Hmm, A Lesson Not Learned In The Sterling Kerfuffle

OK, it appears that one thing about the whole Donald Sterling kerfuffle that I forgot to mention in this post is the following.
While I provided a pretty comprehensive history of Mr. Sterling's pretty public transgressions, the fact is that the revelations of his mistress, V. Stiviano, was done in private conversations that she was tape recording. In California, one can not tape a phone conversation unless both parties agree to it. Miss Stiviano claims that Mr. Sterling did approve of it. But we only have Miss Stiviano's word for it. So it is very possible that Miss Stiviano did the recording without sufficient approval of Mr. Sterling.
In other words, while there is ample history of Mr. Sterling's racism and misogyny, this is what has made the NBA seek to remove him as the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers.
Now, what a Pasadena city employee does when he is not on city time is coming back to bite him in much the same way as it did Mr. Sterling.
The Pasadena director of public health, Dr. Eric Walsh, was going to give the commencement speech at Pasadena City College later this month. Now Dr. Walsh replaced one Dustin Lance Black who is an Academy Award-winning screen writer and alumnus of PCC. And he happens to be an open homosexual. And there are racy photos of Mr. Black and a former boyfriend floating around the internets. And PCC found a way to "disinvite" him as this article notes. Now to be fair, PCC has already had a scandal of sorts with now former professor Hugo Schwyzwer and his inviting a porn actress to speak at one of his controversial classes. Read the link for why it was controversial. Now when PCC decided to "disinvite" Mr. Black, one can cut the college slack due to their previous seemingly inaction in the Schwyzer affair.
But not to this student group called Students For Social Justice.
Led by fourth year student Sarah Belknap, the group decided to take to the internets to find something dirty on Dr. Walsh.
I have to digress a moment on this point about Miss Belknap.
PCC is a two-year community college and Miss Belknap is in her fourth year. Maybe if she hit the books and study a little harder, she would take her social justice wares to a four year university. Just sayin. . .
Well, Dr. Walsh is a Seventh-Day Adventist preacher and needless to say, they found plenty of his sermons that were, well not exactly politically correct.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Walsh spoke on such topics as the evils of the one-time hit television show Will And Grace. The Will character was openly gay. And Dr. Walsh, associate pastor at Altadena Seventh-Day Adventist church, said this is in a sermon:

"Today you have whole shows like 'Will & Grace' where the whole theme is around gayness -- if there is such a thing. How does the devil do it?…A slippery slope, he doesn’t give you whole lot of it all at once, it's just a little bit at a time. And you become kind of immunized to something that was once revolting to American society.”

