Kansas HB 2453: Spitting in the face of History

You ask me to be proud of my home. You say "take PRIDE in where you live!"

How am I supposed to be proud of the state that is advocating discrimination of the highest order? How can I even begin to say "I'm from Kansas" when we are now LEGISLATING the right to discriminate and, even more egregiously, wrapping it in the sheep's clothing of "religious liberty?" This is the state that fought so strongly for abolition it became known as "Bleeding Kansas." Do you know why all baseball/basketball/football games played by our major colleges against Missouri are referred to as the "Border War?" It's because Kansans stood up and challenged the status quo and fought AGAINST becoming a slave state. Now we turn our backs on our history and our heritage, and for what, exactly?

Here is the burning question that should have been asked before this travesty of a bill even left committee: HOW WILL YOU KNOW IF SOMEONE IS GAY UNLESS THEY TELL YOU? Are we going to make it a standard practice to try and "pick them out of the crowd?" If so, I have news for you: your efforts will FAIL. How do I know this? Well, I am a man who is happily married to a beautiful woman. Yet I can't tell you how many times I have been mistaken for a homosexual man. I've been HIT ON by gay men, asked on multiple occasions if I'm gay, and been tagged as gay behind my back. One of my closest, genuine friends first came up to talk to me BECAUSE HE THOUGHT I WAS GAY!!! He's still a great friend to this day, but that's beside the point. The actual point I hope people understand is this: YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU ASK OR I TELL YOU IF I AM GAY OR NOT. The only way for this law to work without full disclosure is TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS. I'd like to see how that goes over the next time two women (for example) give each other a quick hug and a kiss before shopping around at a store owned by a bigoted individual. A kiss and hug does not in and of itself indicate a gay relationship. Unless you see groups of flaming homosexuals making out like heathens in your place of business, you really have no idea if they're gay or not.

Now here's the sticky part: Do I think churches and church organizations should have the right to say "No, I'm sorry, we are not going to perform a marriage ceremony for you because you're gay?" Yes, I absolutely do. The doctrines of most Christian (and Jewish, and Islamic) churches declare homosexuality a sin. Under that doctrine, gay marriage is not an acceptable practice, so the church would be well within it's right to decline (respectfully!) to perform the ceremony. Should the State (Kansas in this case) refuse to allow legal unions? Absolutely NOT! Why? Simply put, IT'S NOT THE STATE'S JOB TO TELL GROWN ADULTS WHO THEY CAN AND CAN NOT BRING INTO THEIR PRIVATE BEDROOM. Or more accurately, who they can love.

"But I'm a Christian, and I own a business, so I can refuse service to anyone I want!" Well, that's NOT entirely true. Civil Rights laws (in place since 1964) already prohibit refusing service to the impaired, or because of race and/or religion. You still have to serve African-Americans, Native Americans, Latin Americans, Greeks, Germans, ethnic Bosnians, Hungarians, and yes, even the occasional Frenchman. You have to serve the hearing impaired, the blind, the mentally ill, the mentally challenged, paralytics, amputees, and yes, sometimes people who are just plain STUPID. You have to serve Jews, Muslims, Sikhs (they even get to wear their ceremonial dagger), Ba'hai, Kabballah, Satanists (yep, and that one even stings me), Hindu, Shinto, Buddhists, and even the occasional Jedi. Now, tell me this: Out of those, how many of them can you actually even IDENTIFY if you wish to advocate discrimination against a particular group? Only the most flamboyant of the group (and the Sikhs, because they are required to dress a certain way). A gay man walks into a restaurant, alone, to order lunch. How do you know he's gay? Is he effeminate? Is he wearing pink? Perhaps a shirt that says "Stand back, ladies, I'm gay?" Nope. Most often, he's going to look one way: NORMAL. And the most important point is this: You are a Christian (though if you advocate blatant discrimination I would take issue with that) BUT YOUR BUSINESS IS NOT. Unless you are affiliated with and sponsored by a church entity, you are just a business, like everyone else.

But let's set aside the legal aspects of this, and look at it from a purely Christian ethics viewpoint. We once used God as an excuse to segregate and discriminate against Native Americans (in many cases violently so). We did the same with the Caribbean natives, and with Mexico's native Aztecs, with Africans, etc. Catholics discriminated against protestants (sometimes even killing them), Baptists against Lutherans, you get the idea. Now, instead of embracing the fact we have moved BEYOND such rampant barbarism, wen want to take ten steps BACKWARD, ALL WHILE DECLARING IT A MOVE TO PROTECT AGAINST RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. What utter nonsense! Do we as Christians REALLY think that such an action is justified? Can you as a Christian look in the mirror and say "I can accept discriminating against people because their lifestyle is sinful?" Go ahead. Do EXACTLY that. I dare you to look yourself in the eye and feel good about it. I don't. Do I think practicing homosexuality is a sin (here's where I get myself into trouble)? Yes, I do. Do I think that I am then justified to use that as an excuse to MAKE A LAW that actively advocates full discrimination from not just the private business sector BUT FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AS WELL? No, absolutely not. If anyone thinks this action is justified, I highly suggest you go re-read the Gospels, particularly the Beatitudes.

