Greetings,
It's been a while since my last post. Not only have I been busy, but I've been overwhelmed by all the "goings-on" in the media lately: VA Scandal, Russia-Ukraine, China bullying the rest of East Asia, shooting in California, Common Core education reform, etc...
The longer the distance of time between my military life and my present status of civilian, the more and more I realize how easy it is to get caught up in the every day struggle of life. Capitalism does have its faults in the sense that it makes us need to focus on money. However, that wasn't an anti-capitalist statement. I'm just sympathizing a bit with the masses that refuse to participate in social and political issues because they are caught up in the struggle to earn a living.
With that being said, we owe it to our children, ourselves, and the longevity of our republic to withstand the urge to ignore politics. All the negativity filling the airwaves today is our fault. We have allowed our country to become ruled by corrupt politicians, corporate interests, and and power hungry bureaucrats. I often hear poor people say that the rich control the world because they have money. I often hear rich people say that time is money. Well, I know that all of us have at least a little time. I see the masses at the malls, sporting events, and in other various places of consumption. However, very few of us get active in even reading about our government and its relationship with "K Street." Shoot, most people don't even know what "K Street" is or what it does.
Now don't take this the wrong way. This is not a plea for the masses to rise up and ask the government to create more bad laws and big programs. This is a plea for the masses to wake up!
You have to realize that the same two parties have been in power for over a century and taken us down this destructive path. Read history, read economics, and read different political philosophy and theory. The classics are a good place to start. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle might help you to understand some of the concepts the Founders held so dear.
I don't want to rant or proselytize. I'm a Libertarian, but I'd be happy to just see people demand that we adopt a new system of voting that doesn't allow two parties to maintain a duopoly on political power and take our country further down the shitter. In most states, you can't even vote in the primary races unless you're registered as a Democrat or Republican. As seen in our last presidential election, the other candidates were not allowed at the debates and were even arrested and detained when trying to enter the debates. Most people didn't even know about the Green Party's nominee (Jill Stein), or the Libertarian Party's nominee (Gary Johnson). Both of them, in my humble opinion, are way more qualified and intelligent people than the two candidates we ended up having to choose between. I don't agree with the Green Party's stance on many issues, but I'd rather have Jill Stein in office than Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.
Lastly, do a little study in Comparative Politics, meaning, look at other countries' political systems. America doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas. As much shit as Americans talk about the French, they have a pretty awesome system of choosing their political leaders. Their semi-presidential system allows for more parties to enter the arena and they don't have a continuous election cycle like we do.
So if you read this, please allocate some time in your schedule to dedicate to being a citizen, just like you allocate time to the gym, watching sports, or anything else you do in life. Our survival as a nation and as a free people depends on all of our participation in this system.
Until next time, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Monday, May 5, 2014
Sterling, Bundy, and the rest of us...
Greetings from Houston. It's been a while since my last post. Initially, I wanted to write about the controversial "racist" comments made by Cliven Bundy. However, I'm glad I didn't due to the L.A. Clippers incident last week involving more "racist" comments by their owner, Donald Sterling. So I've waited for all the talking heads to exhaust their sensationalized coverage of that story and now want to offer my two cents to anyone who cares.
The two incidents are related due to the nature of the comments and the fact that a large part of the population and media covering these two stories immediately wanted to lash out at the two individuals. Below is what the New York Times published as Cliven Bundy's racist remarks (notice that only remarks made mid conversation are quoted, which doesn't allow us to see the context or which questions were asked of Mr. Bundy):
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids - and there is always at least half a dozen people sitting on the porch - they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do. And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
Here's the link the NY Times story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04//24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?ref=us&_r=1
Now here is what Donald Sterling said according to an article on the below listed Sports Illustrated-NBA website and their is also a link to the actual audio tape on TMZ:
"It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to? You can sleep with them [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that ... and not to bring them to my games. Don't put him [Magic Johnson] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don't bring him to my games."
http://nba.si.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-nba-investigation-racist-comments-clippers/
http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-owner-black-people-racist-audio-magic-johnson/
So I can agree that both guys made ignorant comments that show signs of bigotry. However, "racist" is a strong word. From what I understand, and according to Merriam-Webster, a racist is "a person who believes that one race should control all others."
