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.

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.

So what did you hear when you heard the greeting card? I heard exactly what Hallmark claimed: “black holes”. I tried to hear “black whores” like the Los Angeles NAACP claimed, or even “black hoes”, but couldn’t; the word to me was unquestionably “holes”. That might be because my ears aren’t fine tuned to be insulted and offended whenever I can get cheap, undeserved publicity, but I’m not sure; that’s why I wanted you to watch and listen first.

Hallmark has a line of greeting cards called “Mahogany” made especially for the African American cultural market. Hallmark also sells Project Red cards. No, they aren’t centered around African Americans, but producing something to help raise funds to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa certainly is not the action of a company “laughing and joking about blackness.” Sure, the two card lines could just be marketing ploys by Hallmark rather than honest caring. But even if they weren’t sincere, deliberately creating a card with a racist message would be counterproductive to trying to attract, well, Mahogany business.

Hence if the card was an attempt to get a bigoted message out hidden within an outer space theme, it would have been the work of a few employees, not Hallmark as a whole, so the company should have gotten the benefit of a doubt. If nothing else, the Los Angeles NAACP should have been willing to hear Hallmark’s side before passing judgment.

Allow me to make the connection to the Parents’ Television Council example from before: The purpose of civil rights advocates is to guard against racism. As society becomes more tolerant, it becomes harder (I will never claim it impossible) for groups like the NAACP and their allies to find overt, deliberate racism. Therefore racism will have just gone “underground” or become “institutionalized”.

Let me put that another way: A color-blind society makes civil rights advocates obsolete. Therefore, to preserve their own interests (and means of living), racism cannot disappear. If they are allowed to define what racism is, it will not disappear.

While I hate that Hallmark acquiesced to the Los Angeles NAACP’s demand to pull the card, I understand why they would do so. It’s easier and less of a financial loss to stop selling the card than to deal with the potential bad publicity, or worse, face a lawsuit. Fighting the accusations may result in Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton also becoming involved, which is certainly a nightmare to be avoided if at all possible.

Nonetheless, I have to hope that soon, some person, company or organization that has some of these ridiculous and reckless accusations levied on them, fights them. Better still, when that does happen, I hope millions of others will also have the courage to support whomever that may be. Because real unity cannot and will not come from the claims of politicians, civil rights groups or academics. It will and must come from everyday people.

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.

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.

Stop-and-Stop Traffic

The first incident was almost immediate. It may have been thirty seconds after I left my apartment that I had to stop at a red light, which was okay, since you can turn right on red (after a stop, of course). However, for the next four signals I had no such break, as I was continuing straight on the street I was on. So, each time I went a block, I had to wait at every intersection, because each light turned red before I got to it. The lights were timed in such a way that if you didn’t catch the first one, you were guaranteed to hit each successive light when it was red, making a trip that should have taken less than a minute closer to four.

The cynic in me has long believed that most municipalities set speed limits artificially low, hence giving the local, county or state government easy targets whenever they determine it’s necessary to send a cop out to patrol. You know, for safety. Many others will tell you short-span yellow lights and red-light traffic cameras serve a similar purpose.

Honestly, I don’t believe poorly-timed stoplights are deliberate attempts to frustrate drivers into breaking other road laws. Most likely they are oversights, signs of underfunded (or badly run) road maintenance and safety departments, or simply benignly neglected.

Yet, the ones that I deal with where I live now are better than those that I had to put up with where I grew up. Horribly timed as the ones in this town may be, at least they are necessary; I can’t tell you how many times I had to wait a minute to a minute and a half at a stoplight for absolutely no one back home.

Since they now have lights that can adjust the length of rights-of-way based on traffic flow, it would be nice to see these used in more places around here (and everywhere, for that matter). If this town can’t afford that, at least they could get their civil engineers to figure out how to change the timing of the lights to make sure it doesn’t take someone five and a half minutes to go seven blocks. I mean, they had to learn some math while they were getting their degrees. (Wait. They do have degrees, right?)

