsistent with the right of the individual to control personal health care decisions.
Some young adults have huge education debts that would be difficult to pay off it they have to pay for health insurance. In some families the oldest child may want to help younger siblings pay for college. Some are willing to take the risk of not having insurance so they can save money for the down payment on a house or realize the dream of starting a business. What right has the government to tell them they must forget their dreams? Don't "the Blessings of Liberty" the Constitution is supposed to guarantee include a right to take personal risks to obtain those blessings?
Those who claim a financial hardship could offer the judge a choice of eliminating the requirement they purchase insurance or changing the guidelines that determine who receives government assistance to purchase insurance.
Insurance companies don't cover all potential treatments for medical problems. Often they rationalize not paying for the treatment by calling it "experimental". A law that requires individuals to purchase health care through insurance companies in effect may make it illegal for people to seek some types of potentially life saving medical treatment. Such a law would be inconsistent with Roe v. Wade.
Recent scientific research confirms the claims of some transsexuals that they feel they are trapped in the body of the opposite sex. Brain studies indicate some people do have a brain of one sex and the body of the other. Thus surgery to make the body of the same sex as the brain is corrective surgery rather than elective surgery. Transsexuals shouldn't be prevented from seeking such surgery because they have to use their health care money to purchase insurance that won't correct the birth defect that causes their Gender Identity Disorder.
In cases such as those involving experimental treatment or sexual correction surgery, plaintiffs should ask the courts to either exempt them from having to purchase insurance that won't help them or require insurance
companies to cover the treatment these people need. Attorneys might want to point out to Supreme Court Justices that if government or insurance companies can decide insurance doesn't have to cover some procedures then coverage for abortions could be eliminated.
Perhaps non-profit organizations opposed to Obamacare could help finance these lawsuits. Another possibility would be for the states that filed class action lawsuits to represent individuals filing their own lawsuits, Assistance by non-profit groups and governments could encourage a sufficient number of individuals to file lawsuits to convince the courts there is a problem with the law.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Crimea Separation from Ukraine Best for Everyone
Contrary to the opinion of President Barack Obama there is nothing
illegal about the recent vote for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
to leave the chaotic situation in The Ukraine. In 1991
the Ukraine separated itself from the deteriorating government of
the then Soviet Union by a declaration of independence and
created a precedent for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to
separate itself from The Ukraine. The obvious instability
associated with the fall of the Ukrainian government justified The
Republic of Crimea's exit from The Ukraine.
If there was a recent violation of international law in The Ukraine it is more likely associated with the mob that overthrew the elected government. That mob closely resembled a fifth column like Nazi Germany used against nations it wanted to conquer. If the European Union accepts The Ukraine for membership now the EU will be implying it helped overthrow of The Ukraine government. If the EU accepts The Ukraine without waiting for at least two elections, not counting the upcoming one, the EU will imply it eliminated a government that opposed EU membership so the EU could conquer The Ukraine.
Requiring The Ukraine to first demonstrate it is a stable democracy that changes government only through elections will indicate that the EU recognizes The Ukraine's political instability makes it an undesirable member. The recent use of mob rule to change the government indicates the presence of a cancer that must first be isolated and cured before The Ukraine is considered healthy enough to be allowed into the EU. Allegations that some of the groups responsible have previously supported extremist views should be of particular concern to EU members,
The EU needs to conduct a thorough investigation of the recent change in The Ukraine's government so member nations know what they need to do to prevent similar events in their countries. The EU needs to identify any business individuals or non-Ukrainians involved so EU members will know who to watch out for.
Political instability such as that associated with the fall of the Ukrainian government can lead to ethic violence in countries with strong ethnic divisions. Without a stable central government, the Crimean Republic had to take over the responsibility of protecting its citizens. Separating from the ineffectual Ukrainian government made that job easier. Crimea's "divorce" from The Ukraine will reduce the potential for an ethnic centered civil war between the Russians of Crimea and the Ukrainians. Reducing ethnic tensions will reduce the demands on the Ukrainian government and simplify the task of restoring a stable government.