It's not wrong to say "I'm sorry, I don't agree with your lifestyle. I believe it to be a sin" to a gay person any more than it is to say the same thing to a drug addict or agnostic/atheist or EVEN TO YOURSELF (I remind you that we are all, after all, sinners who fall short of God). It IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG to use that as justification to reject someone, to refuse them service at a restaurant, or hotel, or gas station, or WIC office, SRS, or any other government entity. Christians fought for quite a few centuries to avoid persecution and discrimination, and then we turn around and use our Christianity as a WEAPON to do it in return, over and over again throughout history. That, my friends, is just not right. Neither is this bill.

Baseball Writers should have a Hall of Shame...for themselves

It pains me to say this, but today I am ashamed to be a baseball fan.  Today the final votes for this year’s Hall of Fame class will be announced, and early projections indicate no player currently on the ballot will be voted into the Hall.  I find this to be a travesty and an absolute sham for several reasons.

First, let us look at a couple of names on the ballot.

 Jack Morris belongs in, and not just because of the basic stats.  Morris gave us many shining moments over his career, but none more than Game 7 of the 1991 World Series and his 1-0 10-inning shutout.  The 2012 vote had him at 66%.  With 254 wins, a 3.90 career ERA, and legendary moments such as the one mentioned above, not having Morris in the Hall is ridiculous.

Mike Piazza also belongs in without question.  .308 career batting average, 427 career home runs, and career OPS of .922 put him among the best catchers of all-time.  The sole reason for keeping him out at this point is the SUSPICION of PED use.  He was never linked to such use, he was never even suspected of it until now, and his career exhibits a standard shift in performance as he aged. 

Craig Biggio is another player from the era that has never been officially linked to PED use but will be painted with the same broad, indiscriminate brush.  If he is not elected, he would be the first member of the 3,000-hit club to NOT get in on the first ballot.  He is the only player in history to earn All-Star recognition at catcher and second base, and capably played in center and left field.  The only players with 3,000 hits that are NOT in the Hall are Pete Rose and Rafael Palmeiro, both of whom have other CONFIRMED issues that kept them out.  Biggio has NONE, and should not be excluded solely on baseless suspicion.

Now we come to my primary reason for my disappointment and shame.  The BBWAA members have decided, to one degree or another, to exclude candidates for the Hall based simply on the suspicion of PED use.  Some candidates, such as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa, have been confirmed as users.  Now, one can argue the finer points of the era; steroids were not against the rules, no one can conclusively say who did or did not use them, MLB as a whole turned a blind eye so long as it benefited from the “chicks dig the longball” era.  That is a healthy debate that SHOULD take place.  What should NOT be occurring is the exclusion of Hall-worthy players simply because they played in that particular era.  Players were not excluded from the Hall during the amphetamine or cocaine eras, despite widespread use of both drugs.  I absolutely do not want to hear arguments that PEDs had a greater effect on the game than amphetamines.  While PEDs help one See Ball, Hit Ball Farther, amphetamine use helped players keep their energy up for long road trips or the infamous day/night doubleheader. 

I think the larger point is NO ONE had a problem with steroid use while it was bringing baseball back from the brink of collapse after the 1995 strike, LEAST of all the baseball writers.  Now they want to sit in judgment of the players they willingly and knowingly abetted in their steroid use.  In short, they knew all along what was happening and did NOTHING.  Said NOTHING.  Cared NOT ONE BIT about the effect of steroids on the game, or the youth who were watching.  Now, after having been caught with their pants down, they find themselves in a unique position of power, able to mete out punishment as they see fit while avoiding any repercussions themselves.  Instead of taking the high road and coming to a conclusion, the writers have instead chosen to use their position to club us over the head with how terrible this era was and how every record is tainted.  Unfortunately, it has become akin to being arrested for drug possession because you live in the same apartment complex as a drug dealer.  If you played baseball between 1996 and 2004 and have Hall of Fame credentials, your candidacy will be in question.  Players from this era will be judged by a group whose sole purpose is to assuage their own consciences, which is extraordinarily unfair to every player of my generation.  Save your sanctimony for the players who are actually KNOWN to have used steroids.  For once, it is time for the press to step down from the pedestal of judgment and recuse itself from any judgments that involve whether a player did or did not use PEDs.  Judge them on their merits.  It should be as simple as that.

