Rutgers Basketball - my commentary

Check out this video: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9125796/practice-video-shows-rutgers-basketball-coach-mike-rice-berated-pushed-used-slurs-players

Former Rutgers Head Coach Mike Rice was fired today following the release of practice videos showing him abusing his players.  Apparently, school officials were made aware of this near the end of last year and suspended him for 3 games.  Three whole games.  Wow.  You put college kids under the care of a grown adult and you find irrefutable evidence of harassment and abuse, and you sit him down for three games.  This guy should have been fired 2 seconds after officials saw the video!

Talk about holding people to different standards.  If someone's history professor pushed, shoved, and hit their students like Mike Rice is in that video, they'd be long gone.  If a teacher had flown a ball at someone's head like that, they'd be standing in line for unemployment the next day, if not a jail cell.

My coworker reminded me that this is the same school where that gay male committed suicide following his roommate taping him with another man and sharing it online.  Apparently, Rutgers didn't do a very good job of emphasizing respect for fellow students and holding up their students and faculty up to a higher standard.

If they're going to make a turnaround, they should be firing all of their basketball staff for allowing this behavior to run rampant, their Athletics Director should get the boot for not having the common sense to get rid of Mike Rice from the onset, and the entire school should review the role that the AD's superiors played.

Outrageous.

In support of Marriage Equality. An attempt at a non-emotional observation.

Marriage has existed for centuries as an institution accessible only by a pair consisting of one man and one woman.  Over time, the benefits and responsibilities associated with marriage have fluctuated depending on the culture and social attitudes where the marriage exists.

There are definite advantages to society, families, and individuals that marriage provides.  In addition, in various times and cultures, certain inequities have been built into the system as well.  In many places, these inequities continue to exist in different quantities, forms, and functions. 

This blog will be two things.  First, it will be an exploration of marriage inequality; a look at where it has occurred in the past and where/when societies moved closer to marriage equality.  Secondly, it will look at marriage as a social contract that benefits society and the impact same-gendered marriage would have on that contract.

No love lost.  In many cultures, marriage has been viewed more of as a financial or political arrangement between two families than an arrangement resulting from affection.  Part of that arrangement is often the expectation of procreation.  In areas of expansion, marriage was also important as a way to ensure that one had a cooperative partner.  Even if viewed as subservient, women were responsible for tending to the home, bearing children, and raising children who would then work to assist the family.  This can be seen in the westward expansion of the early US.

Arrangement.  Arranged marriages continue to be practiced in many places around the world.  As a country built around immigration, the US has a vast history of immigrant males moving to the country for employment or in search of their riches.  As these laborers and seekers of wealth planted their roots, they found themselves in need of women to start families.  One way that some cultures handled this was to send word back to their family in their country of origin to find them a bride.

Property.  The view of women as beneath the status of men is nothing new to many societies.  Over time, that view has equalized in much of the world, but it is still pervasive in many countries.  In ancient Israel, women could do nothing without the consent of their fathers or husbands.  Marriage was a means to procreation and carrying on a man’s lineage.  Single individuals were looked down upon, and men could have multiple wives.  Jacob married his two sisters.  Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Racial Inequities.  Racial segregation in the US historically included laws that criminalized marriage and sometimes sex between members of different races.  These laws, known as anti-miscegenation or miscegenation laws, were not found to be unconstitutional until 1967.  The US has the distinction of sharing enforcement of these laws with other countries, including Nazi Germany and South America when it was under Apartheid.