So, he is not a fan of Will And Grace and thinks that it sets a bad example for Americans. Again, this was not said in his capacity as the Pasadena director of public health but as a minister. In fact according to this in our local fish wrap, the Pasadena Star-News, Dr. Walsh spoke in his capacity as director of public health at All Saints Episcopal Church, a very modernist Episcopal congregation that has and does perform same-sex marriages. And he has spoken at the Mayor's prayer breakfast on the need to maintain the multicultural feel of Pasadena. And that discrimination can lead to public health problems. And he even quoted Oprah Winfrey and Tupac Shakur.
However, in the pulpit, he did not care for such people and groups that he believes are bringing down America's morality, such as it is.
In other words, in Dr. Walsh's capacity as director of public health, a job he has had since 2010, he is doing and saying all the right things. But as a minister, he is not sure all about the things he comes to understand are bringing down his nation and yes, his city.
In other words, to people like Miss Belknap and the Students For Social Justice ilk, people like Dr. Walsh who do find a way to thread the needle of his primary job for the city and his belief that God wants a different world, especially regarding moral issues, can not do both.
And the response to the social justice crowd is putting Dr. Walsh on paid administrative leave by city manager, Michael Beck, while the city "investigates" whether or not what he said as a private citizen would affect his job.
I put "investigates" in quotes because I am pretty certain that the city of Pasadena will find a way to make Dr. Walsh go away. They will be more afraid of the social justice crowd rather than whether or not Dr. Walsh has done a good job.
And what does this have to do with Donald Sterling?
How we have come to find out about both Mr. Sterling and Dr. Walsh.
A private and or series of private discussions are just that. Private. It does not give the right for someone to tape record it without permission of both parties. Even if in the end it is for some good. The law in California is very clear.
In the case of Dr. Walsh, he was unfortunately a victim of a college administration that got caught with it's pants down, so to speak. They disinvited an openly gay speaker for possibly having racy photos online. They asked Dr. Walsh to be a second choice. Because Mr. Black raised the "they don't want me cause I'm gay card" and whipped up the social justice crowd, Dr. Walsh not only has been scrapped as the commencement speaker, but Mr. Black, of course, was reinstated as the commencement speaker. And because of the social justice crowd they may cost Dr. Walsh his job because when he was on HIS OWN time, he spoke honestly, as he saw it on such hot-button so called social issues.
Mr. Sterling has a record as a racist and misogynist and one who openly discriminated against minorities and families with children in his rental properties. Dr. Walsh has no such record. But as a minister of the Gospel, as he sees it homosexuality is wrong and he spoke that truth. Mr. Sterling is going to be forced to sell his basketball team not for any of the past evils, but for what he said to a mistress on tape. Dr. Walsh will possibly  lose his position as director of public health not for anything job related but what he has said outside his capacity of the director of public health.
The lesson we have not learned it appears is that nothing is private anymore. Nothing.

The Duck Dynasty Kerfuffle

OK, I must confess that I think I have seen one whole episode of the wildly popular television show Duck Dynasty.
And to be honest, it is not my cup of tea. The whole reality show thing is so over saturated, IMHO. They are not  really that much on "reality" as making a show on the cheap. Very little writing, no star that wants hundreds of thousands of dollars an episode. It is the ultimate way for television companies to make big bucks on the cheap.
But what happens when reality does end up a result of a reality show?
Well, that is what happened to Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the clan that has parlayed a company called Duck Commander, which sells duck-hunting calls into a show on the Outdoor Channel and eventually on A & E television on standard cable.
Mr. Robertson is a very traditionalist person, especially in his religion. He is very open about it. He has preached at his home church, White's Ferry Road Church. Why Mr. Robertson even serves as an elder of his church's board. An elder is the equivalent to being a vestry member in an Anglican/Episcopal church.
A huge aspect of Mr. Robertson's traditionalism his how he feels about homosexuality. Again, I let him speak for himself direct from this interview with GQ magazine and writer, Drew Magery:

It seems like, to me, a vagina - as a man - would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: Theres more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's not logical.

OK, a little TMI for my taste. But he is describing the difference between a male heterosexual and a homosexual. One wants sex with women and one wants sex with men. But, he calls it sinful. In Mr. Robertson's mind, it is sinful behavior.
But since he was asked and answered this question, the writer, Mr Magery, proceeds to ask Mr. Robertson about sin and what is sinful behavior. Again, direct from Mr. Robertson:

"Everything is blurred on what's right and wrong," he says. "Sin becomes fine."
Start with homosexual behavior and morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and those women and those men, he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers - they won't inherit the Kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

To be clear, Mr. Robertson is talking about the sexual act of homosexuality in general. However, he adds a little bit more than what is written. You can read the passage from I Corinthians right here. This is what one comes to believe in when in a evangelical, fundamentalist church.
And also, Mr. Robertson does have a very personal experience being that drunkard he spoke above. He was a bad, horrible man. He was a hell raiser. And confronted by his wife, Kay, he broke down, gave it to the Lord and became a Christian.
Now Mr. Robertson was also asked about something else that I really thought would be more controversial than this. But give it time. He was asked about growing up the pre-civil rights Louisiana and, well straight from the horses mouth:

"I never, with my own eyes, saw any mistreatment of a black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the Blacks because we're White trash. We're going across the field... .There singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one Black person, say, 'I tell you what: Those doggone White people' - not a word! ... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