An Open Letter on behalf of the Middle Class

An open letter to this election year’s candidates for office:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It has certainly been a trying year on the political scene.  Over the last twelve years or so, certainly since the 2000 election year, partisanship has taken hold of our system of government to a degree not seen since the Great Depression.  In this information age we have seen politicians from both parties caught spouting lies and nonsensical “data” like never before, all due to the fact we have ways of checking their statements against the facts.  The press has been only too eager to add their spin on such gaffes, making sorting through the drudge to get to the facts all the more difficult.  Regardless, it has been an entertaining yet depressing year for both parties.  From Obama’s inability to construct some form of coalition that allows for passage of legislation to the Republican Party’s inability to get its candidates to stop speaking out of ignorance, it would be a miracle if voters have any confidence in any candidate in the field at this point.  There are things to look for, however, and that is what I am about to give you now.

I am not a politician, nor do I profess loyalty to any particular party.  I do consider myself a bit more liberal than conservative on most issues, so bear that in mind.  It was during GOP candidate Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech that I was prompted to write this letter, because I think there is a pervasive lack of understanding, either through ignorance or willful neglect, of your constituency.  This misconception, I might add, applies to BOTH parties.  I am 37 years old and a father of three children.  I have been married for thirteen years and once my thesis is complete I will have a Master’s Degree in history to complement my Bachelor’s Degree in Social Studies Education.  My household’s income is less than $40,000 annually and that is with my wife and I both working full-time jobs.  I just finished working a temporary part-time job to help make ends meet, and I am currently scrambling to find another.  The city in which I live is in one of the most economically-depressed areas in the state and the nation.  Put simply, we are living day-to-day and hoping to keep the ship afloat. 

Why do I bring this up, you ask?  Well, it is quite simple.  Both candidates for President and nearly every Congressional candidate I hear talks about the same thing:  bringing success back to the American people with jobs, and income, and whatever promise-of-the-moment they care to make.  Mr. Romney made it very clear how he feels America can once again be the land of opportunity for those willing to take a chance.  It is certainly a valid point, and a laudable outlook on the future. 

But his America, and President Obama’s, and Nancy Pelosi’s, and Jim Boehner’s…is not my America.

My America does not involve starting my own business.  Nor does it include the opportunity to take a chance on something.  I have no margin for error.  My goal has never been about becoming independently wealthy.  I do wish to find employment sufficient to provide a comfortable living for my family and allow my wife to work only if she so chooses, rather than because there is no other option.  Who doesn’t?  This, my fellow Americans, points at the heart of the problem.  I want to be a teacher.  I want to show future generations the brilliant successes and abject failures our country has endured.  I want to help the young people of tomorrow understand why the people who run these ads every two years are so hateful to each other, though some campaign attacks simply defy explanation.  Here is the bottom line for you, Mr. Romney and you also, Mr. President:

What about me?

What about my family?  What about our America, an America where we, too can see success?  We own our home, but we are upside down along with millions of other Americans.  We own two vehicles but insurance costs for two GOOD drivers are still prohibitive.  We have an attic fan that we run for most of the spring despite rather severe allergies simply because we cannot sustain a $200+ per month electric bill that comes with our air conditioning. 

You see, ladies and gentlemen, I do not hear anything about what you plan to do to help my family.  I hear no plan for improving our schools and opening up more teaching jobs, well, unless we are talking math or science.  My wife is one of the most valuable people in this country because she can act as an interpreter for the deaf community.  She is certainly more powerful as a woman than Ann Romney because she has raised a family while working full-time to help support it instead of staying at home thanks to being independently wealthy!  Please tell me how WE get to see this America of jobs and opportunity.  Explain to me how WE benefit.  What policies have you suggested that simply cannot take the risks???

I frankly do not care what party to which you pledge allegiance.  I simply want you all, be you Blue or Red, to remember me. 

Because I am middle-class America, ladies and gentlemen.  I am he of whom you speak.  I am “Joe the Plumber,” the greeter at Wal-Mart, the store manager at Gamestop or Hastings, the bank teller who cashes your checks, the cashier who grimaces with you every time you pay for fuel.  I am that person, and there are MILLIONS LIKE ME.

WE ARE AMERICA!  We make this country move.  We pay our taxes, we spend our paychecks on groceries and fuel, and the occasional movie or steak dinner.  WE ARE AMERICA, and our voices MUST BE HEARD.  We MUST not  be SILENT, we CANNOT be SILENCED, and we want to know, ladies and gentlemen, if you are going to help this country, WE ARE PART OF IT TOO!  We educate your children, we sometimes even care for them as if they were our own.  We WORK for a living.

