One of the problems with our Capitalistic economic system is its "convenient" Socialism. By "convenient" socialism, I mean the situation where a company gets to keep its profits even as its products cause unbelievable damage and great expense to society at large. Instead, the costs are borne by all of us, but not by the business that caused the mess, even it it deceitfully and willfully caused the damage and misery.
For example, for years tobacco companies knew that their products were dangerous. As per Robert N. Procter, "The American Tobacco Company in the summer of 1953 took the extraordinary step of sponsoring a series of secret animal tests in the laboratories of the Ecusta Paper Corporation, makers of much of the world’s cigarette paper, with the goal of finding out whether it was the tobacco leaf or the cigarette paper that was causing all this cancer. Their conclusion, distributed only privately, was that tobacco—and not the paper—was the culprit... Tobacco industry insiders by the mid 1950s clearly knew their product was dangerous. In December of 1953, when Hill and Knowlton was exploring how to respond to the uproar surrounding the publication of carcinogens in cigarette smoke, one tobacco company research director commented in a confidential interview: ‘Boy! Wouldn't it be wonderful if our company was first to produce a cancer-free cigarette. What we could do to competition!’ Another remarked on how fortunate it was ‘for us’ (ie, for cigarette manufacturers) that smokers were engaging in ‘a habit they can't break.’ The mid-1950s cancer consensus was clearly (albeit privately) shared by the companies; and the reality of addiction was also starting to be conceded—at least in internal industry documents..." http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87.full
The tobacco companies then went on to deny or claim disbelief in the cigarette/cancer link for decades after. Procter reports, "As late as 1994 the CEOs of the nation’s seven leading manufacturers—the “Seven Dwarfs”—all stood up before theU.S. Congress and swore they did not believe that cigarettes caused cancer or were addictive. Then again, in 1998, PhilipMorris CEO Geoffrey Bible testified under oath, “I do not believe that cigarette smoking causes cancer.” Bible conceded a “possible risk” but not a “proven cause,” the distinction lying in a kind of legal having-it-both-ways: an admission strong enough to ward off accusations of having failed to warn, yet weak enough to exculpate from charges of having marketed a deadly product." http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/09/07/2012/who-knew-what-and-when.html?interest=8&audience=4
Now you could argue that the tobacco companies have paid for their transgressions in the form of taxes which are now above and beyond ordinary sales taxes. I don't think so.
An ordinary citizen criminal would have been stripped of everything they had if they had caused the same amount of damage and misery to society - they would have been left penniless if they had caused the death of millions of persons - all for the sake of gaining wealth. They would have gone to jail and possibly been executed.
Consider that people DIED because of the denial and misrepresentations of the tobacco industry, yet no one was convicted of murder. The tobacco companies and their executives got away with it because of the law's lack of understanding of the probabilistic nature of the universe - cigarettes don't ALWAYS cause cancer, they merely drastically increase its chances. Cigarettes can only be said to have killed a percentage of smokers who got cancer, but not WHICH smokers got cancer from cigarettes. Our willfully ignorant laws do not account for the certainty that cigarettes killed millions because the laws assume a deterministic universe - the law irrationally requires more information than the universe can ever supply. So tobacco executives and companies got away with killing millions because cigarettes did not kill every last smoker. The tobacco company costs were conveniently "socialized."
Other industries and companies have taken their turns reaping great profits while costing society plenty. It's currently Volkswagen's turn. It has been discovered that Volkswagen, the world's biggest producer of cars, has deliberately planted software to reduce the emissions of some of their diesel cars during emissions testing only, but not during its use by drivers! Yes, their clean diesels are actually up to 40% dirtier than the law allows in actual use.
"In May 2014, ICCT alerted the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board about their findings. On Friday, EPA said VW could be liable for up to $18 billion in penalties for using software on almost 500,000 VW and Audi diesel cars that circumvented emissions regulations, unleashing a controversy that threatens long-term damage to VW's finances, leadership and reputation." http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/us-usa-volkswagen-emission-idUSKCN0RL2EI20150922
True, they are subject to $18,000,000,000 in fines but what will become of the pollution their cars spewed into the atmosphere? What will happen to the cars owned by drivers, many of them, presumably. who bought them because they were "clean" diesels? And of course, what burden will Volkswagen and its executives bear for perpetrating this hoax, increasing pollution that undoubtedly led to at least one person's death from some form of respiratory disease - that is the problem with pollution after all - isn't it? Will anyone in Volkswagen answer for the certain death and disease that their fraud has caused?
Although Volkswagen's decision to commit fraud, without a doubt, led to someone's disease and death, no one will be charged because the law does not understand or recognize the probabilistic nature of the universe. The costs will be conveniently socialized.
Addendum, 10/3/15: The Associated Press did some research and here it is: http://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/article/AP-analysis-Dozens-of-deaths-likely-from-VW-6547657.php
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Freedom of Speech or Cowardice?