OK, I'm going to go with that maybe he had an idealized memory of that time. It is possible that the Blacks that he interacted with at that time were pretty cool. I have to admit, I do believe that he thought he had more in common with the Blacks because of he and his family being White trash. Interesting take. And there is something about people in general before the rise of the Welfare State. I would dare not single out one particular group of people. For it has done damage to all groups. But sadly, the statistics regarding Blacks and government dependency are some of the worst. And I totally disagree that Blacks, as a group, are not godly. In comparison to the general American population, Blacks are much more likely to attend church and be open about their faith.
Well, I do recommend that you read the whole interview that I linked because it is not good to cherry pick as the media has done on both sides.
So what happened?
A & E decided that Mr. Robertson should be suspended from any future shows of Duck Dynasty. This is important because as luck would have it, the current season is already filmed. And this does not count on the Duck Dynasty marathon that will be aired this weekend on the cable channel.
To be blunt, it is a chicken's way of claiming to take a stand and still milking some money off of a guy that the channel deems a bad dude for speaking his mind.
I must digress because some readers will ask why did I back Martin Bashir being fired for vile remarks he made about former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. And why I liked MSNBC for canning actor Alec Baldwin for using anti-gay slurs.
First with Mr. Bashir.
He made his comments, that he hoped someone would pee in and take a dump in Mrs. Palin's mouth, on the air. It was written out and he was mad that she used the word slavery in regard to the Dear Leader, President Obama's economic policies. To someone not all there, Mr. Bashir was in his commentary giving someone a licence to carry out such a vile action. You just can't talk like that on television. Even on a network that is barely watched.
And in regards to Mr. Baldwin, he is the poster child of liberal hypocrisy. Telling the gay-rights crowd he is all in with their cause. But when he gets hot under the collar, he resorts to calling people faggot or c--- - sucker. Uh, last I checked, those are not terms of endearment.
But back to this situation.
At this point, Mr. Robertson is just suspended. He is not fired. Yet if you read the interview, he realizes that the show maybe getting near the end. Even if it is the most popular show on the A & E network.
But why did A & E buckle before there was any real heat put on by the usual suspects? it is curious because they knew what they were getting with the Robertson clan. And especially with Phil. And while Duck Dynasty is not a political show at all. But they will not allow the network to cut out decidedly Christian prayers before meals. And they had to know that Mr. Robertson had very traditional views on a whole range of current events.
So they can't claim ignorance.
My full take is simple.
Mr. Robertson does have his right not only to his beliefs but free to discuss them. I would not have fallen into the clear trap that Mr. Magery set for him. But maybe he did not see it as a trap but as an outlet.
A & E does have the right to do what it did but should have spoken with Mr. Robertson to get some clarification if need be. He does deserve that courtesy. The network can do what it wants. But it also has to weigh the fact that this is their number one show. It is probably not watched by many gays, lesbians or Blacks. And maybe they that do would not stop watching the show. What they have done is imply by the suspension that one's beliefs should not be on display. At least if that one is a traditionalist.
I leave you with this from Hotair.com Ed Morrissey as he states the obvious.
Let's not have any reality in our reality television, please.