So once again, I ask one simple question.  It is the only question to ask in this situation, and I ask it on behalf of all those who struggle daily to get by, who live paycheck-to-paycheck and who honestly do not give a rip about what is happening to the top 1%.  We only want to hear the answers to this:

What about us?  What’s your plan?

Sincerely,

The Middle Class

REVIEW - KINGDOMS OF AMALUR: RECKONING

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning  is a fantasy action-RPG, and was the first and only offering from the fledgling 38 Studios, founded by former Major League Baseball pitcher Curt Schilling, and Big Huge Games.  The creative talent included art direction from Spawn creator Todd McFarlane, story from fantasy writer R. A. Salvatore, and game design direction from Elder Scrolls: Morrowind and Oblivion director Ken Rolston.  Though this review should be relatively spoiler-free, there is no guarantee of that so read with caution.  Spoilers will not be flagged with “ZOMG!!! SPOILER ALERT!”

Disclaimer:  I have 84 hours in the game as of now, and I have not yet finished it.  This review is meant to give my impressions of the game and gameplay to this point, not a final judgment.

Story:

The basic premise of the story, and the theme that runs throughout the land of Amalur, is that all beings are tied to the Threads of Fate, a concept seemingly borrowed from Greek mythology and modified in a very interesting way.  Your character is one of many killed at the hands of the Tuatha, a sect of immortal Fae who inhabit Amalur.  Their leader, Gadflow, has waged a bloody campaign across the face of Amalur in the name of his new god.  The Gnomish alchemist Fomorous Hugues, in an attempt to combat the onslaught, worked on a way to resurrect the fallen in what was called the Well of Souls.  It was through this your soul was returned to your body and you were brought back to life.  Unfortunately, you wake atop a pile of decaying bodies whose souls failed to return.  It is an excellent way to start the game and sets the tone immediately. 

The escape from the Well of Souls provides all the basic training you need to set out among the world of Amalur as a truly unique individual.  You see, having been resurrected from the Well of Souls, you are no longer tied to the Threads of Fate.  In fact, you are able to control Fate itself, affecting your future and that of others.  It was a bit disappointing to find that power is generally limited to specific plot segments or Fateshifting enemies (more on that later) and many of the choices made have little to no effect on the world of Amalur as a whole.  Still, it is a neat story conceit that keeps things moving in a land where a lot of things are happening but there is very little genuine emotion from any characters.  NPCs will talk to you with either a button prompt or as you pass them by, but nothing gives the impression this is a desperate, war-torn world beyond NPCs telling you it is.

Side stories and their attendant quests are plentiful, but while the questing itself is interesting, the stories tend to be rather bland and unmemorable.  They are also indiscriminate, so I can simultaneously be a member of the Travelers, which is a thieves’ guild; the Warsworn, who are essentially mercenaries; the House of Ballads, a Fae ruling council; and Archsage of the Scholia Arcana, which is more-or-less a mage’s academy (no, not like Hogwart’s so stop it).  It’s nice they didn’t require you to choose a faction and then close off all other quest lines, but it can be very difficult sometimes to keep track of what faction holds your current quest.  Also, if you are given a mission as a Traveler to steal from the Warsworn, there is no penalty for getting caught other than paying a fine or spending some precious XP to get out of jail.  While it would be nice to see more action and consequence within the story, it doesn’t significantly detract from the enjoyment of the game.  The writers and developers clearly intended for this game to be played fully, and by that I mean no options would be closed to the player. 

Visuals:

This world of Amalur is visually rich, and I mean rich.  Character designs are beautiful and not generic (if you can excuse the fact nearly all Ljosalfar and Dokkalfar women have large, firm breasts that are showcased quite fully by their outfits).  There are several skin tone variations to the characters as well as several variants of facial hair and clothing.  All are actually quite pleasing to the eye. 

The environments are, while not exactly stunning, extremely pleasing to the eye and differentiated quite nicely.  From the desert of Detyre to the spider-infested forest of Webwood to the Tywili Coast near Rathir, each environment is as unique and beautiful as those who inhabit the land.  They are bright, colorful, and vastly different.  From a technical standpoint, the environments do suffer from texture-popping and the occasional hitch as you run from one area to another, but overall these are minor complaints.

Sound:

The sounds and music are, well, fairly bland.  The same attack music plays every time an enemy spots you, which gets old, and you get the same background music for every load screen as well.  Weapon sounds are crisp and fit what you might expect from the various weapons in the game.  Voice acting is also somewhat bleh, though it is clear some of the actors are actually trying, and as a bonus they either had a positively huge cast or some very talented actors who are able to significantly alter their voice for a wide range of characters.  Still, the net result is a lot of talking to characters that are either neglecting to showcase any emotion whatsoever, or presenting their emotions in a way that contradicts whatever situation in which they find themselves. 