If there was a recent violation of international law in The Ukraine it is more likely associated with the mob that overthrew the elected government. That mob closely resembled a fifth column like Nazi Germany used against nations it wanted to conquer. If the European Union accepts The Ukraine for membership now the EU will be implying it helped overthrow of The Ukraine government. If the EU accepts The Ukraine without waiting for at least two elections, not counting the upcoming one, the EU will imply it eliminated a government that opposed EU membership so the EU could conquer The Ukraine.
Requiring The Ukraine to first demonstrate it is a stable democracy that changes government only through elections will indicate that the EU recognizes The Ukraine's political instability makes it an undesirable member. The recent use of mob rule to change the government indicates the presence of a cancer that must first be isolated and cured before The Ukraine is considered healthy enough to be allowed into the EU. Allegations that some of the groups responsible have previously supported extremist views should be of particular concern to EU members,
The EU needs to conduct a thorough investigation of the recent change in The Ukraine's government so member nations know what they need to do to prevent similar events in their countries. The EU needs to identify any business individuals or non-Ukrainians involved so EU members will know who to watch out for.
Political instability such as that associated with the fall of the Ukrainian government can lead to ethic violence in countries with strong ethnic divisions. Without a stable central government, the Crimean Republic had to take over the responsibility of protecting its citizens. Separating from the ineffectual Ukrainian government made that job easier. Crimea's "divorce" from The Ukraine will reduce the potential for an ethnic centered civil war between the Russians of Crimea and the Ukrainians. Reducing ethnic tensions will reduce the demands on the Ukrainian government and simplify the task of restoring a stable government.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Russia Should Buy Crimea
The best way to resolve the situation in Crimea in the event the
residents want to separate from the Ukraine would be for Russia to
purchase the territory. Russia could then allow the
Crimeans to decide what status they wanted such as becoming an
independent state or joining the other ethnic Russians in the
Russian Federation.
I was going to include this suggestion in a post dealing with the situation in general but decided the proposal would be more likely to be noticed if suggested in a separate post. I believe the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the war between the United States and Mexico in 1848 suggests a resolution of the conflict over control of Crimea.
A dispute over whether an area (occupied by persons who identified with the United States) which is now the State of Texas was independent sparked a short war between the United States and Mexico. The United States easily won the war but then agreed to purchase another part of Mexico that was attracting settlers who identified with the United States. The purchase eliminated the potential for a future conflict between residents of that area and the Mexican government
Crimea is something of value so it would be fair for The Ukraine to receive compensation for its loss. The payment for Crimea could be thought of as compensation for money the national government of The Ukraine has spent on the region for such expenditures as government buildings or infrastructure items like roads. The payment would replace tax money that would no longer be collected from Crimea.
Payment wouldn't need to take the form of money. Russia has ample energy resources and The Ukraine already obtains energy from Russia. Thus, natural gas or some other fuel might be used as compensation. The Ukrainian government has had a policy of trying to keep energy costs down for its citizens. Russia might significantly reduce what it charges for natural gas for the next 10 - 20 years with an implication that the discount would be passed along to individuals. Russia might also offer to compensate anyone wishing to move from Crimea to the Ukraine or The Ukraine to Crimea.
Ukrainian officials need to recognize the potential costs of trying to force Russian Crimeans to stay in a country where they don't feel they belong can lead to civil conflict including terrorist bombings. The conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and the actions of the Basque separatists in Spain demonstrate what can happen. If some Ukrainians decided to start a Balkans style ethnic cleansing campaign, Russia would feel compelled to invade.
I was going to include this suggestion in a post dealing with the situation in general but decided the proposal would be more likely to be noticed if suggested in a separate post. I believe the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the war between the United States and Mexico in 1848 suggests a resolution of the conflict over control of Crimea.
A dispute over whether an area (occupied by persons who identified with the United States) which is now the State of Texas was independent sparked a short war between the United States and Mexico. The United States easily won the war but then agreed to purchase another part of Mexico that was attracting settlers who identified with the United States. The purchase eliminated the potential for a future conflict between residents of that area and the Mexican government
Crimea is something of value so it would be fair for The Ukraine to receive compensation for its loss. The payment for Crimea could be thought of as compensation for money the national government of The Ukraine has spent on the region for such expenditures as government buildings or infrastructure items like roads. The payment would replace tax money that would no longer be collected from Crimea.