By now, you probably have heard about the Trump supporter who asked the candidate a question at a campaign event, and in the process revealed some startling information.
As per CNN: "We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," an unidentified man who spoke at a question-and-answer town hall event in Rochester, New Hampshire asked the mogul at a rally Thursday night. "You know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."
A seemingly bewildered Trump interrupted the man, chuckling, "We need this question. This is the first question."
"Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us," the man, wearing a "Trump" T-shirt, continued. "That's my question: When can we get rid of them?"
"We're going to be looking at a lot of different things," Trump replied. "You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We're going to be looking at that and many other things." (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/17/politics/donald-trump-obama-muslim-new-hampshire/)
In my opinion, if someone asks you "how long have you been beating your wife?" you can properly object that it's a loaded question which assumes the conclusion (unless it's true, of course). The man's question assumes that Obama is a Muslim, that he's not an American, and oh yes, that there are training camps, apparently well known to the man asking the question and therefore well known to the government as well, and that no one is doing anything about them. And that our country's "problem" are "Muslims." Not radical jihadist Muslims, no; not terrorist Muslims, nope. Muslims, period, which, if words mean anything, means ALL Muslims since no distinctions of any kind are made.
Mr. Trump's response accepts all of this by being silent; it is my recollection that when Mr. Trump disagrees with something he hears, he is not bashful about mentioning it. He has been known to interrupt persons who say something he believes is untrue; in fact, it is a trait for him to interrupt others in this way. Does he not object to anything the man said; wasn't at least some of it untrue as far as Trump knows?
So are we to understand that he really doesn't think Obama is a Muslim and that he does believe Obama is an American. Or does my memory deceive me? Wasn't Donald Trump the most vocal and well know "birther" in the world? Are Muslims the "problem," Mr. Trump?
Trump's explanations in his own tweets later on are a wonder of misdirection and irrationality. Here are a couple:
"If I would have challenged the man, the media would have accused me of interfering with that man's right of free speech. A no win situation!" ( http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Donald-Trump-Twitter-Iowa-Obama/2015/09/19/id/692389/ )
This is a joke, right? The Trump supporter had his say, and others have the absolute right to say that, in their opinion, he is wrong. The First Amendment is NOT immunity to disagreement or criticism of what you've said. In fact, it is the protection of the right to disagree and criticize to what anyone has said. Does Donald Trump have any understanding of this?
Here is the other amazing tweet: "Am I morally obligated to defend the president every time somebody says something bad or controversial about him? I don't think so!" Actually the problem wasn't just that what was said was "bad" or "controversial" - it was that it was untrue and/or bigoted.
When a questioner called Obama an "Arab" at a John McCain campaign event in 2008, McCain DID correct the woman who said it. He did it politely but clearly and he went as far to say that Obama was a good man and good American. He was lauded in the press for this correction. McCain earned much respect with his response. What negative consequences did he suffer?
Well, apparently McCain DID suffer some consequences. I suspect that with his reasonable response McCain LOST some of the enthusiasm and votes that Trump has garnered because McCain was not a coward, not a bigot and not a fraud. Trump, on the other hand, has no problem accepting a statement that paints "Muslims"without any disqualifier as the "problem," that paints Obama as one of those problem Muslims and states that the President of the United States is not an American. To hold one's tongue in the face of such a question is not free speech - it's cowardice.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Opposite Think; Religious Freedom is the Opposite of What They Think It Is
On September 8, 2015, a Kentucky County clerk who had been refusing to issue any marriage licences ever since same-sex marriage was upheld was let out of jail after marriage licences began to be issued to all qualified applicants, including same sex couples by the office in which she works. A judge ordered her deputy clerks to issue the licences. It remains to be seen whether she will interfere with the issuance of these licences now that she is out of jail. Her current objection is that same sex marriage offends her religious sensibilities and that her name appears on the paperwork implying her approval even if she does not issue the licence and she is appealing the case based on that objection.
While it was probably ill-advised for the judge to give this clerk the martyrdom she had been seeking by sending her to jail, her obstinate behavior was proving difficult to counter. How could the judge force her to obey the law after all? Fines would probably have been a good idea even though they would have been paid easily by her supporters on her behalf. The licences still would not have been issued.
Tactics aside, the situation raises a number of questions such as "should she be made to violate her 'religious conscience' so that the rule of law is upheld?" This generally is a argument whose conclusion depends on how you define "religious freedom" as enumerated in the First Amendment.
The quick and easy answer is the rule of law must prevail BUT if it violates your conscience, religious or otherwise, and you defy it, you must be prepared to accept the consequences of its violation. This does not mean you can break other laws to signal your opposition to the law in question; no, it means you violate the law in question and hope that the application of the consequences awakens the conscience of the nation in opposition to the supposedly odious law.
