It’s *always* about freedom

August 14th, 2010  |  No Comments »

I’ll be honest: President Obama and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are far from my favorite politicians when it comes to their views, especially in social policy. Yet I absolutely agree with them when it comes to the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque“.

Obama is absolutely correct to say that “Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country”. In fact, much of the first half of his speech excerpt posted on the above BBC page made me curious how he got this Constitutional issue so right, yet so thoroughly ignore the document when he and Congress rammed health care down our throats and continued the bailout debacle of the previous administration.

Conservatives love to consider themselves as defenders of the Constitution (unless, of course, it’s their guy ignoring the hell out of it). Yet nearly right-wing politician and pundit I’ve heard thinks building an Islamic cultural center near the site of the New York terrorist attacks is “a slap in the face” to the victims or somehow “giving a victory to the enemy”.

The subtlety in noticing, recognizing and understanding the multitude of differences between peaceful practicing Muslims, the Islamists and perhaps especially those who fall dangerous close to the extremist part of the spectrum is very important, and it’s something most conservatives consistently fail to do.

Consider this: Even if there are a million Islamist terrorists in the world — which is an absurdly high estimate, mind — there are over a billion people who consider themselves Muslims. In any other case, considering one out of (many more than) a thousand indicative of all others is definitely prejudicial, if not bigoted. Hence, if the reasoning for being against the construction of the center is based in terrorism, that is little different than considering all Muslims terrorists.

I’m a bit more sympathetic to the leeriness New Yorkers might have to something labeled “Islamic” being constructed next to a site attacked by those who claimed to be Muslims, but only because of their proximity to it all. That does not stop their point of view from being any less horrendously shortsighted.

Quoting Obama once more: “This is America. Our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths must be welcome in this country, and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.”

If we as Americans are as committed to freedom as the politicos, our Constitution and we ourselves claim we are, then we must defend freedom in all forms, even when we might find it uncomfortable or unsavory.

Furthermore, it is not building the Islamic center that’s a victory for Islamist terror groups, it’s disallowing its construction. Much of the rhetoric the terroists use to stir up anger against the United States is based on what they see as anti-Islamic/pro-Israeli policy. Your average Muslim is not an idiot. If New York and the United States allowed an Islamic cultural center to be built so close to what so many consider “hallowed ground”, wouldn’t that improve the opinion of America in the Muslim world? How could that not make more than a few individuals on the fence in supporting extremism think again?

Is there a chance that the right-wingers turn out to be correct, and this is some sort of potential front for an Islamist cause? Yes, of course there is. But an essential part of freedom is trust. Unless we’re going to shred the Constitution and deny rights to our fellow Americans because of the fear they might want to cause harm, there is no acceptable reason not to allow that cultural center to be built.

Opinion    , ,

When you don’t care enough to give your very best

June 13th, 2010  |  No Comments »

I distrust so-called “public interest” groups. Whether they are social or environmental “progressive” organizations or moral or religious “traditional” associations, all of them have some qualm with society how it stands, and believe it’s their job to make others see things their way.

Yet if, say, the Parents’ Television Council somehow convinced networks not to show sex, violence and other attributes they deem dangers to “our children”, there is no way the PTC would disappear. They have to keep finding objectionable content, otherwise their group serves no purpose, supporters will cease to fund them, and everyone within the PTC would be out of a job.

That brings me to a news story out of Los Angeles, as broadcast by KABC-TV. Though you can likely make an educated guess as to what I think, I still would rather my opinion not bias your own, so please watch the clip first (you may also want to look at the accompanying pictures), then come back to read the rest of this post.

Read the rest of this entry »

Commentary   

Touchdowns and term papers

June 11th, 2010  |  No Comments »

I have a friend who might be one of the six native Texans who hates football.

OverallChevrolet loses money on the Corvette. However, people who purchase the Corvette quite often go back to their Chevy dealers to buy other cars. It also is a very appealing car to most, so people who see the Corvette might take a look at Chevy when they otherwise wouldn’t have. Hence, the Corvette serves a dual purpose as a marketing tool and loyalty hook.
For most colleges, college sports are a net money loser. The only sports that don’t lose money for *some* colleges are basketball (and that’s only for upper echelon schools like Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc.) and football.
Although you (and obviously at least two of your friends) don’t like college football, most people do. A successful football team brings in revenue from alumni and fans buying tickets and purchasing paraphernalia, as well as potential students who see the school’s athletic success. In short, college football are the university’s versions of the Corvette, even if some of them are more like Geo Metros.
Yes, maintaining that success often brings all the under-the-table activities we are well aware of. And yes, it is used to justify the higher salaries of coaches the purely academic grind their teeth about.
And there is one other thing to consider: There seems to be a basic assumption that if money wasn’t spent on college athletics (or more specifically), it would be spent in the classroom.
Would it be nice if degrees and academic studies could be marketed like touchdowns and bone-crushing hits? I’d like to think so. But I know that, in reality, action is easier to sell and more relevant to most people. A few of us would have liked to have been Rhodes or Fulbright scholars. Many more would have liked to have been quarterbacks or middle linebackers.

That friend and I met at SMU, which happens to be the one and only college whose football program received the “death penalty” (i.e., prohibited from fielding a team for a season) from the NCAA, something the school only recently recovered from, some two decades later. He posted his thoughts on the sanctions handed down to the University of Southern California by the NCAA as compared to SMU, but everything boiled down to his belief that college should be about academics rather than sports. I was going to answer him directly, but the response became so long it seemed like a good post.

Before I get to that, allow me to provide a little more contextual information, just in case someone needs it.

While Southern California did not receive “death”, they did receive the following penalties: a loss of thirty athletic scholarships over the next three years, forfeiture of 14 wins, including those of their 2004 championship season (although since the championship itself is not an NCAA event, the idiocy of forfeiting wins is only underscored here), four years’ probation and, the hardest of all, a two-year ban from bowl play.