Payment wouldn't need to take the form of money. Russia has ample energy resources and The Ukraine already obtains energy from Russia. Thus, natural gas or some other fuel might be used as compensation. The Ukrainian government has had a policy of trying to keep energy costs down for its citizens. Russia might significantly reduce what it charges for natural gas for the next 10 - 20 years with an implication that the discount would be passed along to individuals. Russia might also offer to compensate anyone wishing to move from Crimea to the Ukraine or The Ukraine to Crimea.
Ukrainian officials need to recognize the potential costs of trying to force Russian Crimeans to stay in a country where they don't feel they belong can lead to civil conflict including terrorist bombings. The conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and the actions of the Basque separatists in Spain demonstrate what can happen. If some Ukrainians decided to start a Balkans style ethnic cleansing campaign, Russia would feel compelled to invade.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Barack "Don Quixote" Obama
I had a dream last night in which Barack Obama was wearing a helmet
and carrying a lance like the fictional character Don Quixote
who had a reputation for attacking make believe foes.
The only other clothing Obama
had on was swimming trunks. He was riding a horse that had a remarkable resemblance to John Kerry
As he moved his lance up and down he was chanting: "we must stop global warming." He continued to chant as the reading on the thermometer dropped below freezing and he began turning blue.
He continued chanting "we must stop global warming" as the snow began to fall. Soon the snow was up to his knees with his horse unable to move, but he continued to chant "we must stop global warning" until the snow covered him and his horse.
Obama's comments on non-existent global warming this winter demonstrates how he is increasingly out of touch with reality. Obama talked about global warming in a State of the Union speech delivered on a night when the Gulf Coast was preparing to deal with freezing temperatures. He urged businesses to switch to natural gas at a time when natural gas companies were asking for rate increases because the cold weather was creating a shortage of gas.
Obama wants to spend $1billion dealing with non-existent global warming at a time when cities are trying to find money to pay the costs of a snow filled winter.
Obama has continued to push his global warming nonsense through his Secretary of State John Kerry.
A rational president would have omitted mention of the global warming issue during a severe cold spell because he would have recognized that people who were worried about their cars slip sliding off the road aren't going to believe talk about global warming. But then a rational president would understand that the claim that CO2 causes something called global warming is nonsense. The claim is based on a 19th Century myth that greenhouses and the atmosphere are heated by trapping infrared radiation. Physicist R. W. Wood disproved this claim in 1909.
Law enforcement personnel will tell you that if a financial opportunity sounds too good to be true, it's probably a scam. With political scams the reverse is true. Politicians will make the situation sound much worse than it is. For example, President George W. Bush insisted we had to invade Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein from giving Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda. The fact is that there is no way a paranoid dictator like Hussein would have given WMD to an organization that might want to take his job. The people pushing the global warming hysteria are claiming all sorts of unbelievable calamities will occur.
Obama is also out of touch with reality in the Ukrainian crisis. His criticism of Russia is questionable He calls the Ukraine a democracy even though the current change in government control occurred as the result of protests rather than election. The pro European Union group took control after members of the president's party were scared into changing sides or leaving. What is left of the government may not be sufficient to qualify as a viable national government of the ethnically divided country.
Crimea is an autonomous republic within the Ukraine with a mostly Russian population. Only 28% of the population is ethnic Ukrainian. Reestablishing a stable government in the Ukraine will be more difficult if ethnic Russians are forced to be part of a nation where they don't feel they belong. Thus it would make more sense for the republic to become part of Russia then remain part of the Ukraine. Russia is attempting to stabilize an unstable political situation and prevent a civil war. Obama doesn't understand that President Vladimir Putin isn't going to destroy the government and then let the country descend into chaos like Obama did in Libya.
Obama seems oblivious to the possibility that calling attention to a nation in which protestors forced a president to resign might encourage his opponents to try to use protests to push him into resigning. His support for those who used protests to change the government indicates he considers that approach an acceptable alternative to elections.
The 25th Amendment to the Constitution who is physically or mentally unable to handle the duties of President. The vice president and members of the cabinet can temporarily relieve a president who has lost touch with reality. The presidency is a high stress job and high stress can cause mental and physical problems including high blood pressure and heart disease. Many historians . believe that the stress of dealing with political scandals killed President Warren G. Harding.
had on was swimming trunks. He was riding a horse that had a remarkable resemblance to John Kerry
As he moved his lance up and down he was chanting: "we must stop global warming." He continued to chant as the reading on the thermometer dropped below freezing and he began turning blue.