This is what Martin Luther King Jr. and his supporters did when they broke the Jim Crow laws, tried to vote or tried to defy any of the racist segregation laws. He did not break other laws and he did not commit violence. He also spent much time in jail suffering the consequences of the laws he broke. His cause ultimately prevailed in the sense that laws enforcing segregation were eventually outlawed because he indeed did awaken the conscience of the country. Thank goodness for Martin Luther King, Jr.
So in this sense the County Clerk is working from the Civil Rights playbook. The question then becomes is whether she is indeed fighting for Religious Freedom and against tyranny. The answer to this is, pretty much obviously, no, she is not fighting for Religious Freedom.
The comparison to the Civil Rights era is again very useful. First of all, this case actually has nothing to do with religion on a legal level - no one cares why the Clerk is not issuing marriage licences to all qualified applicants. Her reasons could be arbitrary and capricious or well thought out. Her reasons are irrelevant. If an atheist or Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Catholic or Jedi Knight were to refuse to issue the licences, they would all be in trouble. The problem is NOT what she believes, it's in her behavior.
That makes all the talk about religious freedom totally bogus since her religious beliefs are simply irrelevant to her being jailed. An atheist would be heading for that same jail if they did the same thing.
We then come down to whether a person has a right, as a government employee and County Clerk, to not give out marriage licences to mixed race couples (for whatever reason) as occurred pre-Civil Rights or to same sex couples (for whatever reason) as is occurring here. Obviously the answer is no, there is no such right.
And no, this County Clerk does not want religious freedom; she wants Religious Privilege. She wants to obey the laws she wants to obey according to her religion in a way the violates the religious beliefs of others. That is the definition of privilege and is the opposite of Religious Freedom. Yes, this is Opposite Think.
While it was probably ill-advised for the judge to give this clerk the martyrdom she had been seeking by sending her to jail, her obstinate behavior was proving difficult to counter. How could the judge force her to obey the law after all? Fines would probably have been a good idea even though they would have been paid easily by her supporters on her behalf. The licences still would not have been issued.
Tactics aside, the situation raises a number of questions such as "should she be made to violate her 'religious conscience' so that the rule of law is upheld?" This generally is a argument whose conclusion depends on how you define "religious freedom" as enumerated in the First Amendment.
The quick and easy answer is the rule of law must prevail BUT if it violates your conscience, religious or otherwise, and you defy it, you must be prepared to accept the consequences of its violation. This does not mean you can break other laws to signal your opposition to the law in question; no, it means you violate the law in question and hope that the application of the consequences awakens the conscience of the nation in opposition to the supposedly odious law.
This is what Martin Luther King Jr. and his supporters did when they broke the Jim Crow laws, tried to vote or tried to defy any of the racist segregation laws. He did not break other laws and he did not commit violence. He also spent much time in jail suffering the consequences of the laws he broke. His cause ultimately prevailed in the sense that laws enforcing segregation were eventually outlawed because he indeed did awaken the conscience of the country. Thank goodness for Martin Luther King, Jr.
So in this sense the County Clerk is working from the Civil Rights playbook. The question then becomes is whether she is indeed fighting for Religious Freedom and against tyranny. The answer to this is, pretty much obviously, no, she is not fighting for Religious Freedom.
The comparison to the Civil Rights era is again very useful. First of all, this case actually has nothing to do with religion on a legal level - no one cares why the Clerk is not issuing marriage licences to all qualified applicants. Her reasons could be arbitrary and capricious or well thought out. Her reasons are irrelevant. If an atheist or Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Catholic or Jedi Knight were to refuse to issue the licences, they would all be in trouble. The problem is NOT what she believes, it's in her behavior.
That makes all the talk about religious freedom totally bogus since her religious beliefs are simply irrelevant to her being jailed. An atheist would be heading for that same jail if they did the same thing.
We then come down to whether a person has a right, as a government employee and County Clerk, to not give out marriage licences to mixed race couples (for whatever reason) as occurred pre-Civil Rights or to same sex couples (for whatever reason) as is occurring here. Obviously the answer is no, there is no such right.
And no, this County Clerk does not want religious freedom; she wants Religious Privilege. She wants to obey the laws she wants to obey according to her religion in a way the violates the religious beliefs of others. That is the definition of privilege and is the opposite of Religious Freedom. Yes, this is Opposite Think.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Explaining Donald Trump and Why Most Media Outets Will Not Do This
Why is Donald Trump leading in the polls for the Republican race for the presidential nomination? Is it his focus on brilliant solutions to our most pressing problems? Is it his personal demeanor which gives his supporters the confidence that he has the temperament to be the leader of the free world?
Nahh!
It's because his supporters are mostly birthers who believe that President Obama is a secret Muslim.
In other words his supporters support Trump because they identify with his outspoken ignorance, his inability to admit mistakes and his trait of speaking in very angry ego-maniacal tones. These supporters gravitate towards people who are certain even if they're certainly wrong. For many, certainty is a virtue while doubt is a vice.