Gameplay:

This is where Kingdoms of Amalur positively soars.  I have yet to play an RPG with this degree of ease in movement, potion and spell management, and combat.  Everything your character can do in this world can be quickly and easily accessed through quick buttons or the menu.  There is even a radial menu for potions accessed through LB on the Xbox 360 and R-whatever on the PS3.  And oh, the combat.  When you dive into combat you suddenly feel like you’ve moved from the RPG realm to an action hack-n-slash on par with God of War.  You have two main weapons, mapped to X for the primary and Y for the secondary, and the nature of your attacks is wholly dependent on the pattern of button presses.  Want to slash the heck out of a Barghest?  Just tap X with a longsword equipped.  Prefer to use more powerful attacks?  Hold X or Y for a charged attack that does major damage.  Feeling stealthy?  Equip daggers and hit RB to sneak up behind an enemy, then hit Y to perform a brutal assassination.  Grab a shield to block attacks by holding LT.  Push the A button while walking and you break into a run.  Just be careful because A also harvests reagents and picks up loot.  Pull RT, and your magic menu opens.  Hold RT and press a face button to perform the mapped spell.  It really is that simple, and it works so very well when in combat.  You can even access your inventory during a fight if you want to swap an ineffective weapon for a better one.  If you are too busy with a group of enemies to hit the potions radial, pressing left or right on the D-pad accesses health and mana potions, respectively.  Ultimately, there is never a moment where you feel as if you are tasked with pushing too many buttons at once. 

The effects of your combat moves are well-represented as well.  Longswords slash through the air with authority, chakram look and sound incredibly menacing, and daggers are positively deadly.  There are greatswords that make Ice from Game of Thrones look like a toothpick, and unique weapons like Faeblades that resemble dual-wielded bat’leth.  All of the weapons have a very satisfying level of “thunk” when making contact with virtual flesh, and animations faithfully reflect the weight of the weapon used.  Spells also showcase the quality of animation and effects quite well.  Storm Bolt, for example, will almost always knock back a normal enemy or grouped enemies, possibly even stunning them.  Quake ferociously rattles the screen as your ground-pounding creates instant stalagmites.  All spells and effects generate with authority, for lack of a better phrase.  Even the Scorpion-from-Mortal-Kombat-like harpoon doesn’t make you think “oh, they STOLE that one...”

Closing Thoughts:

There really is not much room for complaint if you are an action-oriented RPG fan.  The few I have are centered around the rather droll voice actors and the fact it is far too easy for enemies to a) lock you out of attack animations so they can beat your brains out, because there are not very many clear-out maneuvers that are instant, and b) if an enemy is resistant to a spell it has ZERO effect, to the point where it does not even knock the enemy out of HIS attack animation.  It is an annoying game trait, but only a very minor one.  The best compliment I can give the game is this:  I have played it for over eighty hours and I am not even halfway done with it.  I pick up the controller, swearing I will only play for an hour, and I play for three or four.  It is that easy to be absorbed into the world.  Start a quest here, and by the time you get there you have had conversations with a half-dozen NPCs, sold some items, picked up and completed three fetch-this quests and still have four more in your active quest line before you realize you have yet to finish the quest you started when you loaded the game.  It happens to me all the time because the way the game plays is so unbelievably smooth.  That alone makes a play through worth every minute.

Overall score:  9/10

Thoughts on the Penn State and Chick-Fil-A issues in the news recently:

First up: Penn State and the actions of the NCAA. 

I won’t get into the specifics of the Sandusky case here. Needless to say that saga is as disgusting as one will ever see, and I expect he will find his remaining days very confining and uncomfortable. What I want to address is the overwhelming case of instant justice and out-of-proportion indignation that results from these situations nowadays. While I understand the Freeh report was drafted by Louis Freeh, former FBI director, and was very comprehensive, the idea that Freeh’s report should be the final, definitive word on the scandal is, quite frankly, absurd. Freeh had the full cooperation of Penn State the institution, but he lacked the power of subpoena and the power to compel testimony from key actors in the case. Certainly Curlee and Spanier refrained from providing testimony to Freeh to protect themselves in upcoming criminal trials, and Paterno was dead! I find it difficult to believe that the Freeh report, as a stand-alone work designed to prove or attempt to prove a case against the institution and the men involved, can be fully accepted at face value without taking the ancillary factors into account.