He continued chanting "we must stop global warming" as the snow began to fall. Soon the snow was up to his knees with his horse unable to move, but he continued to chant "we must stop global warning" until the snow covered him and his horse.
Obama's comments on non-existent global warming this winter demonstrates how he is increasingly out of touch with reality. Obama talked about global warming in a State of the Union speech delivered on a night when the Gulf Coast was preparing to deal with freezing temperatures. He urged businesses to switch to natural gas at a time when natural gas companies were asking for rate increases because the cold weather was creating a shortage of gas.
Obama wants to spend $1billion dealing with non-existent global warming at a time when cities are trying to find money to pay the costs of a snow filled winter.
Obama has continued to push his global warming nonsense through his Secretary of State John Kerry.
A rational president would have omitted mention of the global warming issue during a severe cold spell because he would have recognized that people who were worried about their cars slip sliding off the road aren't going to believe talk about global warming. But then a rational president would understand that the claim that CO2 causes something called global warming is nonsense. The claim is based on a 19th Century myth that greenhouses and the atmosphere are heated by trapping infrared radiation. Physicist R. W. Wood disproved this claim in 1909.
Law enforcement personnel will tell you that if a financial opportunity sounds too good to be true, it's probably a scam. With political scams the reverse is true. Politicians will make the situation sound much worse than it is. For example, President George W. Bush insisted we had to invade Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein from giving Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda. The fact is that there is no way a paranoid dictator like Hussein would have given WMD to an organization that might want to take his job. The people pushing the global warming hysteria are claiming all sorts of unbelievable calamities will occur.
Obama is also out of touch with reality in the Ukrainian crisis. His criticism of Russia is questionable He calls the Ukraine a democracy even though the current change in government control occurred as the result of protests rather than election. The pro European Union group took control after members of the president's party were scared into changing sides or leaving. What is left of the government may not be sufficient to qualify as a viable national government of the ethnically divided country.
Crimea is an autonomous republic within the Ukraine with a mostly Russian population. Only 28% of the population is ethnic Ukrainian. Reestablishing a stable government in the Ukraine will be more difficult if ethnic Russians are forced to be part of a nation where they don't feel they belong. Thus it would make more sense for the republic to become part of Russia then remain part of the Ukraine. Russia is attempting to stabilize an unstable political situation and prevent a civil war. Obama doesn't understand that President Vladimir Putin isn't going to destroy the government and then let the country descend into chaos like Obama did in Libya.
Obama seems oblivious to the possibility that calling attention to a nation in which protestors forced a president to resign might encourage his opponents to try to use protests to push him into resigning. His support for those who used protests to change the government indicates he considers that approach an acceptable alternative to elections.
The 25th Amendment to the Constitution who is physically or mentally unable to handle the duties of President. The vice president and members of the cabinet can temporarily relieve a president who has lost touch with reality. The presidency is a high stress job and high stress can cause mental and physical problems including high blood pressure and heart disease. Many historians . believe that the stress of dealing with political scandals killed President Warren G. Harding.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Goliath Studios Booted "Cinderella's" Song from Oscars
Those who watch the Oscars need to understand the song that receives
the Oscar for best song may not deserve the honor. The
Motion Picture Academy arbitrarily rescinded the nomination of
the song
"Alone Yet Not Alone" from the best song category.
According to a review "ALONE YET NOT ALONE tells the inspiring story of Barbara and Regina Leininger and their journey of faith and survival during the French & Indian war in 1755. Captured by the Allegheny Indians in a raid on their home and transported over 300 miles of wilderness to Ohio, the sisters are sustained only by their abiding trust in God, and their hope of escape against all odds to be reunited with their family." The Leiningers had immigrated to the British Colonies in search of religious freedom.
During the French and Indian War, the French paid the Alleghenies and others to attack British settlements. The British saw nothing wrong with kidnapping people from Africa.
Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs, who has helped to market studio films, hypocritically claims that the action was justified by an email song composer Bruce Broughton sent to those who help to nominate songs. However, she apparently sees nothing wrong with allowing major studios to run expensive campaigns for the awards.