This Waitress is Rated PG-13

Not too long after I finally made it through downtown, I passed a restaurant called “Show-Me’s”, which is pretty much what you expect it is, since I did explicitly say it was a “restaurant” and not an “establishment”.

We know what to expect from its patron saint, Hooters (okay, “patron saint” is a terrible choice of terms): A live atmosphere, mediocre food, and good-looking young women in tight shirts and short shorts. Given the name of the restaurant and what it is slang for, you can guess another attribute of most of the servers there as well.

I’m pretty sure Show-Me’s doesn’t quite live up to its name; in other words, I don’t think the servers in there almost certainly won’t be removing any clothing (nor do I think all the servers in there are from Missouri). However, I appreciate the name more than Hooters for one reason; there’s no pretense.

Sure, Hooters doesn’t really have any either, especially if you’ve seen their television ads. When Hooters Air launched, we were all pretty sure as to what the flight attendants would look like, and that there wouldn’t be too many coming over from traditional airlines. However, as flimsy as a case it is (weaker that someone claiming he only reads Playboy for the articles), you can make an argument you go to Hooters simply for the food, because Hooters honestly does push their food from time to time, as useless as that might be.

Neither Hooters not Show-Me’s are really my type of place. I have nothing against eye candy, mind you, and I neither condone nor condemn what they do. I would simply find the server either unnecessary or distracting, depending on when I went. (I would also feel kind of pathetic, frankly; I do believe some kind of argument can be made for the food, but I would know if I was more interested in eating, there are plenty of better restaurants I could have gone to.)

Nonetheless, I find the bluntness and honesty of Show-Me’s moniker refreshing. When you see a restaurant named Show-Me’s, they are outright telling you what they are business to do, and why you might want to stop by. In cruder terms, the selling point is: “We’ve got women with big breasts. Come in and see them (the women, the breasts, whatever), and have a burger and a beer while you’re at it.”

Just don’t ask me to join you. At least, not when I’m hungry.

Church Marquees: They’re Anvilicious!

The third thing I want to talk about was a church marquee I noticed. Personally, I generally find them to be the religious equivalent of public service announcements.

I despise normal PSAs to the point where I will change the station if I even think I am about to see or hear one. The underlying assumption of all of them seems to be than everyone is an idiot. Their attempts at “educating” the public are as close to worthless as you can get: the people who need to listen will ignore the advice, the people who might actually listen to the message don’t need it. For example, there is no one who sees seat belt enforcement messages who buckles up because of them; either the viewer already does or says “screw you, I don’t need a seat belt.” Basically, they serve no real purpose other than to give the illusion the sponsors of the message “care.”

Church marquee messages and slogans are very similar, with two slight differences. The first is obvious: they are trying to deliver a believer’s message, so the belief of the potential target’s idiocy, or perhaps more accurately in this case, ignorance of (perceived) truth shifts from being secular in nature to religious. And so if you are Christian and you read one of those messages, you might nod your head as you’re doing it, possibly hoping, as the people who come up with those displays are, that more people will read that message and “get right with the Lord.” Problem is, that if someone isn’t inclined to go to church, the threat that, say, “Judgment Day is coming”, will not send him into panic or even make him think twice. The other difference is that the right message, phrased well, might get the lapsed churchgoer to return. That makes them slightly more effective, but almost guaranteed to be no less asinine.

The message of the one that caught my attention was “If you disown God, he will disown you.” Amazingly enough, that could work on someone who believes in a less-than-benevolent God. A message like that just might scare such a person into subservience, even if it is out of fear rather than love. (And it would continue to work as long as said person fails to understand the mutual neglecting of feelings between he and God did not and could not start with him.)

However, to have that intention would take finely-tuned thinking, and most of the people who come up with those marquee messages are about as subtle and sharp as a sledgehammer. There are religious people who are sophisticated enough to understand that agnosticism is different than just not believing in God or that Buddhists aren’t evil and think about what they believe, but almost all of them are doing something more worthwhile than coming up with marquee messages. Your typical believer feels that you either accept and worship their God or reject him, and those are almost always the ones who regale us with their “inspirations” on the church’s front lawn. Hence, the intent of the “disowning” message becomes like any other religious PSA: Useless to the believer, irrelevant to the non-believer.