Now here is something that certainly will not bother Trump supporters although it may interest others; the evidence for the above conclusions. A poll from the Public Policy Polling group on 9/3/15 asked some very good and timely questions. Go to
66% of Trump supporters believe that Obama is a Muslim. Only 12% believe he is a Christian. Yup, Obama is one of them gay-loving liberal Muslim jihadists! Only 21% of Trump supporters believe Obama was born in the United States while at the same time 40% of them actively believe that Sen. Ted Cruz WAS born in the U.N. (Cruz was born in Canada.)
Check that out - birthers were totally aghast that Obama became President since he was a Muslim foreigner while ignoring the undisputed fact that Ted Cruz was indeed born abroad and is only a natural born citizen by virtue of the fact that his mother was born in the U.S., which would also be true of Obama (if indeed he was born in Kenya) since no one argues that Obama's mother was born anywhere but in Kansas!
So why will the Media ignore the above? Why do they almost never mention the fact that Trump, for a while, was birther #1? The answer is simple; because to point this out would be to insult the intelligence and sanity of most of his supporters and perhaps a majority of Republicans, which is a large portion of the Media's audience/customers. Please keep in mind that this does not mean ALL Republicans are willfully ignorant and of dubious sanity - John McCain certainly does not fall into this camp, for example. Oh yeah, is it any coincidence that Trump turned on McCain much to the delight of Trump's supporters? I guess that is the price John McCain has to pay for not being totally ignorant or insane.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Duck Dynasty: Religion is no excuse for bigotry
"Duck Dynasty" patriarch and reality TV star Phil
Robertson recently said in response to a question during a magazine interview
about what, in his mind, is sinful, "Start with homosexual behavior and
just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that
woman and that woman and those men."
Mr. Robertson ignores the fact that bestiality is certainly possible and
probably more prevalent among heterosexuals than homosexuals; he simply equates
homosexuality with perversion without offering any evidence or ethical
reasoning other than his own admittedly bible-based moral code.
This blind obedience to a primitive moral code is not unique
or rare; many religious fundamentalists such as Sarah Palin, a former candidate
for Vice President, voiced their support for Mr. Robertson.
Palin wrote, "Free speech is endangered species; those
'intolerants' hatin' & taking on Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing
personal opinion take on us all."
This is pure hypocrisy; Ms. Palin has no problem criticizing
others with whom she disagrees. She
offers no First Amendment excuse for them when she does so.
Palin and Robertson are both also under the misconception
that religious belief allows one to be unethical towards others, in this case,
homosexuals. Religion is no excuse,
however. If your religion condones unjustified bigotry, it is a bigoted
religion. Also, the First Amendment does
not shield one from criticism of one's religious beliefs - indeed, the First
Amendment protects the rights of all to criticize religion or anything else.
Hopefully, at some point, enough in society will come to
choose an ethical approach in their lifestance as opposed to merely hiding
behind belief and obedience; that is when real moral progress will be made.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Art Fraud or Fraud Art?
Earlier this week, on Monday, August 19, 2013, numerous new sources reported the case of a Long Island art dealer gone bad. "A "disposition" of fraud charges against wealthy Sands Point art dealer Glafira Rosales, which could include a guilty plea, is likely soon." (Go to http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/fraud-charges-expected-against-sands-point-art-dealer-1.5920912.)
Although the case is interesting enough just for the sake of the intrigue, greed and gullibility of various art dealers, brokers and galleries, and for the various duped buyers who have nothing better to do with their money than to conspicuously spend their money, I thought there was a deeper and even more interesting story involved.
Exactly how does one sell art work that is fraudulent and ultimately, so it is claimed by some, worthless, for $80,000,000? How does art go from being worth millions to worth nothing when its appearance remains unchanged? Is the "Mona Lisa" priceless only because DaVinci painted it or because it is a infinitely impressive work of art? If the paintings of DaVinci, Picasso, Rembrandt, VanGogh, and others were not stunning in the first place, would their paintings be so valuable? The answer is: they wouldn't be.
Fraudulent paintings are detectable by their lack of the evidence of genius that true paintings by these great artists do reveal. The brush strokes, the shadings, the vibrancy, the realism or even surrealism, cannot be faked well. VanGogh's technique was remarkable and unique; DaVinci's attention to detail, unbelievable. Have you seen a Rembrandt painting in person? You cannot forget it.
Mimicry, however, often reveals itself in noticeable ways and although fraud does occur on occasion, it is difficult to get away with. I have read about paintings identified as created by a master when it was, in fact, a student of the master who created it. The thing is, the painting probably had great merit on its own. $80,000,000 for this supposedly fraudulent artwork, however, seems to be an unbelievable lapse in value judgment by so many people. How was this possible?
In this case the artwork being sold was not by a great past master; the artwork was of Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell and other modernist or Postmodernist painters. And this is the "problem." Take a look below.
