Chicken Stuff

I ate at a Chick-fil-A yesterday. I may eat at one during  the August 1^st “reverse boycott”, though I may not out of reluctance to stand in line for a such a long time. I am definitely on the company’s side during  this nonsense, despite the fact that I disagree with its owner’s notions on marriage between homosexuals. It’s a free country, and homosexuals have a right to have any kind of marriage ceremonies they want, with any meaning  they want to assign to them, performed and sanctioned by anyone willing to do so. It’s not anyone else’s business, nor is it a threat to the fabric of society. (Whether such marriages should get the government’s recognition and the slightly gentler treatment from the tax collectors that married heterosexuals get is a matter of politics, not rights, and should be settled by voting and legislation, just as was, for example,  the issue of giving  slightly gentler treatment to mortgage payers compared to renters. Questions of rights do not come up in making policies on taxes.)

But I completely oppose the politicians who have threatened to keep Chick-fil-A out of their jurisdictions because of its owner’s opinions on the matter. Prohibiting people from doing business because of their religious beliefs is just a little too central European for me. The politicians who have threatened to do so should retract their threats, apologize in public, and take some time  to think about the role of freedom of conscience and speech in this country.

As an aside, one should imagine how different the reactions in the traditional media and among assorted big city political hacks would have been if the CEO of the chicken outfit had decried homosexual marriages because of his deeply held Islamic beliefs. It makes for  an instructive exercise.

Which Meaning?

As the campaign for president goes along, we can expect to hear more accusations of racism directed at people who criticize Obama. It will be useful to consider what different people mean by the terms “racist” and “racism” and which meaning is being used in the campaign.

In its most precise sense racism means the doctrine that the members of some races or ethnic groups are inherently inferior or superior to other people solely on the basis of belonging to the group. A racist is a person who adheres to such doctrines. Example would include Nazis, Ku Kluxers, and members of some black identity or black nationalist groups. The terms are used in this way mainly by people who think about the exact meaning and shades of meaning of the words they use.

In a looser sense people use the term “racism” as a synonym for racial prejudice or bigotry to refer to opinions or actions  disparaging, condemning, judging, or disapproving of  a person only because he belongs to a particular race or ethnic group.  Used in this way the word is less precise and ignores the important distinction between the merely prejudiced and the doctrinaire racist. It  is often so used by people not thinking quite as clearly as they might.

Far less precise is  the use of “racism” as a label for anything that is or might be viewed as insulting or annoying to black people. Here things ranging from criticisms of affirmative action or serious discussions of statistical differences among groups in education, crime rates, or economic attainment all the way to gross ethnic jokes, use of taboo words such as “nigger”, and actual prejudice or discrimination get  rolled together into a vague amalgam.  This usage is common among  both political hacks and people careless in their thinking and receptive to indoctrination.

In a similar way, the word “racism” is sometimes used to mean any public criticism of the actions, ability, or opinions of any black person, irrespective of whether the criticism is based on the person’s race. This is  done mainly by fools and scoundrels.

Then there is the labeling as “racism” of any public criticism of the actions, ability, or opinions of any black person, provided that he is also a  leftist (leaving  the Herman Cains, Clarence Thomases, Thomas Sowells, and so on of the world as fair game).  This is common in politics and the traditional news media and is  done chiefly by scoundrels.

It is a safe bet that many of Obama’s cheerleaders and sycophants will make ample use of this last definition during the campaign.

In the Club

On Sunday our local newspaper ran an  article from the AP demanding draconian punishment from the NCAA for Penn State’s football program for the program’s and the university’s officials  tolerating, covering up, and apparently abetting the crimes of a predatory homosexual child molester  over a period of many years. I agree with the author that severe punishment is called for, but I also think it is unlikely. The NCAA is a bureaucracy. Almost all bureaucracies are staffed by people more concerned with rules than with principles, and more interested in formula and procedure than reason or common sense. Since there is probably nothing in the rule book that specifically mentions what to do with something exactly like the Sandusky case, the folks at the NCAA  may be at a loss as to how to act, or at least how to act decisively and appropriately.  Beyond that, the NCAA is a corrupt bureaucracy, even apart from the pious nonsense its officials spew about “student athletes”.  The Ohio States and Notre Dames of the world get treated quite differently from the UNLV’s, Boise States, North Dakotas, and Texas Techs. Penn State is in the club.  I doubt the NCAA will hit it anywhere nearly as hard as (if the reports in the press are accurate) is deserved. The only reason it might is that enough people are watching this in disgust that the bureaucrats  at the NCAA might think their phony baloney jobs (or even their phony baloney organization)  are at stake.

Disclosures - Romney and Obama

The Democrats and their cheerleaders in the traditional media are demanding that Romney release his tax returns for the last ten years. I have a suggestion for how he should respond. He should offer to release his returns the day after Obama releases a detailed chronology of what names he has gone by and what origins and nationalities he has claimed, at what times and for what purposes, along with a full description of his past affiliations with communists and far left organizations, an explanation of how he was able to  transfer from a no name college in California to Columbia and who paid for his time at Columbia,   and a listing in full of what parts of his autobiography are false or “composite”.  Mitt could also insist on full disclosure on Fast and Furious, leaked national security information, and any plans Obama may have  to give the Russians nuclear superiority.