Broughton notes that "major studios and many independents send out DVD screeners of their films which list all of the eligible contestants on the jacket – including the songwriters – and follow up with invitations to screenings, meet-‘n-greets, sometimes including a fully produced, non-film version CD of the song, something that is disallowed by Academy rules. When major studios “campaign,” there’s no way a small independent can adequately compete. And there’s nothing anonymous about any of it."
Conservative groups are blaming the withdrawal of the Oscar nomination for best song from "Alone Yet Not Alone" on anti-Christian prejudice. Although the studios could have benefited from religious prejudice among those in charge of the Oscars, the studio executives are more likely motivated by pure greed. They want the awards closed to outside competitors who cannot afford to make big budget movies. The action is evidence that the Oscars are just a public relations gimmick.
The studios may have been worried that a "Cinderella" candidate might have an advantage over their big budget songs. By giving into the studios the Academy missed a major opportunity to indicate that the Oscars are not just based on money. Having a true Cinderella candidate would have generated a lot of positive publicity for the Academy and helped draw more viewers for the Oscar program.
The Oscars exist to provide an advertising benefit to the studios that make big budget films. Allowing small film companies to compete for the awards cut reduce revenue for the major studios. Taking away the nomination from "Alone Yet Not Alone" was not intended to maintain a level playing field but instead to insure that the playing field remained tilted in favor of the wealthy studios.
The huge amount of money the studios spend selling their films and performers means that the Oscar winners may only be the beneficiaries of advertising campaigns rather than the best at anything.
According to a review "ALONE YET NOT ALONE tells the inspiring story of Barbara and Regina Leininger and their journey of faith and survival during the French & Indian war in 1755. Captured by the Allegheny Indians in a raid on their home and transported over 300 miles of wilderness to Ohio, the sisters are sustained only by their abiding trust in God, and their hope of escape against all odds to be reunited with their family." The Leiningers had immigrated to the British Colonies in search of religious freedom.
During the French and Indian War, the French paid the Alleghenies and others to attack British settlements. The British saw nothing wrong with kidnapping people from Africa.
Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs, who has helped to market studio films, hypocritically claims that the action was justified by an email song composer Bruce Broughton sent to those who help to nominate songs. However, she apparently sees nothing wrong with allowing major studios to run expensive campaigns for the awards.
Broughton notes that "major studios and many independents send out DVD screeners of their films which list all of the eligible contestants on the jacket – including the songwriters – and follow up with invitations to screenings, meet-‘n-greets, sometimes including a fully produced, non-film version CD of the song, something that is disallowed by Academy rules. When major studios “campaign,” there’s no way a small independent can adequately compete. And there’s nothing anonymous about any of it."
Conservative groups are blaming the withdrawal of the Oscar nomination for best song from "Alone Yet Not Alone" on anti-Christian prejudice. Although the studios could have benefited from religious prejudice among those in charge of the Oscars, the studio executives are more likely motivated by pure greed. They want the awards closed to outside competitors who cannot afford to make big budget movies. The action is evidence that the Oscars are just a public relations gimmick.
The studios may have been worried that a "Cinderella" candidate might have an advantage over their big budget songs. By giving into the studios the Academy missed a major opportunity to indicate that the Oscars are not just based on money. Having a true Cinderella candidate would have generated a lot of positive publicity for the Academy and helped draw more viewers for the Oscar program.
The Oscars exist to provide an advertising benefit to the studios that make big budget films. Allowing small film companies to compete for the awards cut reduce revenue for the major studios. Taking away the nomination from "Alone Yet Not Alone" was not intended to maintain a level playing field but instead to insure that the playing field remained tilted in favor of the wealthy studios.
The huge amount of money the studios spend selling their films and performers means that the Oscar winners may only be the beneficiaries of advertising campaigns rather than the best at anything.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Black Leaders Impeding Dr. King's Dream
The biggest impediment to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, dream
of a society in which color is not considered important is the
continued used of the extremely racist term
"African-American". The term implies the
descendants of slaves are a separate race whose members belong
in Africa rather than the United States even though many
have ancestors who were living in North America long before
the American Revolution.
