Eugenics, vasectomies and minimizing harm

The case of Jessie Lee Herald being offered a lesser punishment if he gets a vasectomy absolutely does raise troubling questions and is a reminder of a very dark and shameful chapter in American history. We need to be very worried about government abuse of power, the precedent set by this case and the real possibility of a slippery slope. If this is to stand, any and all such cases must be completely transparent and open to the public.

With all of that said and recognizing the danger, I do not have a problem with asking Herald be voluntarily sterilized in order to prevent him from fathering more illegitimate children with more women. He already has seven children with six women. Should taxpayers be on the hook for the results of his promiscuous sexual behavior? Or should the future harm he will do be minimized, for the good of society?

The primary reason I do not have a problem with this is that it is not eugenics in the traditional sense. Herald is not being targeted for his race or ethnicity, nor is the sterilization due to being mentally “feeble.” It was a part of a deal offered to him to reduce his time in prison for the crimes he committed. He is not being deceived (as many women of color were under previous eugenics programs) or forced to consent to the operation, and the details of the deal are public.

Where I draw the distinction between this and true eugenics is that Herald was offered the deal because of his reckless and irresponsible behavior, not because of an innate quality. He committed a crime and was offered a deal to reduce his time behind bars – and this deal has the potential for long-term benefits to the entire community.

But the real problem here is the culture of sexual anarchy where a man fathering multiple children with multiple women is not seen as an immoral, shameful or dishonorable thing. When men can have sex and then leave the mothers (often multiple mothers) of their children in the lurch, it perpetuates a cycle of generational poverty as well as the many other destructive consequences of sexual immorality. If you are looking for a “war on women,” Herald is the face of it.

Twenty five years of dominance in San Antonio

The San Antonio Spurs’ dominating 4-1 win in the 2014 NBA Finals was certainly a significant achievement. This was a team that proved it really is the best in the world. But even more impressive is how good the Spurs have been for twenty five years now, since the arrival of #1 draft pick David Robinson. With only three exceptions, the Spurs have won at least fifty games every year since 1989-1990. (The lockout-shortened 1999 season should be counted, because of San Antonio’s winning percentage.) Here is their record:

  • 2013-14 — 62 – 20
  • 2012-13 — 58 – 24
  • 2011-12 — 50 – 16
  • 2010-11 — 61 – 21
  • 2009-10 — 50 – 32
  • 2008-09 — 54 – 28
  • 2007-08 — 56 – 26
  • 2006-07 — 58 – 24
  • 2005-06 — 63 – 19
  • 2004-05 — 59 – 23
  • 2003-04 — 57 – 25
  • 2002-03 — 60 – 22
  • 2001-02 — 58 – 24
  • 2000-01 — 58 – 24
  • 1999-00 — 53 – 29
  • 1998-99 — 37 – 13
  • 1997-98 — 56 – 26
  • 1996-97 — 20 – 62
  • 1995-96 — 59 – 23
  • 1994-95 — 62 – 20
  • 1993-94 — 55 – 27
  • 1992-93 — 49 – 33
  • 1991-92 — 47 – 35
  • 1990-91 — 55 – 27
  • 1989-90 — 56 – 26

If you look at other championship-caliber teams over the last twenty-five years, none of them have had the kind of unbroken success that San Antonio has enjoyed. They have either fallen into mediocrity or the lottery. And while the players on the court (and the coach devising the strategy needed to win games) deserve the credit in each individual season, the unbroken streak of excellence is due to an incredible front office.

Think about this for a minute. Scores of players have come and gone. They have been traded, retired, or cut. But the Spurs front office has managed to keep the team near the top of the NBA every single year (with the exception of the arguably tanked 1996-1997 season) without needing to tear everything down and spend years rebuilding.

That cannot be said of NBA teams in Houston, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Miami, Indianapolis or Boston – all of which have been very successful at one time or another (and sometimes for years) in that time frame. Each and every one of those teams has suffered through rebuilding phases. Not the Spurs.

Say what you will about the 1996-1997 season and how the Spurs got Tim Duncan, but it is nothing short of front office brilliance that has led San Antonio to be near the top of the NBA not only since he arrived, but for several years before that. The Spurs front office added the pieces they needed to add to keep the team relevant, often finding talent overlooked by the rest of the league that has been critical to their championship aspirations.

There is no question that the Spurs have by far the best front office in the NBA over the last twenty-five years, and perhaps the best front office in NBA history.

Washington Redskins, property rights and free speech

To follow up on a short post from last week, and the comments under that post, here are some additional thoughts about the Washington Redskins’ trademark being stolen by the Obama regime.