Yet that is exactly what NCAA president Mark Emmert did when deciding, unilaterally and with full endorsement of the NCAA management council, to crush the Penn State football program with some of the harshest sanctions ever levied. This was done despite the fact the NCAA commissioned no investigation of its own, nor did they so much as attempt a fact-finding of any sort. They simply took the Freeh report, said “Yep, looks good,” and accepted it as full gospel truth. Even the by-laws of the NCAA provide for due process in any investigation, and here they blatantly disregarded their own charter for the sake of an expedient media splash designed to make the NCAA look good. There is simply no other reason for such a quick reaction to the Free report itself. Remember this: It took years before the NCAA finally sanctioned USC for the Reggie Bush benefit scandal. It took months before the NCAA declared Cam Newton eligible to play in 2010, and even then they were criticized for not being thorough enough. Yet by and large everyone is okay with the sanctions given to Penn State with no due process whatsoever!

I agree with the $60 million fine; in fact I applaud it. Sending that money to help victims of sexual abuse and for prevention programs is exactly the right move. Spreading it out over a five-year period to avoid a huge financial impact on the university is also a smart idea. The football money does not apply to just the football program; it supports many other sports in the athletic department. Spreading out the fine helps mitigate the impact on other sports programs. Now here’s where the NCAA goes wrong: First, reducing scholarships for the next four years by twenty is brutally harsh for a football program. So too is the four-year postseason ban. Now you may be wondering why I think this is where the NCAA got it wrong, so I’ll explain. The scholarship reduction and bowl ban serves to punish one group only, the players. They’re not punishing the university president, he’s out. So is the athletic director. They are both facing jail time for being idiots. Sandusky is already figuring out how to become someone’s sweetheart in prison. Joe Pa is dead and can no longer answer the charges. Who does that leave? The young men on the team who weren’t even there when most of this took place! The coaching staff, most of whom were coaching in the NFL last year! None of the actors who were involved in the scandal to begin with are currently associated with Penn State, yet the NCAA and Emmert felt it necessary to make sure the football culture did not override common sense. Oh yes, and one more thing: any player who wants to transfer may do so without penalty. I can say I am proud of the guys who stayed, and I also do not blame the ones who left one bit. I blame the NCAA for once again failing to punish the people who made the mess; instead only managing to punish those left behind to clean it up.

 Now, as for the Chick-Fil-A controversy; I am not going to be friendly with this one. The idea that the owner of a private corporation can voice his feelings on a religious issue and have it so blatantly and completely misconstrued is unconscionable. Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy’s stance is this:

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. 
"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized. 
"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles." 

Now what I would like is for someone to explain how we went from support of “the biblical definition of the family unit” to staunchly anti-gay and anti-gay-rights. Does the company have a policy against hiring gay men and women? No, they do not. Do they actively and forcefully advocate for laws defining marriage as between man and woman? No, they don’t do that either. What Dan Cathy did was voice his belief, and as President and CEO of the company he can speak for himself AND for his stores. Yet somehow his belief that his company operates on biblical principles (for pete’s sake, they’re even closed on Sunday, which some analysts say costs the company revenues in excess of $1 million each week) has made him and, by extension, his company exclusory, elitist and discriminatory. No, no and oh for heaven’s sake, NO. He was speaking of his Christian, biblically-based beliefs, not the civil belief!

Let me put it another way: I can adhere to whatever religious beliefs I wish, and that’s that. At the same time, I would not use those religious beliefs to suppress the civil rights of ANY GROUP. If a church wants to say “No, we are not going to marry a gay couple in our building,” it is well within their purview as a church to do so. But if an atheist heterosexual couple can walk into a justice-of-the-peace, get a marriage license and be LEGALLY BONDED, why can a homosexual couple NOT do the same?  And where in that interview did anyone get the idea that Mr. Cathy openly and fully supported laws that prohibit gay marriage?  Dan Cathy did not, at ANY time, say gay couples should not be given civil consideration. He said his company supports the biblical definition of family. That’s all. And hey, all of you who spent days crying into your cereal over this, outraged and indignant, threatening to boycott the chain? When are you going to realize the free exchange of ideas is what makes this country great? I mean, you wouldn’t want to oh, discriminate against anyone because they have a differing opinion would you? No? See, I didn’t think so.

The recent decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court (or SCOTUS, since the Twitter generation has to fit everything into 140 characters) have me not at a loss, per se, but rather contemplating exactly what style of court we have.  Spin doctors from each party will take today’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act and use it to either attack the President’s declaration that the mandate portion of the law “is not a tax,” or to declare the President had it right all along and it was Congress, specifically the Republicans, who just do not want to “help the American people.”  The Court will be lauded for being socially-conscious or castigated for being too activist.  The Obama Administration, for better or worse, will catch a great deal of fallout from the ruling, and regardless upon which side of the aisle one resides the key will be to maintain perspective and view the facts in this and many of the other recent decisions.  Why?  Because examining recent decisions will help figure out exactly what kind of court we have. 