Many of the organizations and individuals who argue in favor of marriage inequality do so by stating “traditional” marriage is preferable, or superior, to what they argue is “untraditional” marriage as if the institution of marriage has remained unchanged since the dawn of time.  Past incarnations of marriage however embody racism, gender inequality, and polygamy.  The argument in favor of “tradition” is a scare tactic intended to scare individuals into thinking that by granting equal rights to one group, it will impede on the rights of the group that they currently belong to, and it is an argument that has been used under the guise of different names throughout history.  Example: "The evil tendency of the crime [of adultery or fornication] is greater when committed between persons of the two races ... Its result may be the amalgamation of the two races, producing a mongrel population and a degraded civilization, the prevention of which is dictated by a sound policy affecting the highest interests of society and government." (Pace & Cox v. State, 69 Ala 231, 233 (1882))

The religious argument.  Of course, another tactic, is to try to invoke religious fervor:  "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix." (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967))

Now we come up to the present time.  The argument against marriage equality includes a number of tactics.  The most prominent, as noted earlier, is the religious argument.  Aside from the notion that there exists this ideal “traditional” marriage, there is also the consideration of our country’s preference to separate church and state.  The religious argument, though powerful for the large segment of the population, has lost its steam over time as evidenced by changes in the attitude of the general US population.  Over time, that argument will hold less sway as the older generation gives way to a younger, less sectarian, population.

Marriage as a social contract.  The state is responsible for conferring and dissolving marriage licenses for a reason.  As an institution, marriage has the ability to be beneficial or detrimental to the state economically.   Marriage confers many benefits to society such as stable families with economic security and secure homes where parents are less likely to split up (leading to negative outcomes for children).  Some would find it abhorrent to consider marriage more of a social contract than as a religious one, but the reality is that the church is not needed to enter into marriage while the state is.  Additionally, a large number of Americans do not identify with any existing religious institutions or belong to institutions which do not oppose marriage between two individuals of the same gender.

Incentivizing families.  In the secular argument against marriage equality, the argument that holds the most sway is the one stating that when marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, it de-incentivizes a man’s role in taking responsibility for their children.  In effect, the argument is saying that marriage equality will result in men believing that father figures are no longer necessary, leading them to be less likely to enter into marriage or less likely to maintain the marriage once they are in it.  In other words – they would be more likely to cheat).  This is definitely a cause for alarm.  Fewer in-tact families would lead to greater social costs in terms of government assistance programs for single mothers raising children, poorer outcomes for children being raised in families where the parents have separated.

Where’s the beef?  Unfortunately for the proponents of the aforementioned argument, there is no research that backs up their assumptions, while there is plenty of research which shows the children of same gendered couples show no increased negative outcomes.  Also, the previous argument turns a blind eye to many other factors when it comes to marriage equality.  For starters, procreation is not the only goal of marriage.  If that were the singular reason for society entering into marriage, government would not extend those benefits to couples who were infertile or beyond the age of child-bearing.  We can also go back to an idea presented in an earlier paragraph – that those in favor of inequality will often attempt to garner support through scare tactics.

Marriage equality is about encouraging commitment and responsibility among two loving individuals and granting them benefits based on that commitment and responsibility.  It is about encouraging the two individuals to remain together in support of their child or children if they choose to have them, and to see each other through difficult times.  That’s how I see it anyways.

3-13-13 update

Random thoughts...

I need to mow my "lawn".  It's actually just a whole lot of weeds, but regardless, it needs to be mowed over.

Speaking of cutting... I'm growing out my hair.  I've had lots of people look at me strangely after I wave hello.  They usually figure out it's me after 2 or 3 seconds.

In passing at work today, one of our staff was talking over the side of a cubicle about a mother requesting one of our Care Coordinators.  "Is this the mother you were waiting for?"  With a slow wave of my hand, I responded "This is not the mother you were looking for."  Thankfully, the Care Coordinator understood my Star Wars reference :)

Auntie Sally keeps hiding food in the back of the fridge.  I think she thinks that if she hides junk food in the back, I won't see it.

I went on the radio today to talk about our upcoming gala (www.imuafantasiaball.org).  I'm glad Dean's lunch meeting was cancelled.  I hate public speaking off the cuff.  Teaching taiko I can do.  Making small talk on the radio... not so much.