Although the case is interesting enough just for the sake of the intrigue, greed and gullibility of various art dealers, brokers and galleries, and for the various duped buyers who have nothing better to do with their money than to conspicuously spend their money, I thought there was a deeper and even more interesting story involved.
Exactly how does one sell art work that is fraudulent and ultimately, so it is claimed by some, worthless, for $80,000,000? How does art go from being worth millions to worth nothing when its appearance remains unchanged? Is the "Mona Lisa" priceless only because DaVinci painted it or because it is a infinitely impressive work of art? If the paintings of DaVinci, Picasso, Rembrandt, VanGogh, and others were not stunning in the first place, would their paintings be so valuable? The answer is: they wouldn't be.
Fraudulent paintings are detectable by their lack of the evidence of genius that true paintings by these great artists do reveal. The brush strokes, the shadings, the vibrancy, the realism or even surrealism, cannot be faked well. VanGogh's technique was remarkable and unique; DaVinci's attention to detail, unbelievable. Have you seen a Rembrandt painting in person? You cannot forget it.
Mimicry, however, often reveals itself in noticeable ways and although fraud does occur on occasion, it is difficult to get away with. I have read about paintings identified as created by a master when it was, in fact, a student of the master who created it. The thing is, the painting probably had great merit on its own. $80,000,000 for this supposedly fraudulent artwork, however, seems to be an unbelievable lapse in value judgment by so many people. How was this possible?
In this case the artwork being sold was not by a great past master; the artwork was of Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell and other modernist or Postmodernist painters. And this is the "problem." Take a look below.
Which of these are the authentic Mark Rothko, Robert Motherwell and Jackson Pollock and which are not?
Well, what does it really matter? This style of painting is beyond criticism, I guess, when experts, art galleries and "serious" collectors lavish $80,000,000 on paintings that turn out to be "worthless." If some of these paintings are indeed fraudulent, and therefore "valueless," it must mean that their appearance has nothing to do with their value. But then, what did their appearance have to do with their value previously, when, one would think, their appearance is the basis upon which you should value them?
Here is the answer to the question about which are which of the above paintings: The third painting is the authentic Jackson Pollock, the fourth is the Robert Motherwell and the fifth is the authentic Mark Rothko. Number 2 is a probable fraudulent Rothko and the first one - was painted by an elephant. Which would you want on your home's wall?
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Chad Curtis: Once Again, Proof That Faith Means Nothing
Chad Curtis was probably a slightly better than average outfielder who was member of several major league teams including the 1998 & 1999 World Champion New York Yankees. He was best known for a walk-off game winning homer in the 1999 World Series and for being very, very outspoken regarding his Christian religious beliefs and the moralities that flowed from his beliefs. As you will see, here is the crux of what it seems to an outside observer such as me that Chad Curtis had to say: "You need to believe as I do so that you can be as good as someone like me." Of course, Mr. Curtis believed that Jesus was his Lord and Savior and that obedience to Mr. Curtis' interpretation of Christian moral code was the key to being good.
In a column by Yahoo writer Harold Friend, Curtis was defended regarding a dispute he had with Derek Jeter, the Yankee Captain and leader. Friend wrote, "What should not be forgotten is that after he hit his game winning home run, he refused to be interviewed by sportscaster Jim Gray. Curtis felt, as did most players, that Gray's interview of future Hall of Famer Pete Rose following the All-Century Team ceremony prior to the second game of the Series was too aggressive and in poor taste. Curtis is a deeply religious individual who led the Yankees prayer group and religious study. When he approached Derek Jeter, the Yankees captain politely declined. Curtis approached Jeter a second time, and according to Buster Olney, Jeter commented that Chad can do what he wants and I'll do what I want to do." Curtis and Jeter went on to have other disputes. Curtis was traded a couple of months after the season ended. Some believed that Curtis was traded because of his outspokenness and his religious beliefs. (http://voices.yahoo.com/new-york-yankees-chad-curtis-was-right-derek-jeter-8682817.html?cat=14)
Curtis was once interviewed by Dick Schaap on ESPN's "Outside the Lines" for a report on religion in sports. From the report:
"Schaap on Camera: On the world champion New York Yankees the last two seasons, as many as twenty-two of twenty-five players attended weekly chapels services or daily prayer sessions. The chapel leader, Chad Curtis, now a Texas Ranger, was the Yankee most vocal about his beliefs.
Chad Curtis (Texas Rangers Outfielder): If I have something that I believe is the truth and it's necessary for other people to come to some type of a recognition or grip of that truth then I want to share it.
Schaap: As more players, like Curtis, have publicly embraced religion, they sometimes urge their teammates to find religion, creating the potential for clubhouse conflict.
Chad Curtis: Some people are heading down wrong roads and I'm trying to say hey man what are you doing I care about yah. Let's try and go a different direction and ah somebody takes ah get out of my life don't mess with me, but what I'm trying to do is help.