First, let us look at who is on the court and by whom they were appointed:

Position	Name	Appointed by	Confirmation Vote	Years on Court
Chief Justice	John Roberts	George W. Bush	78-22	7
Justice	Antonin Scalia	Ronald Reagan	98-0	26
Justice	Anthony Kennedy	Ronald Reagan	97-0	25
Justice	Clarence Thomas	George H. W. Bush	52-48	21
Justice	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	Bill Clinton	96-3	19
Justice	Stephen Breyer	Bill Clinton	87-9	18
Justice	Samuel Alito	George W. Bush	58-42	7
Justice	Sonia Sotomayor	Barack Obama	68-31	3
Justice	Elena Kagan	Barack Obama	63-37	2

For the purposes of this discussion, justices will not be referred to as “Republican” or “Democrat.”  The decisions of the court and the votes cast by each justice will be classified as “conservative” or “liberal,” and only to give them a category.  It is not meant to declare each justice as one or the other.  Also, to facilitate discussion, the focus will be on decisions reached by this particular court since 2008.  Political rhetoric and hyperbole have reached a level heretofore unseen, and it began right around the middle/end of President Bush’s second term.  This is not an attempt to minimize the amount of political argument or rhetoric prior to this time, but it is fair to argue the current level of such is unprecedented.  Finally, this blog assumes not political affiliation whatsoever.  The analysis provided here is genuinely meant to be as unbiased as possible.  Now that disclaimers have been addressed, it is time to move on to court decisions. 

One final note:  The decisions addressed will be major decisions.  There are several on the docket that generally have little in the way of political impact, and including all decisions for the last four years would make the discussion rather unwieldy.

2008 Decisions:

Note:  In 2008, Sotomayor and Kagan were not on the court.  John Paul Stevens and David Souter held their seats.

District of Columbia v. Heller:  This was a gun control-related case where a District of Columbia law banning handguns was challenged on Second Amendment grounds.  The majority struck down the DC law as unconstitutional and required a license to be issued provided Heller met the requirements for a license. 

The vote was 5-4 with Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito in favor and Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg dissenting.  It was a wholly conservative decision and the vote indicates a factional split between the Republican-appointed and the Democrat-appointed justices.

There were five job discrimination cases brought before the court in 2008 and in all but one Thomas dissented against the majority opinion.  One case was a 9-0 unanimous decision, a second had Roberts join in dissent, and Thomas and Scalia dissented in the remaining three.  All five cases were decided in favor of the worker; four of the cases involved age discrimination and one was a racial discrimination case.  Without getting into the specifics for the dissent of Thomas and Scalia, there certainly is no ideological division on the decisions rendered in these cases.  They were all decided by a 6-3 vote or better.

Davis v. Federal Election Commission:  The “Millionaire’s Amendment” of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (or more commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act) was challenged by Jack Davis, Congressional candidate from New York.  The amendment required a declaration of intent to spend personal funds and made the candidate subject to other campaign finance limitations even if the majority of expenses were from personal funds.  The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in favor of Mr. Davis and struck down the amendment.  This was another split down the ideological aisle, with the conservatives justices voting to strike the amendment and the liberals dissenting, either wholly or in part.

So from our 2008 sample cases, two would be considered “as expected” decisions while the remaining five from our sample would be somewhat atypical.

2009:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:  This was the landmark case of the 2009 Court calendar, as it addressed one of the key restrictions of the McCain-Feingold Act which prohibited unfettered independent spending by corporations or unions on political advertisements.  The basis for the restriction was to allow for equal time for candidates in all campaign phases and prevent large corporations or entities from out-spending the opposition.  Ironically, this was already taking place with the proliferation of Political Action Committees, or PACS, who were allowed to spend as much money as they could raise on any candidate they chose, provided they disclosed they were not affiliated directly with the candidate they endorsed.  The Court’s 5-4 decision was also a complete ideological split vote, with all five conservative justices joining the decision and all four liberals dissenting.  Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion which was three times longer than the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.  The case was most notable for the admonishment of the court issued by President Obama during his 2010 State of the Union address in which he stated “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”  One of the justices, Roberts I believe, was caught on camera mouthing “That’s not true.”

The remaining cases in 2009 were either small in scope or dealt more with criminal law as opposed to Constitutional civil cases.  The other major case on the docket was:

Salazar v. Buono:  in which a man sued to have a WWI-era cross removed from federal lands on the grounds it constituted government endorsement of religion.  The court ruled, again in a 5-4 decision, that the cross was put up merely as a memorial, not as an endorsement of a particular religion.  This case was watched very closely; if the decision had gone the other way then all the markers in Arlington National Cemetery and other federal cemeteries would have had to be removed.  It was another conservative/liberal split vote.