The Boy Scouts And The Left's Continuing War On Private Rights

The Boy Scouts of America and yesterday's decision to allow openly homosexual boys and teens in the ranks is not much of a surprise. After all, many members of the National Council made clear that they wanted to see the change.
Of course since they NC did not go all the way, so to speak, and allow openly homosexual scoutmasters, this is not over yet as far as the left is concerned. Many on the right are ready to pull up stakes and leave the Scouts all together. What kind of Scouting group they would form is any one's guess.
But here is something interesting.
In the linked article, the vote of the 1,400 member National Council was 61% for ending the ban and 39% in favor of keeping things the way that they are.
Yet in a survey sent to leaders, parents and youth leaders, the 200,000 that responded, well that was sure not the same as this vote. For the results of "the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting's history", the results showed the polar opposite result. In that, 64% opposed making the change and 34% supported the change. What's more is that the actual young boys and teens directly affected were some of the staunchest opponents of the change.
So much for actually listening to the people that count.
See, the Scouts get a lot of corporate cash. And you know how those eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll, conservative big companies HATE the gays. Oh, wait just one minute. Corporate America has already been emasculated by the twin threats of the left and their gay lemmings. So since they have been whipped, they implored on how bad it would look on them to keep this ban going.
So, Corporate America, the hard left and the gay lemmings tag-teamed and ignored the actual members and said, sure, it's cool to have gay boys and teens be Scouts.
Now, FTR, I am very torn about this on a lot of levels.
I am very concerned that this is the continuance of sexualizing very young boy and girls. It has almost succeeded especially among young girls known as tweens, usually between 10-14 years old. They are essentially being taught that that same Corporate America that they HAVE to look a certain way. DRESS a certain way. And all are not promoting modesty but a perverse sense of sexuality that at one time was deemed deviant.
Not any more.
Think that boy tweens, just beginning to recognize that they kind of like girls, are not going to be weirded out when say little Johnny tells them how cool it is to like other boys? Or what if little Johnny is  not even sure he does or does not like girls? Think his fellow Scouts are going to steer him to boys or girls?
This is just one can of worms that is opened up.
But what makes me torn is a certain amount of admiration if one accepts that he likes boys or teens and WANTS to be a Boy Scout. It certainly breaks a lot of stereotypes, often perpetuated by the very hard left and gay lemmings, of the "right" gay male.
But at the end of the day, the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization. It does have the right to set criteria for membership. If one had been, until yesterday, no gays in the group, even the Supreme Court believes that they have that right.
I am a Freemason. We also set a very high bar for membership. And we do not allow women Masons. However, there is the Eastern Star and that is the women's group. Men may belong to Eastern Star, but women can not be a Mason. And part of being a Mason is the belief in God. An atheist can not be made a Mason. A person convicted of serious crimes cannot be made a Mason.
I am sure that some people think it is a bad thing that we have such high standards. And that we do not allow women Masons. But they have been part and parcel of Masonic membership for as long as Masonry has been active in the United States.
The real fact is that the left and their fellow travellers, in this case left-wing gays, do not like private rights.
What are private rights?
Well, they are the right to private property. The right to associate with whom one wants to. The right to keep more of your money that you earn honestly rather than being taxed exhorbantly. The right to believe, for lack of a better word, the hokey. Like conspiracy theories.
Should it be a crime for men to want to be in a group of other men no matter their station in life? I am sure that somewhere someone is hatching how to make Masons accept women. Trust me on that one.
Should it be a crime to own private property? To own a home, hell more than one home? To own a car? To own a television? Some on the hard left believe that. They look at private property as some classism.
Should it be a crime that if you work hard, move up the ladder and are rewarded for it, you should keep more of that money? Again, the hard left believes that. There is no way a shmoe can get to where I am talking about. Why it is only a one percent of filthy, stinking, rich fat-cats and they should be punished for daring to be a success.
Should one be branded a criminal if the believe in way-out ideas? I mean, I abhor the "Rev." Fred Phelps, a Democrat BTW, and his hatred towards homosexuals. And while I believe he does have a right for his inbred followers to protest at whatever, the community has a right to set a standard regarding it. I do not think that he should be thrown in jail because he and his lemmings have a strange interpretation of Christianity. Yet some on the left would do just that.
Freedom includes the freedom to set up groups of like-minded people and to set their standards for membership. If one does not like it, they can form a similar group of people and set up their own standard for membership.
What happened yesterday in the Boy Scouts of America caving to the left and their gay lemmings is another assault on people's right of free association.
For free association is a foreign concept to people that do not believe in that themselves.

