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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