Went rollerblading this past weekend.  Ended up tweaking my foot... I think it's a sprain.  Thankfully, I work with therapists and had a chance to talk to one of our physical therapists. It's feeling better than before, but I'm still limping :\

Loving my Nu Skin business.  Who knew I'd end up being an entrepreneur?  Made Executive status this month.  :)

Action

In life we come across thousands of people.  Individuals sometimes enter our lives and stay for many years, others just for a few.  Occasionally these people leave us too soon, while other stick around for much too long.  How much power do we have to change someone else's trajectory in life?  If I had befriended one acquaintance and been of some influence, would he have not drowned in his own puke after a night of excessive partying?  If I had pushed someone in a different direction, would he have journeyed through life without resorting to murder?

I suppose it's preposterous to think that a single person could have such an impact on the world, but I truly believe that one person can make all the difference.  The problem is that there are so many people in our lives and not enough time to invest meaningful amounts in every single one.  But then, how much time did I waste?  How many people could I have helped for the better but instead spent that time watching tv, playing a game, or writing a blog?  Ah... good intentions... what a clever trickster you are.

Goodness is found in our actions.  It's spread in our actions.  I can think the worst things about someone, but if I smile, I can brighten up that person's day.  Our legacies are born of our actions.  Life is much too complicated and insane to dote over regrets, and it is too short to try to spend every single waking moment obsessing about a single purpose if the motivation just isn't there to do something about it.

Get out.  Go do something.  Hopefully, it involves other people.  Hopefully, it's a positive thing.  And if you're too lazy, unmotivated, or stressed to do that, at the very least, lie to yourself and smile.  If you can't brighten your day, maybe you can brighten someone else's.  You might change their mood, their day, their year, or even their life.

Control

The Newtown Shooting in Connecticut was last Friday. In the aftermath, the nation has come together to support the victims and survivors. The massacre has also spawned a renewed gun control debate. Those in favor of gun control, NY Mayor Bloomberg and California Senator Dianne Feinstein among them, are more outspoken. A few pro-gun individuals have also come out to support an assault weapons ban (which the president had campaigned on in his first term, but did not accomplish) as well as a ban on high capacity magazines. The NRA has stayed silent until today, when it came out with a message offering condolences as well as an announcement that they'll have another announcement on Friday. Pro-gun legislators have gone into self-exile, but whether this is because they feel now would be an unpopular or inappropriate time to bring up the issue, or because they are waiting for leadership (from the NRA or some other politician), or because they are struggling with their own ideals, has yet to be seen.

One idea that I find ludicrous has been the idea that we should arm our educators and school administrators. I for one am a huge fan and supporter of teachers, but keeping firearms at school with the absurd notion that they would do good than harm is sickening. Having guns in the home is bad enough. Used properly, they can be an asset, but all to often individuals find a false sense of security which dulls them to other options aside from the one of last resort. An intruder on their property? Shoot him. Let that f'ing idiot suffer for trespassing - he should have known better. It feels great to wield that much power. It feels great until the police respond to your 911 call only to unmask the culprit who turns out to be your son who was playing a practical joke, sneaking out, or sneaking back in from a late night rendezvous. That's an exception - how often is that going to happen, you ask.

Actually, it happened just a few months ago. A father was contacted by his daughter next door who thought there was a prowler. The father went outside with his gun and saw a masked individual with a knife. When the person failed to identify himself, the father shot him. He then sat on the grass and waited for the police to arrive. It was the police who revealed the son's identity hours later, with the father sobbing and vomiting at the realization of what he had actually done. The father was a good person - he and his wife had adopted the son & daughter whose father was on his way to prison. His students and coworkers reported that he was an excellent and popular teacher. Guns can visit evil on even the best intentioned people. Even professionally trained law-enforcement officers have killed innocent individuals because of misunderstandings (children playing with unmarked toy guns) or injured innocent bystanders (NYPD - again just a few months ago) in pursuit of an actual "bad guy".