Why is the bowl ban the worst of the sanctions? Well, whether we like it or not, college football is 1) a business and 2) the equivalent of the minors for the NFL.

As far as the first reason, no bowls mean no bowl revenue. As USC is one of the most successful teams in a prominent conference, the potential loss would be well into eight-digit figures.

The second reason could make talented recruits choose to go elsewhere. For star athletes, one of the biggest tools to being drafted by a NFL team is exposure, and not being seen during the most prominent time of the season could be hard to take, even if it is, as Coach Lane Kiffin claims, “the best place in the country to play football”.

Hence, while the penalties are not to the extreme that SMU dealt with (USC does not have to start over with recruiting, for example), on their face they are comparable.

Anyhow, as an admitted nerd and fan of academics (if not academia) as well as sports, I wanted to show that the two things are not mutually exclusive, even on college campuses.

———-

For Chevrolet, Corvette is a loss leader. That is to say that neither Chevy nor their dealers make much money off of the sales of the iconic sports car. However, many who purchase the Corvette quite often go back to their Chevy dealers for other vehicles. Further, the Corvette also is a very appealing car to most, so people who see it might take a look at the Chevrolet brand when they otherwise wouldn’t have. Hence, the Corvette serves a dual purpose as a marketing tool and loyalty hook.

For most colleges, college athletics are a net money loser. The only sports that are profitable for some colleges are men’s basketball and football. If the argument is college football should go because too many colleges sink too much money into it, then the argument could be made that all sports should go.

Why do so many colleges spend money trying to establish or maintain competitive football programs? A successful football team can bring in revenue from alumni and fans buying tickets and purchasing paraphernalia (you don’t have to be anywhere near Ann Arbor or Columbus to see Michigan and Ohio State shirts or decals), as well as potential students who see the school’s athletic success as a reason to consider and attend the school. In short, college football is the university’s version of the Corvette, even if some of the programs are more like Geo Metros.

Yet there seems to be a basic assumption that money spent on athletics (and more specifically, football) would otherwise be spent on academics. For schools looking to build athletic programs, that could very easily be the case. Donations, on the other hand, are based on the desires of others, and someone who loves football may not be willing to give as much or anything at all for any other reason, or even any other sport.

Furthermore, it is not impossible for a university to be excellent in both academics and athletics. The schools of the Big Ten Conference, along with (former Big Ten member) the University of Chicago form the academically-focused Committee on Institutional Cooperation.

Would it be nice if degrees and academic studies could be marketed like touchdowns and bone-crushing hits? I’d like to think so. But I know that sports in general are easier to sell, more relevant and, let’s face it, more fun to most people.

While a university should be focused on academics (why call it a university otherwise?), it is too simple — and frankly, unfair — to say that should be its only focus. Just ask Myron Rolle.

Commentary    ,

God is in control, don’t screw it up.

May 22nd, 2010  |  1 Comment »

I have heard the religious use some variation of the phrase “God works in mysterious ways” to explain situations other people would attribute to coincidence or serendipity. More generically, many believers like to remind us that “God is in control,” or “everything is in God’s hands,” or something similar.

I find it funny how many of those people seem to forget their own belief in God’s omnipotence at times.

Some while back, I was listening to a broadcast called “Grown Folks Radio” (which is, from as best as I can tell, when an urban radio station stops playing music and turns into talk radio for the afternoon). The topic was dating, and whether it was better to meet someone in the “real world” or try to find a partner online.

At some point, the discussion morphed into whether or not a person should allow God to find someone for them or supposedly rush into a relationship and “ignore” His wishes. I would not go so far to say it was a consensus, but many of the callers (and in fact the host) implied or outright believed that using an online dating site was working against God.

I know this is a small sample and a particular culture of people, however the general mindset is in many a believer; God may work in ways that the human mind allegedly cannot know, but of the ones that are known, only certain ones are “divine.”

I would love to know what specifically makes a website a means God would not use. Because heathens use the Internet? “God’s unknowable, but I’ll tell you one thing: He’d never use Match.com!” Huh? (Actually, a competitor, Eharmony.com was created by a devout evangelical Christian; that’s why the site doesn’t cater to same-sex couples, though there is now a partner site that does, for whatever that’s worth.)

More recently, however, comes the warning from high-ranking Catholic clergy that “scientists should not play God” in regards to the invention of synthetic cells and, more broadly, genetic engineering.

In the Yahoo!/AP article, Bishop Domenico Mogavero is quoted as saying: “Pretending to be God and parroting his power of creation is an enormous risk that can plunge men into a barbarity.”

It is extremely difficult to read that quote and not think about the countless Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Pagans and others persecuted by the Catholic Church throughout the centuries by means which, objectively and bluntly, could quite easily be considered barbaric. Oddly, humanity indeed survived those events.

Likewise, it again raises the question as to how God allegedly works. If God is the Ultimate Creator, doesn’t that mean that even if Man creates artificial life, God indirectly is the Creator of that life? In fact, doesn’t assuming anything else mean Man has some power that God does not? If that is the case and, as is also frequently quoted, “God is good,” what is there to worry about? It’s in God’s hands, right?

How can you reconcile things like those if you believe? Yet there are plenty of intelligent people, more than a handful that I happily consider friends of mine (and some dear ones at that) who either justify those discrepancies or, as I suspect, ignore them out of fear of “divine judgment” if they do otherwise.

I said in a similar post I wish I could be an atheist, then went on to state why I couldn’t. Well, to be honest, I also sometimes I wish I could believe. But if He wanted me to unquestioningly accept garbage like what I mentioned above, He should have known better than to give me the brain that He did.

Commentary   

« Older Entries