O'Neill: Chad, he's a vocal person and I think his intent was always right. I think sometimes his avenues-and he'll admit it-weren't the right way to take things.
Schaap: Did he divide the team in any way?
O'Neill: No, absolutely not.
Schaap: But Curtis says his religious zeal may be one of the reasons the Yankees traded him.
Curtis: It definitely came into my mind that maybe they weren't too crazy about some of the things that I was doing-you know talking to my teammates about religion...
Schaap: This month, however, Curtis and his Rangers teammate Royce Clayton had what both described as a heated discussion concerning the music Clayton was playing in the clubhouse.
Curtis: It was some music being played and there was a lot of foul language and I'm a guy that just you know I don't really care to hear that and I know there's other guys that are the same way and we have some kids in our clubhouse, too, and I said, you know what, this isn't right, it's not good.
Royce Clayton (Texas Rangers Shortstop): I don't try to force my beliefs on anybody, nor should I feel that anybody should force their beliefs upon me, and once you start to do that, then you're stepping into foul territory...
Schaap: But Curtis says nothing-not even team harmony-is as important as the message.
Curtis: To me it's not so much religion and baseball as baseball and religion. Religion first, baseball somewhere down the road..." (http://espn.go.com/page2/tvlistings/show4transcript.html)
As you might guess, Chad Curtis did not seem to be particularly gay friendly. Buster Olney reported:
"Scott Sanders was apparently the first of Billy Bean's former teammates to read Bean's public acknowledgment of his homosexuality this summer. Sanders, who was a teammate of Bean's in San Diego and now pitches for the Chicago Cubs, called Trevor Hoffman, who then phoned Brad Ausmus, who told Randy Smith. None of them were upset or bothered or shocked; Ausmus, a close friend of Bean's who roomed with him for two seasons in the mid-1990's, said he wondered all along if Bean might be gay. They knew Bean as a great teammate, well liked by all the Padres, and as word passed from one to the next this summer, Smith said, it was as if they were talking about just another of life's transitions. Rather than speak of somebody's marriage or the birth of a child, they shared the news that Bean is gay. ''It wouldn't have made a difference to me then,'' said Ausmus, an All-Star catcher for the Detroit Tigers, ''and it doesn't bother me now.''
But some of his former teammates, as well as players with the Yankees, said an openly gay player would have difficulty within the culture of the clubhouse, even at a time when homosexuality has gained greater acceptance in society. Some of what the players said echoed many of the arguments in the debate over whether gays should be allowed in the military. ''If you polled every player in this room,'' said Chad Curtis, the Yankees outfielder who was asked to comment on an article about Bean in The New York Times yesterday, ''they would tell you they wouldn't want to even have the thought another guy on the team might be checking them out. You have a lot of guys in this room who are fairly uncomfortable with the idea of women in the media coming in here -- even just the notion they're being looked at.''"
Here is the currently final entry on Chad Curtis' Wikipedia entry: Curtis was hired as the Head Varsity Football coach at Lakewood Public Schools in the winter of 2012. In May 2012 Curtis resigned from the coaching position after several female students accused him of "inappropriate touching". In June 2012 Curtis was ordered to stand trial on five counts of criminal sexual conduct that ranged from misdemeanors to 15-year felonies . Curtis was charged with an additional sixth count of criminal sexual conduct in August 2012. The criminal trial of Chad Curtis began on August 12, 2013. Three alleged victims testified on the opening days of the trial and two more are expected to testify on August 14, 2013. Curtis was found guilty on August 16, 2013, of all six counts of criminal sexual conduct, and could go to prison for up to 15 years.
The M (Michigan) Live web site reports, "Moments after Chad Curtis allegedly molested her, a 16-year-old girl was leaving the windowless high school weight room where she said the assault occurred, but stopped when the former major leaguer asked her to pray with him. “I didn’t want to say ‘No, I don’t want to pray,’” the now 18-year-old said Monday, Aug. 12 during testimony in Barry County Circuit Court. “Prayer is always good.” The girl testified that she was alone with 44-year-old Curtis in the secluded Lakewood High School weight room on Labor Day of 2011 when a training session to work on hip flexor exercises turned into him suddenly kissing her breast and molesting her. It was the second time he had allegedly molested her. Earlier in the summer of 2011, she said he grabbed her breasts in the guise of a massage. She said each time she believed the man she looked up to as a former professional athlete and Christian role model, when he said he would never do it again...
But the alleged victim testifying Monday said there is no justification for the way Curtis used his hands on her, even though she initially tried to convince herself there was.
She said after praying with Curtis, she once again started to leave and he then asked her if she was virgin and “Did you enjoy any of that?” When she said she did not, he told her it was good because then she will know what to do if she ever got in a similar situation with a boy."
Most people probably can only wonder what goes through the mind of someone like Chad Curtis who is so publicly pious and so eager to point out the moral deficiencies in others (who are harming no one) while being personally totally creepy and disgusting. But there is one other thing that should disturb the zealously religious in particular about this whole episode.