The term "African American" arbitrarily segregates people by skin color. The term treats people with dark complexions as if they only had African ancestors even if more of their ancestors came from somewhere else. For example, sportscasters call Asian ancestry golfer Tiger Woods "African American" even though his mother is Asian and his father had Asian and North American ancestors as well as African ancestors.
.
The only inherent difference between black and white Americans is a half dozen genes that control skin color. A person can have a dark complexion even though a majority of skin color genes come from European ancestors because the genes that code for dark complexion are dominant and only a couple are needed for a relatively dark complexion. One of the genes that codes for a dark complexion is common among peoples of North America and Asia as well as Africa
North American residents have been having sex across the color line since the first African slaves had sexual relationships with their Spanish masters in the 16th Century Spanish colonies located in what are now Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. Sexual relations occurred with the North American peoples who lived in the vicinity of plantations for the first two hundred years of American slavery and accepted runaway slaves into their villages.
Initially slaves in the British colonies were indentured servants who only had to serve as slaves for a few years. Most early slaves were from the British isles, especially Ireland where the English were anxious to take ownership of Irish lands. Initially the more expensive African slaves were also treated as indentured servants.
By the mid 17th Century slave owners decided to turn the dark skinned slaves into permanent slaves with white slaves continuing to be indentured servants. To increase the number of permanent slaves some slave owners required white female slaves to mate with African male slaves so that the resulting dark skinned babies could be kept as permanent slaves. Laws adopted during the period preventing sex across the color line were primarily intended to keep free white from having dark skinned babies who would have been born free rather than slave
Virtually all the African ancestors of slaves arrived before Congress outlawed importation of Africans in 1808. Only about 500,000 Africans were imported into North America which means that virtually all slaves were born in North America to parents of mixed ancestry; .
The slave genome continued to receive new DNA from plantation owners and overseers until slavery was ended. In slave societies it is common for men of the master class to have sex with women of the slave class. The most prominent example of this practice in the United States was the relationship between President Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.
Southern laws prohibiting sex across the color line continued to be ignored if the female was black such as in the case of the mother of Sen. Strom Thurmond's black daughter. Dr. King is known to have had a white male ancestor who provided his "Y" chromosome. As recently as the early 1960's, young southern white women were told that boy friends who received passionate good night kisses might seek sexual satisfaction in the black community.
White men could rape black women without fear of prosecution until the 1960's.
Sex across the color line has increased since the 1960's because of acceptance of relationships between white women and black men.
It's likely that some children of mixed ancestry were passing for white by the early 18th Century. Many whites who researched their ancestry after the "Roots" television series were surprised to find ancestors whose military records included the letter "C" after the name for "Colored". President Warren G. Harding acknowledged he had some black ancestors. It is very likely that President Abraham Lincoln got his dark curly hair from a black ancestor. Many of his contemporaries believed he had slave ancestors.
It's time we Americans recognize that America is not the home of a black race and a white race, but instead is the home of a single race whose ancestors were red and yellow, black and white.
The Impressions lamented in their song "This is My Country" --
"Some people think we don't have the right
To say its my country
Before they give in, they'd rather fuss and fight
Than say its my country"
It's time we started allowing the descendants of slaves to call America, rather than Africa their country. If light skinned Americans whose ancestors all arrived after the Civil War can call themselves 100% Americans, why must dark skinned Americans whose ancestors may have arrived before the American Revolution be treated as part American and part something else. Many slaves earned their freedom by helping to defeat the British during the Revolution.
The term "African American" arbitrarily segregates people by skin color. The term treats people with dark complexions as if they only had African ancestors even if more of their ancestors came from somewhere else. For example, sportscasters call Asian ancestry golfer Tiger Woods "African American" even though his mother is Asian and his father had Asian and North American ancestors as well as African ancestors.
.
The only inherent difference between black and white Americans is a half dozen genes that control skin color. A person can have a dark complexion even though a majority of skin color genes come from European ancestors because the genes that code for dark complexion are dominant and only a couple are needed for a relatively dark complexion. One of the genes that codes for a dark complexion is common among peoples of North America and Asia as well as Africa
North American residents have been having sex across the color line since the first African slaves had sexual relationships with their Spanish masters in the 16th Century Spanish colonies located in what are now Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. Sexual relations occurred with the North American peoples who lived in the vicinity of plantations for the first two hundred years of American slavery and accepted runaway slaves into their villages.