2009:  Both cases sampled here are perfect examples of ideological split.

2010: 

In a notable change, the Court declined certiorari on two separate cases regarding a large cross on federal land near La Jolla, CA.  Justice Alito issued a statement saying the Court could not take the case given the lower courts had not yet made a decision on the cases yet.  After Salazar v. Buono, it was surprising but legally sound reasoning.

Snyder v. Phelps:  This case was filed by Albert Snyder, father of Matthew Snyder, a Marine killed in combat while serving in Iraq.  Snyder wanted a tort for emotional distress against one Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS, who showed up at the Snyder funeral with his family and church members carrying signs denigrating US soldiers.  The court found that, even if causing emotional distress, such displays are lawful so long as they conform to local ordinances.  The First Amendment protects political rhetoric of any kind.  The decision was 8-1, with only Justice Samuel Alito dissenting.  This was a case where free speech, no matter how distasteful, was wholly protected.

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association):  This was another landmark case that established video games as a form of entertainment art and therefore protected by the current interpretation of the First Amendment.  The 7-2 decision struck down California’s law that restricted sales of violent games to minors.  Only Justices Thomas and Breyer dissented, which makes this particular case a complete wash with regard to ideology.

2011: 

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations (2012): This is a continuation of a case involving expletives blurted out on live TV during the Billboard Music Awards.  The court filed an 8-0 decision which invalidated FCC fines against Fox for the vulgar language but that also affirmed the FCC’s power to regulate broadcast TV licenses as in the public interest and therefore not a violation of the First Amendment.

2012:

This year has seen some fairly significant rulings by the court.  Let us start with:

Stolen Valor Act: This ruling struck down a law that provided for criminal punishment of anyone who falsely claims to have earned military honors.  It was based on the case of one Xavier Alvarez, who claimed to have earned the Medal of Honor as a Marine.  When Alvarez was exposed as a liar, he was convicted under the act and given a $5000 fine and probation.  The US Supreme Court, upon receiving the case, overturned the law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment in a 6-3 decision.  The three dissenters were all conservatives, but that leaves two of the five to back the First Amendment.

Arizona v. United States: This decision controversially struck down parts of Arizona’s immigration law while upholding one other key provision which allowed the state police to investigate immigration status if someone was detained for other reasons.  The 6-3 decision again had Alito, Thomas and Scalia, three conservatives, as the dissenters.

Affordable Care Act: The Act, long thought to be struck down as incompatible with the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, was upheld, including the coverage mandate, by a 5-4 vote.  All four liberal justices voted in favor, of course, but they were joined by conservative Chief Justice Roberts.  Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy dissented. 

So why did I go through all this analysis?  Primarily for ONE reason:  It is to help people understand that when they hear the pundits from either side talking about the fairness of the court or about judicial activism and how this court is in the pocket of the President or beholden to Congress they can understand that, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts, “That’s not true.”  For the Chief Justice to actually uphold a provision that he himself calls a tax as a conservative is, quite frankly, bizarre.  It does help underscore the fact the court is trying to remain as strictly Constitutional as it can but it sure makes it difficult to call some of these decisions when you see reversals of this nature.  It should not escape one’s notice that Chief Justice Roberts has sided with the liberal justices in the three major decisions I used in 2012 as examples.  However, prior to 2012, he was in the conservative camp on every issue not related to First Amendment rights.  So before you throw your shoe at the TV because of the blanketyblanking activist court, look at its track record.  It’s actually fairly moderate.  Just refrain from trying to guess what this court will decide.  As you can see, there is no predictability whatsoever. 

Steroids as "Cheating" is the WRONG focus

While I understand and support the need to get steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs that were illegally obtained out of baseball, and I am glad they are now against the rules, I have a quibble, and it's a big one. 


How do you consider it cheating when there were no rules in place at the time? If Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, et. al., were using steroids in the late-90s, and setting aside the fact they were illegal, how is it CHEATING when it's not against the RULES??? Everyone who discusses this issue comes off all sanctimonious and judgmental about the "cheaters" who used 'roids, but they all seem to forget that there was not a single rule in place that prohibited steroid use in the Major Leagues until 2004-ish. NONE. If you want to get all haughty-taughty about the bad men who used steroids, for crying out loud talk about the REAL laws they broke, not the bull-snaps about wrecking the "Spirit of the Game" or the "Sanctity of Baseball." Hell, if you sports writers had reached down and grabbed yours then wrote about the problem BACK THEN, it could have been cleared from our plates almost twenty years ago.

The bottom line for me is this: They were illegal. That should be the focus, as well as the potential long-term harm that can result from use. Stop acting like it was an inherent harm to the game and making that the more important issue. It isn't, and it never was.