What Chad Curtis needs to do is to STOP believing that his faith confers even the slightest patina of morality upon him. Chad Curtis needs to STOP believing that he is somehow saved because he believes in Jesus. If he does not stop believing, exactly what penalty does he expect to pay for, ultimately? If he believes that we're ALL sinners anyway and that only faith will gain him grace, other than a few years in jail, what has he lost? What are a few years compared to an eternity in heaven? And that is a problem for us in the real world who have to live with the Chad Curtis's of the world. They have no real reason to behave. If they sin, they merely need to repent later on (if they're not part of the chosen in the first place.) This seems to happen all the time.
Let's all observe the Chad Curtis experiment; will he simply say he did not believe enough in the Lord Jesus or will he confess that belief means nothing and that he is responsible for his actions? Will he take action to change or will he go back to the religiosity that failed him so utterly in the past? I will not be holding my breath on this one.
FOLLOW UP 9/8/15: NY Daily News, 7/18/15: Former Yankees outfielder Chad Curtis, deemed a “predator” by the Michigan judge who sent him to prison on criminal sexual conduct charges in 2013, wants to publicly identify three women who say he assaulted them when they were high school students. Curtis, acting as his own attorney, filed a brief in Grand Rapids federal court earlier this month that says the women should be named in court papers because courts frown upon plaintiffs filing civil lawsuits anonymously and because the plaintiffs are no longer minors.
In a column by Yahoo writer Harold Friend, Curtis was defended regarding a dispute he had with Derek Jeter, the Yankee Captain and leader. Friend wrote, "What should not be forgotten is that after he hit his game winning home run, he refused to be interviewed by sportscaster Jim Gray. Curtis felt, as did most players, that Gray's interview of future Hall of Famer Pete Rose following the All-Century Team ceremony prior to the second game of the Series was too aggressive and in poor taste. Curtis is a deeply religious individual who led the Yankees prayer group and religious study. When he approached Derek Jeter, the Yankees captain politely declined. Curtis approached Jeter a second time, and according to Buster Olney, Jeter commented that Chad can do what he wants and I'll do what I want to do." Curtis and Jeter went on to have other disputes. Curtis was traded a couple of months after the season ended. Some believed that Curtis was traded because of his outspokenness and his religious beliefs. (http://voices.yahoo.com/new-york-yankees-chad-curtis-was-right-derek-jeter-8682817.html?cat=14)
Curtis was once interviewed by Dick Schaap on ESPN's "Outside the Lines" for a report on religion in sports. From the report:
"Schaap on Camera: On the world champion New York Yankees the last two seasons, as many as twenty-two of twenty-five players attended weekly chapels services or daily prayer sessions. The chapel leader, Chad Curtis, now a Texas Ranger, was the Yankee most vocal about his beliefs.
Chad Curtis (Texas Rangers Outfielder): If I have something that I believe is the truth and it's necessary for other people to come to some type of a recognition or grip of that truth then I want to share it.
Schaap: As more players, like Curtis, have publicly embraced religion, they sometimes urge their teammates to find religion, creating the potential for clubhouse conflict.
Chad Curtis: Some people are heading down wrong roads and I'm trying to say hey man what are you doing I care about yah. Let's try and go a different direction and ah somebody takes ah get out of my life don't mess with me, but what I'm trying to do is help.
O'Neill: Chad, he's a vocal person and I think his intent was always right. I think sometimes his avenues-and he'll admit it-weren't the right way to take things.
Schaap: Did he divide the team in any way?
O'Neill: No, absolutely not.
Schaap: But Curtis says his religious zeal may be one of the reasons the Yankees traded him.
Curtis: It definitely came into my mind that maybe they weren't too crazy about some of the things that I was doing-you know talking to my teammates about religion...
Schaap: This month, however, Curtis and his Rangers teammate Royce Clayton had what both described as a heated discussion concerning the music Clayton was playing in the clubhouse.
Curtis: It was some music being played and there was a lot of foul language and I'm a guy that just you know I don't really care to hear that and I know there's other guys that are the same way and we have some kids in our clubhouse, too, and I said, you know what, this isn't right, it's not good.
Royce Clayton (Texas Rangers Shortstop): I don't try to force my beliefs on anybody, nor should I feel that anybody should force their beliefs upon me, and once you start to do that, then you're stepping into foul territory...
Schaap: But Curtis says nothing-not even team harmony-is as important as the message.