Individuals in opposition to gun control offer varying arguments. On my way to work this morning I had the unfortunate opportunity to listen to a couple local dunces on a pop music station. Their main arguments included 1) I have a constitutional right to bear arms and 2) these guns were the mom's, not the son's. I wanted to go and punch the guys in the face. When the constitution was written, a few guys with automatic or semi-automatic rifles which were non-existent at the time probably could have taken out a whole regiment of soldiers; the only sweat would be from holding up the gun and dealing with the recoil. I'm sure our founding fathers did not intend that each of their citizens have the right to pack cannons in their backyard sheds. Secondly - YES, a ban on assault weapons and/or high capacity magazines may have prevented this tragedy! The mother recently bought those weapons. She and the son went to the range and practiced using them! If a ban had been in place, she likely wouldn't have had them.

This brings us to the final, and most absurd, portion of the argument against an assault weapons & high capacity magazine ban. The shooters could always have found other ways of killing their victims. ABSOLUTELY TRUE. They could have built a bomb, mowed people down with a car, killed with a knife or a hand gun. All of that is completely and absolutely true as well as complete and absolute bullshit. If I plan on making a bomb, I need to purchase the ingredients and fly under the radar of my family, my neighbors, law enforcement, and the individuals selling me the indivual components - I can't just take my mom's bomb, or steal my friend's bombs. Next, I'd have to find a place where I could detonate the bomb and have a large number of people around me to inflict maximum carnage. It sounds easy, but it's not. Next, I'd have to get the bomb in place unnoticed and then I'd have to set it off without interference. Possible? Yes. But it's NOT AS EASY as taking an automatic weapon to a mall, movie theater, or school to mow people down!

A car? People can run out of the way. A pistol? You can't shoot as many rounds, and you can't shoot as quickly. A knife? Less deadly, close range, and susceptible to being taken down or disarmed. Still going to happen? Yes. Fewer deaths? Most definitely.

So this brings me back to the whole "arm our teachers" thing. Our teachers, I believe, enter their professions because they want to do right by the next generation. They go into schools to educate our children in the hopes that they can help them become productive citizens. How much harm do we want to inflict on them? What kind of psychological impact would it have on our educators when faced with the decision to pull the trigger on their own student(s)? What kind of challenges would we face when kids, feeling that they are unfairly treated by a teacher, or in fear of their teacher, bring their own guns to protect themselves? There are simpler, less deadly ways.

Violence will continue regardless of gun laws, just as the killing of rare animals will continue regardless of endangered species lists. That does not mean we shouldn't have them. It doesn't mean that shouldn't try to enforce them. We may not be able to save everyone, but if your child, brother, sister, parent, cousin, friend, lover, partner, co-worker, neighbor, mentor, loved one, or companion is that one person that it does save, wouldn't you want that law in place? I would.

My biased take on the presidential election

I'm not currently registered with any political party. However, Democrats tend to get my vote in national politics, and here's why:

Republican inconsistencies.
Sanctity of life makes a lot of sense. However, you can't claim that unless you apply it to all ages. If you are Pro-Life, then you can't also be Pro-Death Penalty. Apparently there is something else going on there. The GOP tries to paint Democrats as killers, but most of the Democrats I know are pretty consistent. They have their own opinions which vary widely, but all agree that the final decision is not one that the government should be making, which leads me to my next point.

MORE Republican inconsistencies.
Small government! Republicans make a huge deal over having smaller government. This makes perfect sense - we want our independence, we want our personal freedoms, we don't want interference in our personal & private lives. Unfortunately, this does not apply to women's healthcare when it comes to abortions and it doesn't apply when 2 consenting adults want to get married. Dems get the nod on this one too. The government is necessary to provide needed services - relief following Hurricane Sandy for example. Not that Dems are solely responsible for the relief (though Obama seems to have done much better than Bush did with Katrina), but the point is that the Democrats are pragmatic and refrained from making blatantly inconsistent claims.