First of all, intellectual property rights are property rights. The team has been the Washington Redskins since 1937, and has had its trademark for decades.Taking away the trademark protection and allowing others to use the name without paying a royalty to the team is government-enabled theft, pure and simple. This was a purely political decision, and no matter what trademark law says the Obama regime does not have the legal authority under the Constitution to punish the Washington Redskins because he does not like their name.

Second, I used the wrong term: It is a trademark, not a patent. To which I say: Whoop de diddly do. I am sure none of my critics have ever used the wrong word in either conversation or something written. Yes, I made a mistake, but it is patently absurd to argue that one wrong word affects my credibility one way or the other. Get over it.

Third, of course this is a free speech issue. The Obama regime has encouraged theft on a grand scale because of an offensive word, and has moved to deny the Washington Redskins equal protection under the law for their intellectual property. The fact that this is a shamelessly political decision by Obama regime activists is illustrated by an excellent column by Brent Bozell. It is absurd that the abbreviation for “Mothers I’d Like to F***” is given trademark protection but the name of a football team that has had the same name for nearly 80 years is not.

  • The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office… approved the phrase “Dago Swagg,” despite the insult to Italian-Americans, as well as “Uppity Negro.”
  • Nine uses became registered trademarks, including “Diary of a MILF,” “MILF Magnet,” MILF Next Door,” “Backroom MILF,” “MILF Workout” and even “Fat MILF.”
  • The PTO found insufficient evidence that the term “Cumbrella” for condoms was scandalous.

Fortunately, the Redskins’ trademark protection will remain in place as the Obama regime’s decision is appealed. While I personally think the name should be changed, that decision should be made by the National Football team and the Washington Redskins, not by bureaucrats in the Obama regime. And yes, this is an Obama decision. He has made absolutely no effort to stop or reverse this decision by his own Executive branch. Obama apologists need to own this decision, especially since they are praising it.

Planned Parenthood funding scandal continues

The latest shameful chapter in the long-running scandal of Democrats on the Bloomington City Council appropriating a “social services” fund for political purposes played out last week, with a surprising admission. This farce has been going on for fifteen years now, and I have opposed and exposed it every year as the funds have been unethically spent.

The surprising admission came from councilor Marty Spechler, who admitted that the decision to fund Planned Parenthood was a political decision. This is something that opponents of this handout have been saying for twelve years now. PP made it obvious that this was a political game with their antics in 2002, refusing the offer of a private donation in the amount of the handout they requested from the city, instead demanding a vote by elected officials to subsidize them. For a sitting member of the city council to admit that money that is supposed to be for helping those in need is being used for political purposes is refreshing in its honesty, though still scandalous.

Spechler also said that since abortion is legal, the city council has an obligation to uphold the law. His premise and his conclusion do not logically follow. The fact that abortion is “legal” due to legislation by judicial oligarchy does not require the Bloomington City Council to give thousands upon thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood every year for the past fifteen years. The people of Bloomington deserve better from our elected officials than this illogical nonsense.

Darryl Neher whined that so much attention was going to Planned Parenthood funding, despite all of the other projects funded by the Hopkins grant. It is a silly thing to whine about, because Neher and the council have known for twelve years how controversial funding Planned Parenthood is in this community, and he knows that people will show up to object. If Neher wants the attention focused on the other grants, then he should have pushed for PP to be excluded this year. With over $400,000 in requests denied, it would have been easy to distribute the money elsewhere.

Susan Sandberg dishonestly whined about people saying all of the organizations wanted a handout, when the only objection in public comments was to the grant to Planned Parenthood. Again, the people of Bloomington deserve better than this. If Sandberg has an objection to what was said, she should address what was said instead of creating arguments out of whole cloth that were never made.

Sandberg also whined in response to my criticism of giving Planned Parenthood money for computers and office furniture in years past (before Sandberg was on the council) that the council gives the organizations what they ask for, not what the city council determines they need. But it is the job of the city council to screen these applications, and appropriate the limited funds in the way that will help people. Giving Planned Parenthood computers and office furniture hardly qualifies as an urgent social services funding need.

This annual farce has gone beyond absurd, especially now that it has been admitted that this is a political statement. It is a slap in the face to the organizations that were denied funding to continue to make a statement in favor of pro-abortion politics by giving Planned Parenthood money they do not need. It is time for this to stop, especially with the amount of money that is being denied each summer. With $400,000 in requests that were denied, the money that went to Planned Parenthood should have gone to a more deserving organization.