Curtis: To me it's not so much religion and baseball as baseball and religion. Religion first, baseball somewhere down the road..." (http://espn.go.com/page2/tvlistings/show4transcript.html)
As you might guess, Chad Curtis did not seem to be particularly gay friendly. Buster Olney reported:
"Scott Sanders was apparently the first of Billy Bean's former teammates to read Bean's public acknowledgment of his homosexuality this summer. Sanders, who was a teammate of Bean's in San Diego and now pitches for the Chicago Cubs, called Trevor Hoffman, who then phoned Brad Ausmus, who told Randy Smith. None of them were upset or bothered or shocked; Ausmus, a close friend of Bean's who roomed with him for two seasons in the mid-1990's, said he wondered all along if Bean might be gay. They knew Bean as a great teammate, well liked by all the Padres, and as word passed from one to the next this summer, Smith said, it was as if they were talking about just another of life's transitions. Rather than speak of somebody's marriage or the birth of a child, they shared the news that Bean is gay. ''It wouldn't have made a difference to me then,'' said Ausmus, an All-Star catcher for the Detroit Tigers, ''and it doesn't bother me now.''
But some of his former teammates, as well as players with the Yankees, said an openly gay player would have difficulty within the culture of the clubhouse, even at a time when homosexuality has gained greater acceptance in society. Some of what the players said echoed many of the arguments in the debate over whether gays should be allowed in the military. ''If you polled every player in this room,'' said Chad Curtis, the Yankees outfielder who was asked to comment on an article about Bean in The New York Times yesterday, ''they would tell you they wouldn't want to even have the thought another guy on the team might be checking them out. You have a lot of guys in this room who are fairly uncomfortable with the idea of women in the media coming in here -- even just the notion they're being looked at.''"
Here is the currently final entry on Chad Curtis' Wikipedia entry: Curtis was hired as the Head Varsity Football coach at Lakewood Public Schools in the winter of 2012. In May 2012 Curtis resigned from the coaching position after several female students accused him of "inappropriate touching". In June 2012 Curtis was ordered to stand trial on five counts of criminal sexual conduct that ranged from misdemeanors to 15-year felonies . Curtis was charged with an additional sixth count of criminal sexual conduct in August 2012. The criminal trial of Chad Curtis began on August 12, 2013. Three alleged victims testified on the opening days of the trial and two more are expected to testify on August 14, 2013. Curtis was found guilty on August 16, 2013, of all six counts of criminal sexual conduct, and could go to prison for up to 15 years.
The M (Michigan) Live web site reports, "Moments after Chad Curtis allegedly molested her, a 16-year-old girl was leaving the windowless high school weight room where she said the assault occurred, but stopped when the former major leaguer asked her to pray with him. “I didn’t want to say ‘No, I don’t want to pray,’” the now 18-year-old said Monday, Aug. 12 during testimony in Barry County Circuit Court. “Prayer is always good.” The girl testified that she was alone with 44-year-old Curtis in the secluded Lakewood High School weight room on Labor Day of 2011 when a training session to work on hip flexor exercises turned into him suddenly kissing her breast and molesting her. It was the second time he had allegedly molested her. Earlier in the summer of 2011, she said he grabbed her breasts in the guise of a massage. She said each time she believed the man she looked up to as a former professional athlete and Christian role model, when he said he would never do it again...
But the alleged victim testifying Monday said there is no justification for the way Curtis used his hands on her, even though she initially tried to convince herself there was.
She said after praying with Curtis, she once again started to leave and he then asked her if she was virgin and “Did you enjoy any of that?” When she said she did not, he told her it was good because then she will know what to do if she ever got in a similar situation with a boy."
Most people probably can only wonder what goes through the mind of someone like Chad Curtis who is so publicly pious and so eager to point out the moral deficiencies in others (who are harming no one) while being personally totally creepy and disgusting. But there is one other thing that should disturb the zealously religious in particular about this whole episode.
What Chad Curtis needs to do is to STOP believing that his faith confers even the slightest patina of morality upon him. Chad Curtis needs to STOP believing that he is somehow saved because he believes in Jesus. If he does not stop believing, exactly what penalty does he expect to pay for, ultimately? If he believes that we're ALL sinners anyway and that only faith will gain him grace, other than a few years in jail, what has he lost? What are a few years compared to an eternity in heaven? And that is a problem for us in the real world who have to live with the Chad Curtis's of the world. They have no real reason to behave. If they sin, they merely need to repent later on (if they're not part of the chosen in the first place.) This seems to happen all the time.
Let's all observe the Chad Curtis experiment; will he simply say he did not believe enough in the Lord Jesus or will he confess that belief means nothing and that he is responsible for his actions? Will he take action to change or will he go back to the religiosity that failed him so utterly in the past? I will not be holding my breath on this one.
FOLLOW UP 9/8/15: NY Daily News, 7/18/15: Former Yankees outfielder Chad Curtis, deemed a “predator” by the Michigan judge who sent him to prison on criminal sexual conduct charges in 2013, wants to publicly identify three women who say he assaulted them when they were high school students. Curtis, acting as his own attorney, filed a brief in Grand Rapids federal court earlier this month that says the women should be named in court papers because courts frown upon plaintiffs filing civil lawsuits anonymously and because the plaintiffs are no longer minors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)