So let's analyze this for a minute before we get to the greater issue at hand. Mr. Bundy didn't say that he thought black people should still be slaves, he said that he has "...often wondered, are they better off as slaves...? (refer to earlier paragraph for full quote). " So I personally don't think Cliven Bundy's words to the New York Times are enough to brand him a racist. A bigot, maybe, but that is even debatable. I'd have to get to know him better to make that judgment.
As for Mr. Sterling, it's obvious he's a bigot. But again, I don't think he's a racist. Nor do I think his words are racist in nature. He expressed disdain for his girlfriend's (who happens to be half black) interactions with black men. Now, we can judge him to be a bigot who needs a wake up call. But to brand him a racist is a step too far. Is a white man who dates a woman like V. Stiviano a racist? You judge for yourself. Just google her and look at the images.
The bigger picture here is, yet again, us (as in, We the People). So Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling appear to be disgusting bigots; so what? Does that mean that we should immediately seek out their punishment for words? Is their speech not protected under the Constitution of the United States of America? We're so quick to have governing bodies (whether it's an actual government, or a private association like the NBA) punish people for things we don't agree with or that offend us. I heard an argument recently that it's okay that the NBA took this action because it's a private entity and not the government. Really? So it's okay to have so called "inalienable human rights" abridged by private entities? So it would be okay for private entities to deny Muslims to practice their religion, or gay people to talk about marriage equality, or women to talk about income inequality? So that covers the First Amendment. So what about the Eight Amendment? Was Donald Sterling given an "excessive fine?" I think so. Lastly, some scholars consider the Declaration of Independence to be a "founding" and/or "governing" document. If that is the case, then what about the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Donald Sterling could argue that the NBA is depriving him of the latter two.
Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a defense of Donald Sterling, rather it should be a check on our own hypocrisy. I think most of us are guilty of getting angry when people do things that offend us and wanting the government to do something about it. Or in Cliven Bundy's case, people stop showing support for a cause that may have seemed right to them just because the person representing the cause all the sudden said things that were offensive. I know for me, the case that comes to mind is the Westboro Baptist Church. My initial reaction was; "those assholes shouldn't be allowed to say those things out in public, especially near a fallen comrades' funeral." But actually, yes they should. Once I thought more deeply about it, if you take away somebody's right to say things you find offensive, then what about you're right to say things that would offend them in return? I wouldn't want my right to go stand across the street from their church and hold up a sign that says "God Hates Westboro Baptist Idiots" up and yell obscenities at them taken away (I wouldn't do that, but the thought has crossed my mind).
This all boils down to our desire to have "Big Brother" come in and protect us from all things nasty and offensive. Yet we forget that this comes at a cost. When we transfer power to another entity that then holds the power in all future situations of a similar nature, we might not like the outcome. Let me give you an example:
So let's say these recent events lead to some form of legislation that bans the use of "offensive speech toward a particular race, ethnic group, or segment of society." So under this administration, people like Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling could be fined, or jailed for the perceivably racist comments they made. Then, let's say we get a George W. Bush type in office next go around and he creates the National Speech Agency to monitor all phone calls and enforce said legislation to a T. Anyone who says things like "I don't want you hanging out with those tea-baggers" and/or "crazy neo-cons," and "don't bring them to my games" could also be jailed or fined. If we go ahead and set the precedent that it is okay to prohibit and punish certain speech, then it may very well lead to such a scenario, and then an Orwellian future isn't far off. We already have the NSA spying on people and we've seen that innocent people have been arrested for being mistaken as terrorists. I personally don't think that becoming a police state with conversations being monitored is the answer to bigotry, or terrorism for that matter.
The bottom line is that we need to accept that society is always going to produce some offensive characters and/or things we find reprehensible. However, that does not mean we should legislate against all of those things. Once you start giving up liberty to legislation that favors you in the moment, that legislation will always be left open to interpretation in the future. And that future may not favor you, or anyone else.
So until the next sensationalized current event sparks a debate, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
The two incidents are related due to the nature of the comments and the fact that a large part of the population and media covering these two stories immediately wanted to lash out at the two individuals. Below is what the New York Times published as Cliven Bundy's racist remarks (notice that only remarks made mid conversation are quoted, which doesn't allow us to see the context or which questions were asked of Mr. Bundy):
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids - and there is always at least half a dozen people sitting on the porch - they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do. And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
Here's the link the NY Times story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04//24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?ref=us&_r=1
Now here is what Donald Sterling said according to an article on the below listed Sports Illustrated-NBA website and their is also a link to the actual audio tape on TMZ:
"It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to? You can sleep with them [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that ... and not to bring them to my games. Don't put him [Magic Johnson] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don't bring him to my games."
http://nba.si.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-nba-investigation-racist-comments-clippers/
http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-owner-black-people-racist-audio-magic-johnson/
So I can agree that both guys made ignorant comments that show signs of bigotry. However, "racist" is a strong word. From what I understand, and according to Merriam-Webster, a racist is "a person who believes that one race should control all others."