Initially slaves in the British colonies were indentured servants who only had to serve as slaves for a few years. Most early slaves were from the British isles, especially Ireland where the English were anxious to take ownership of Irish lands. Initially the more expensive African slaves were also treated as indentured servants.
By the mid 17th Century slave owners decided to turn the dark skinned slaves into permanent slaves with white slaves continuing to be indentured servants. To increase the number of permanent slaves some slave owners required white female slaves to mate with African male slaves so that the resulting dark skinned babies could be kept as permanent slaves. Laws adopted during the period preventing sex across the color line were primarily intended to keep free white from having dark skinned babies who would have been born free rather than slave
Virtually all the African ancestors of slaves arrived before Congress outlawed importation of Africans in 1808. Only about 500,000 Africans were imported into North America which means that virtually all slaves were born in North America to parents of mixed ancestry; .
The slave genome continued to receive new DNA from plantation owners and overseers until slavery was ended. In slave societies it is common for men of the master class to have sex with women of the slave class. The most prominent example of this practice in the United States was the relationship between President Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.
Southern laws prohibiting sex across the color line continued to be ignored if the female was black such as in the case of the mother of Sen. Strom Thurmond's black daughter. Dr. King is known to have had a white male ancestor who provided his "Y" chromosome. As recently as the early 1960's, young southern white women were told that boy friends who received passionate good night kisses might seek sexual satisfaction in the black community.
White men could rape black women without fear of prosecution until the 1960's.
Sex across the color line has increased since the 1960's because of acceptance of relationships between white women and black men.
It's likely that some children of mixed ancestry were passing for white by the early 18th Century. Many whites who researched their ancestry after the "Roots" television series were surprised to find ancestors whose military records included the letter "C" after the name for "Colored". President Warren G. Harding acknowledged he had some black ancestors. It is very likely that President Abraham Lincoln got his dark curly hair from a black ancestor. Many of his contemporaries believed he had slave ancestors.
It's time we Americans recognize that America is not the home of a black race and a white race, but instead is the home of a single race whose ancestors were red and yellow, black and white.
The Impressions lamented in their song "This is My Country" --
"Some people think we don't have the right
To say its my country
Before they give in, they'd rather fuss and fight
Than say its my country"
It's time we started allowing the descendants of slaves to call America, rather than Africa their country. If light skinned Americans whose ancestors all arrived after the Civil War can call themselves 100% Americans, why must dark skinned Americans whose ancestors may have arrived before the American Revolution be treated as part American and part something else. Many slaves earned their freedom by helping to defeat the British during the Revolution.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Jews Missing from ABC Greatest Women in Music List
Why are there no Jews on ABC's list of the 30 greatest women in
music during the last 50 years?
This question might not be important if it weren't for the fact that two women more deserving of being on the list than at least 80% of those listed by ABC are both Jewish. Barbra Streisand and Carole King both should be near the top of any list of the greatest women in music. They aren't the only great women missing from the list, but they are the only two whose omission cannot be justified. Incidentally, I'm a Baptist.
The closest the list has to someone Jewish is Madonna who has followed the school of thought called Kabbalah which originated in Jewish mysticism but now has become associated with other religions as well. P!nk (Alecia Beth Moore) had a Jewish mother and Christian father, but prefers to not be identified with any specific religion.
Many of us believe that Barbra Streisand is the greatest female singer of the last 50 years, although I do consider Whitney Houston worthy of consideration for that honor even though her career was far too short. I also believe Streisand became the greatest living entertainer when Elvis Presley died. She has received 8 Grammy Awards and is one of the few entertainers to win an Academy Award, Grammy, Emmy and Tony awards. She has also received a Peabody Award and a Kennedy Center Honor Award. The Recording Industry Association of America lists her as the top album selling female artist with 71.5 million albums in the U.S. and 145 million records worldwide. .
How can anyone make a list of the 30 greatest women in music in the last 50 years and not include the first woman to win the Gershwin Prize for song writing, Carole King? The Gershwin prize site says she "is without question the most successful and revered female songwriter in pop music history."
Her album "Tapestry" held the record for most album sales by a female until that record was beaten by Whitney Houston. She won four Grammys from the album including becoming the first woman to win Song of the Year.