There are plenty of intelligent Christians out there. Perhaps some day I’ll see something one of them wrote that rather than the predictable rhetorical garbage that makes its way onto those marquees week after week.

I want to say that the situation is far from that simple.

This situation is similar to one that took place in 1964 to a woman named Kitty Genovese. Ms. Genovese was stabbed and killed, but although there were numerous bystanders, the attacker actually returned to finish his assault on her.

This led to the study of something known as the Bystander Effect, which simply stated claims that if numerous people witness an attack, the victim is less likely to receive assistance than if there is a single witness. Essentially, at least one of two things take place: Either everyone else assumes someone else has offered aid and hence their assistance is not necessary or each person looks at the other bystanders to gauge how bad the situation is, but if everyone is doing the same thing, no one will react, and hence everyone will assume their help is unneeded.

But let’s be realistic: How the world and law is set up today, it is much easier and safer for a person who otherwise would not be part of such a situation to stay out of it.

Police investigations can continue for weeks, months and in extreme cases, years, and even if you are just a witness, visits from officers can be time-consuming and possible conversation starters among your neighbors. (Of course, there is also the potential of becoming a suspect oneself; a situation very easily averted by continuing on your way.)

It is also worth considering the modern “sue-happy” culture. What happens if a person assists but accidentally does something that causes the situation to get worse? Will the victim’s family understand that person was just trying to help, or will they try to make some financial recovery?

Yet there is an even simpler reason that many people may not choose to get involved: What if the attacker is still in the area? Would he stab anyone who so much pays attention to his previous victim?

I once knew someone who was driving through Gary, Indiana (his hometown as well as mine) with his then-girlfriend and saw a gunshot victim. He asked me what I thought he did, and while I joked he stopped to help, I knew perfectly well what he did. He hightailed it out of there, which is exactly what I would have done. Perhaps I would have called the police later, but there is no way I would have stayed to help. Perhaps the cities, weapons and possibly the mindset of the assailants were different, but the idea of self-preservation is the same.

In the article, a teacher in the area mentioned that the assumption that a person lying on the ground is no reason not to call the police. Well, yes, actually, it is. Believe it or not, relative to the number of people there are in New York City, the odds that the person on the ground is a crime victim is very unlikely, hence presuming the situation is not an emergency and that it would be a waste of time for the police as well as yourself to call 911 is perfectly reasonable, the fact that the teacher in reference has and would do so notwithstanding. (I’m not saying he’s wrong to call; I’m saying his belief that others should feel as obligated is.)

I do wonder how many of the people who expressed outrage at the alleged lack of humanity of the passers-by in New York City have ever driven by a stranded motorist. Very few people stop for people pulled over to the side of the road, especially in the age of cell phones. Yet, unless that motorist has membership in a motor club, someone who would be willing to lend a hand to change a tire, drive him to the next service station or exit could be a great help; you might be on your way in a minute or two if the fellow motorist can manage or his or her own. But whether it’s time, the assumption that stranded person has a phone and has already called for help, or even that the person on the side of the road could be a robber, rapist or murderer, or some other reason, I’d be willing to wager that most of them have barely entertained the idea of pulling over, let alone actually doing so. (While they were already at a gas — though not a service — station, I once asked two young ladies if I could help them, as I had a AAA card and was willing to stay with them until the tow truck driver came, but they shrunk from me in fear. I’ll ask you: If you were me, would you still be as inclined to offer help if you ever came across a similar situation again?)

It may sadden me that the Good Samaritan did not get the help he should have, but I will not blame the passers-by in the least. After all, we in reading the story not only had more information (and time to process it) than all of them did, but we all are sitting in the safety of our homes, offices, libraries and coffee shops. It’s much easier to wail about “compassion [being] dead” when you feel safe in your surroundings.