So let's analyze this for a minute before we get to the greater issue at hand. Mr. Bundy didn't say that he thought black people should still be slaves, he said that he has "...often wondered, are they better off as slaves...? (refer to earlier paragraph for full quote). " So I personally don't think Cliven Bundy's words to the New York Times are enough to brand him a racist. A bigot, maybe, but that is even debatable. I'd have to get to know him better to make that judgment.
As for Mr. Sterling, it's obvious he's a bigot. But again, I don't think he's a racist. Nor do I think his words are racist in nature. He expressed disdain for his girlfriend's (who happens to be half black) interactions with black men. Now, we can judge him to be a bigot who needs a wake up call. But to brand him a racist is a step too far. Is a white man who dates a woman like V. Stiviano a racist? You judge for yourself. Just google her and look at the images.
The bigger picture here is, yet again, us (as in, We the People). So Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling appear to be disgusting bigots; so what? Does that mean that we should immediately seek out their punishment for words? Is their speech not protected under the Constitution of the United States of America? We're so quick to have governing bodies (whether it's an actual government, or a private association like the NBA) punish people for things we don't agree with or that offend us. I heard an argument recently that it's okay that the NBA took this action because it's a private entity and not the government. Really? So it's okay to have so called "inalienable human rights" abridged by private entities? So it would be okay for private entities to deny Muslims to practice their religion, or gay people to talk about marriage equality, or women to talk about income inequality? So that covers the First Amendment. So what about the Eight Amendment? Was Donald Sterling given an "excessive fine?" I think so. Lastly, some scholars consider the Declaration of Independence to be a "founding" and/or "governing" document. If that is the case, then what about the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Donald Sterling could argue that the NBA is depriving him of the latter two.
Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a defense of Donald Sterling, rather it should be a check on our own hypocrisy. I think most of us are guilty of getting angry when people do things that offend us and wanting the government to do something about it. Or in Cliven Bundy's case, people stop showing support for a cause that may have seemed right to them just because the person representing the cause all the sudden said things that were offensive. I know for me, the case that comes to mind is the Westboro Baptist Church. My initial reaction was; "those assholes shouldn't be allowed to say those things out in public, especially near a fallen comrades' funeral." But actually, yes they should. Once I thought more deeply about it, if you take away somebody's right to say things you find offensive, then what about you're right to say things that would offend them in return? I wouldn't want my right to go stand across the street from their church and hold up a sign that says "God Hates Westboro Baptist Idiots" up and yell obscenities at them taken away (I wouldn't do that, but the thought has crossed my mind).
This all boils down to our desire to have "Big Brother" come in and protect us from all things nasty and offensive. Yet we forget that this comes at a cost. When we transfer power to another entity that then holds the power in all future situations of a similar nature, we might not like the outcome. Let me give you an example:
So let's say these recent events lead to some form of legislation that bans the use of "offensive speech toward a particular race, ethnic group, or segment of society." So under this administration, people like Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling could be fined, or jailed for the perceivably racist comments they made. Then, let's say we get a George W. Bush type in office next go around and he creates the National Speech Agency to monitor all phone calls and enforce said legislation to a T. Anyone who says things like "I don't want you hanging out with those tea-baggers" and/or "crazy neo-cons," and "don't bring them to my games" could also be jailed or fined. If we go ahead and set the precedent that it is okay to prohibit and punish certain speech, then it may very well lead to such a scenario, and then an Orwellian future isn't far off. We already have the NSA spying on people and we've seen that innocent people have been arrested for being mistaken as terrorists. I personally don't think that becoming a police state with conversations being monitored is the answer to bigotry, or terrorism for that matter.
The bottom line is that we need to accept that society is always going to produce some offensive characters and/or things we find reprehensible. However, that does not mean we should legislate against all of those things. Once you start giving up liberty to legislation that favors you in the moment, that legislation will always be left open to interpretation in the future. And that future may not favor you, or anyone else.
So until the next sensationalized current event sparks a debate, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)