Songs she wrote helped other women singers. the Shirelles release of King's "Will you still love me tomorrow" became the first number 1 hit by a black girl group. "(You make me feel like) a natural woman" became a signature song for Aretha Franklin.
The "Divine Miss M" Bette Midler is another Jewish woman who should be in the top 30, although she isn't as well qualified as Streisand and King. "Midler has been nominated for two Academy Awards, and won three Grammy Awards, four Golden Globes, three Emmy Awards, and a special Tony Award. She has sold over 30 million albums worldwide[2] and along with that has also received 13 Gold, 8 Platinum and 4 Multiplatinum albums by RIAA.[3]" At the very least she should be above Karen Carpenter.
I can understand how people who lack familiarity with music in the sixties might overlook Janis Joplin whose career like that of Whitney Houston was far too short. She played a major role in establishment of the genre of psychedelic soul and was considered the "queen of psychedelic soul". In 2008 "Rolling Stone" ranked her 28 on a list that had men holding most of the top 30 positions. I was a fan of Karen Carpenter but not of Janis Joplin but I would rate Joplin well above Carpenter,
I can understand how Ella Fitzgerald might be excluded from consideration because most of her success was prior to 1960 even though she continued to perform after 1960. The same situation applies to Mahalia Jackson and country music's first diva Kitty Wells who paved the way for other women to succeed in country music.
This question might not be important if it weren't for the fact that two women more deserving of being on the list than at least 80% of those listed by ABC are both Jewish. Barbra Streisand and Carole King both should be near the top of any list of the greatest women in music. They aren't the only great women missing from the list, but they are the only two whose omission cannot be justified. Incidentally, I'm a Baptist.
The closest the list has to someone Jewish is Madonna who has followed the school of thought called Kabbalah which originated in Jewish mysticism but now has become associated with other religions as well. P!nk (Alecia Beth Moore) had a Jewish mother and Christian father, but prefers to not be identified with any specific religion.
Many of us believe that Barbra Streisand is the greatest female singer of the last 50 years, although I do consider Whitney Houston worthy of consideration for that honor even though her career was far too short. I also believe Streisand became the greatest living entertainer when Elvis Presley died. She has received 8 Grammy Awards and is one of the few entertainers to win an Academy Award, Grammy, Emmy and Tony awards. She has also received a Peabody Award and a Kennedy Center Honor Award. The Recording Industry Association of America lists her as the top album selling female artist with 71.5 million albums in the U.S. and 145 million records worldwide. .
How can anyone make a list of the 30 greatest women in music in the last 50 years and not include the first woman to win the Gershwin Prize for song writing, Carole King? The Gershwin prize site says she "is without question the most successful and revered female songwriter in pop music history."
Her album "Tapestry" held the record for most album sales by a female until that record was beaten by Whitney Houston. She won four Grammys from the album including becoming the first woman to win Song of the Year.
Songs she wrote helped other women singers. the Shirelles release of King's "Will you still love me tomorrow" became the first number 1 hit by a black girl group. "(You make me feel like) a natural woman" became a signature song for Aretha Franklin.
The "Divine Miss M" Bette Midler is another Jewish woman who should be in the top 30, although she isn't as well qualified as Streisand and King. "Midler has been nominated for two Academy Awards, and won three Grammy Awards, four Golden Globes, three Emmy Awards, and a special Tony Award. She has sold over 30 million albums worldwide[2] and along with that has also received 13 Gold, 8 Platinum and 4 Multiplatinum albums by RIAA.[3]" At the very least she should be above Karen Carpenter.
I can understand how people who lack familiarity with music in the sixties might overlook Janis Joplin whose career like that of Whitney Houston was far too short. She played a major role in establishment of the genre of psychedelic soul and was considered the "queen of psychedelic soul". In 2008 "Rolling Stone" ranked her 28 on a list that had men holding most of the top 30 positions. I was a fan of Karen Carpenter but not of Janis Joplin but I would rate Joplin well above Carpenter,
I can understand how Ella Fitzgerald might be excluded from consideration because most of her success was prior to 1960 even though she continued to perform after 1960. The same situation applies to Mahalia Jackson and country music's first diva Kitty Wells who paved the way for other women to succeed in country music.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