How To Bring Down A Political Opponent-Use The Gay Card

Arizona is ground zero in the debate over illegal immigration and there is no one stronger against the federal government and the lack of enforcement than Pinal County sheriff Paul Babeu.
Ahh, but a couple of things have happened to the good sheriff now that he announced his run for congress in Arizona's fourth congressional district.
First this expose in the leftywhore "alternative" Phoenix New Times in which they got a twofer.
First, that the unmarried Sheriff Babeu was having a sexual relationship with a man. And that said man was supposedly and illegal alien.
What better way to bring down some one the left does not like than to expose such a thing as one's sexual orientation?
And because he is a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, oh the hypocrisy if he knew that his lover was an illegal alien.
Oh, yeah, and Sheriff Babeu is not only a Republican but a darned conservative one at that!
So of course those with a hate on figured that they would derail his shot at his rising star in the Arizona Republican party. And we all know that Republicans HATE homosexuals.
Here is the thing.
In this article in the Left Angeles Times, even they have to admit that Sheriff Babeu's sexual orientation was not an issue when he ran for sheriff in the first place. He certainly was not one that was a firebrand opponent of homosexual rights. And really, when he ran for sheriff in Pinal county, I doubt that was a hot-button issue.
Maybe a sheriff in a suburban county between Phoenix and Tucson, but as a member of congress? Well, we better put a stop to this!
When the original allegations were published, the good sheriff did not run and hide. Yes, he resigned as a co-chair of the Mitt Romney for President campaign (which I do not believe he should have done but understand why). But the very Monday after the revelation, he denied the most serious of charges. All but one. The one that he was gay. He said he was.
So what?
Again, he was not married with children and trying to live in two worlds. Was it smart to hook-up online as the article in the Phoenix New Times alleges? I do not think that it was. But by all accounts it was before he was elected sheriff. Again, first rule is not to have something embarrassing come out, so to speak. Being gay is not what is embarrassing. But having a self-portrait of one's self without a shirt and using that for the online hook-up, hmm, that might be embarrassing.
If Sheriff Babeu was having a sexual relationship knowingly with an illegal alien, is that a disqualifier?
You becha!
In fact, that should be the only issue.
And the Left Angeles Times article indicates that as this goes on, it does not appear to be all that cut and dry. In fact the word "deportation" may have never been used.
What appears to have happened is simple.
Two lovers had a falling out and one is seeking revenge against the other.
Surprisingly, that happens a lot. Yeah, I know. You never hear about such things in the heterosexual world, do you?
I have more confidence in Sheriff Babeu than he does in himself.
If the charges are proven false, then those asserting them should be prosecuted. For again, he probably did nothing wrong than have a few marginally racy photos with other men and got into what turned out to be a bad relationship.
Knowing all this, would I vote for Sheriff Babeu for office?
Yeah, why not?
He is right on the issues, that is what counts. Maybe we would disagree on the same-sex stuff, but that is not a game-changer in terms of looking for my vote.
And that is what I believe a lot of, if not the majority of Republican voters would think.
I have nothing against a gay and or lesbian conservative. We are on the same side more than not. We need to gain more of them. Those that respect individual freedom of the tyranny of the group. And to me Paul Babeu represents that and we should support him rather than turn against him for unproven charges.
For the left, if they can not defeat a candidate on the issues, make the voters think about something else to defeat an opponent. Like being openly gay in the Republican party.

More Dirt On Crazy Uncle Ron Paul

As much as I do not want to, I have to share this from a former Crazy Uncle Ron Paul aide.Now, I do not want to psychoanalyze this too much.
But this is not some low-level flunky but Eric Dondero and he writes how close he was on the post heading.
But a couple of take aways.
One, Crazy Uncle Ron talks a great game about wanting to "leave people alone". And that is all well and good.
And maybe he does not publicly have a problem with homosexuals. But in several instances, well he is not all that comfortable being around them.
And, here is a big shock.
Crazy Uncle Ron not only does not support Israel, but hates the very existence of the State of Israel.
But, he has no problem with the Joos, per se.
Kind of like he has no problem with homosexuals. So long as he does not have to be around them. Maybe the same is how he feels about. . .the Joos!
What this shows is that if this is the leader of Libertarian thought in the United States, they need a new leader.
More will come from this, I am certain.