Compassion.
This is something that Republicans seem to lack. They lack it in relation to women - preferring to mandate vaginal probes into people who wish to opt for an abortion. They lack it in relation to immigrants - scapegoating and villainizing people, in some cases allowing police to detain them because they look/act/speak in a certain way. They lack it in relation to the gay community - apparently, religion is great only if they conform to the religious precepts that they approve of. Poor - whether its Romney speaking about the 47% or people on Facebook complaining about the "uneducated masses" tipping the balance in favor of Obama, it seems people who make less money are also of less value.

Trust.
Comparing the two parties, one obviously tries hard to incorporate diversity, while the other speaks a great game while acting incongruently. If the Republican Party really wishes to reach out to a wider swath of the population, then they need to change their policies to incorporate a larger segment of said population. They need to put action behind their words so that people will actually believe them when they say a vote for them will be to their own benefit. Generalizing about how 47% of the population believes they are victims does not really engender trust. Defying science in favor of an ancient text, endorsing creationism over evolution, and backing a few scientific outliers to defy a much stronger argument for the case of climate change - definitely not building trust! Telling women that their bodies can naturally shut off a pregnancy when it is a result of rape, endorsing someone who claims such non-sense, or even refusing to denounce such an offensive statement - again, not building trust! Trust is built by protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Newsflash - rich people can afford lawyers.

Diversity.
This relates to trust. If other people like me haven't found a reason to trust you... ie. you have zero diversity... then there's probably a good reason for it. I found it riotous to listen to Rush Limbaugh the morning following Romney's loss. I recall him lamenting about how the GOP has been reaching out to people of color, rattling off the names of Black and Latino leaders in their party. That's about as backwards thinking as someone saying "I'm not a homophobe - I have a gay friend!" Well whoopdee-doo! We're not looking at the faces you put out front - we're looking at the policies you're supporting, we're looking at the families you're affecting, and... occassionally... we look at your crowds on TV... which definitely do not reflect diversity. Take a look at the crowd at the GOP convention and put it next to a shot of who was at the Democratic convention.

Go ahead and claim any number of reasons why people of color, women, youth, and the gay community sway heavily Democrat - level of education, group think, pandering policies, etc.... The reality is - there are people who sit in the middle, and each election cycle they sit around and think "Who best represents me?". Newsflash - with the way our demographics are changing, unless the GOP evolves, that answer will increasingly be a Democrat politician. In a year where a Republican businessman faced an incumbent Democrat with a poor economy, the GOP better learn something. That something can be one of two things - how to be more inclusive of the electorate, or how to be better losers.

Auntie Chronicle 2

My aunt loves gameshows. I'm not exactly sure what it is that draws her to them, but my guess is that the draw is similar to how it draws the rest of us. We literally feel the emotions of the people competing. My aunt doesn't get a lot of social interaction in her daily life, but I would guess that the gameshows give her a measure of excitement that she would otherwise be lacking.

This post has little to do with any of that though.

A few days ago we were watching a rerun of Family Feud (and when I say "we", I mean she was watching it and I was being nice and sitting through it. I enjoy some of what she watches, but I usually have other preferences. She would say the same about the shows I watch). The survey topic was: Name something that kids dare eachother to eat.

Worms. I believe that was the number one answer. Vegetables. No one got that one. Boogers. Yes, that was another correct answer. I was cooking dinner at the time, but I heard the answer and laughed from the kitchen.

Then I hear my aunt's voice - "Huh? What's that?" I thought she had misheard, so I repeated. "Boogers! You know - kids dare eachother to eat their boogers!?" No answer. I stuck my head out from the kitchen area. "Really? You don't know what is booger?" (grammatically incorrect, but that's pigin for ya).

"Nope," was her answer. She went back to watching the show. I popped my head out again. "Auntie Sally!" I exclaimed. When she looked up I made a fake nose picking motion.

Her response: "Ew! I wouldn't eat that!" as she furrowed her brow.

I hope not!!!
o_O