The View from Right Field

The Tolerance of “I Might Be Wrong”

A long time ago, I wrote a post entitled “Truth and the Right to be Wrong.”¹  I said in part:

“I believe that some things are right and that some things are wrong.  But my certainty does not make me think I have the right to force my beliefs on others … because I think we all have the right to be wrong. …

Some will object to my concept of ‘the right to be wrong’ on the ground that I am disrespecting them and their beliefs when I say they are wrong. That is not true.  In fact, I am giving them the ultimate respect: I am defending their right to believe what they do even though I know they are wrong. …

Can Americans Be Trusted With Campaign Finance Disclosure? – An Update After the Brett Kavanaugh Hearings

Four years ago, I wrote a post asking “Can Americans Be Trusted With Campaign Finance Disclosure?”  I noted that, while some people want to limit political spending either by limiting how much people can contribute or by limiting how much candidates can spend, the First Amendment (at least as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court) doesn’t allow either of those.  Therefore, as I said back then:

“[T]hey fall back on disclosure of contributions.  If we can’t limit spending, they say, at least we can require contributions and spending to be disclosed.  In the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (before he was on the Court), ‘[s]unlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’”

But, I asked, as I do again in the title of this post: Can Americans be trusted with campaign finance disclosure?  This question recently returned when a federal district court judge threw out a 37-year old Federal Election Commission rule dealing the disclosures that nonprofit advocacy groups have to make with respect to the names of their donors.  Without going into the technical detail of the case,¹ the judge’s ruling increases the number of people whose names have to be disclosed, even though the people aren’t making contributions to candidates, but just to groups that are making independent political expenditures.

Just How Welcoming is Welcoming?

The town I live in just passed a resolution declaring it was a welcoming community.  My church did the same thing.  All of which is fine.  You should welcome people.  It’s what churches are supposed to do.  And towns, too.  Welcoming people is the nice thing to do and the proper way to behave.

But I do sort of wonder how welcoming some of these groups really are.  Are they going to welcome people who support President Trump, too?  If it doesn’t matter what you do in your bedroom or where you go to the bathroom, should it matter who you support politically or who you vote for in the polling booth?

True welcoming is not about being nice to people you agree with.  It’s easy to welcome people you like.  Real welcoming is about being nice to people you disagree with.  That’s harder.

How Could Angela Merkel, Such a Great Leader, Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage?

Germany has voted to legalize same-sex marriage.  By a vote of 393-226, the Bundestag approved the measure today.  What was most interesting to me, however, was this article in The Washington Post: “Why Angela Merkel, known for embracing liberal values, voted against same-sex marriage.”

As the article says, Chancellor Merkel “welcomed over 1 million refugees, abandoned nuclear energy over safety fears and has urged President Trump to respect human rights.”  The clear implication of the article is: Given all the right and proper views she has and all the right and proper things she has done, how could she possibly vote against same-sex marriage?

After the “Right to Deny Service” Case, What’s Next? Lawsuits Claiming the Services Aren’t Equal?

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear one of the “right to deny service” cases.  In this case, a Colorado court held that, under Colorado’s antidiscrimination law, a bakery could not refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple who were getting married.  The baker claimed that being forced to provide a cake for a same-sex marriage violated his First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise of religion.

I’ve always had two questions regarding to these cases.  First, why would anybody want to buy a wedding cake from somebody who doesn’t want to sell them one?  Why would they think they were going to get a good cake?

Disturbing New Evidence of Segregation in Oak Park

The Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest reported this week on new evidence of segregation in Oak Park, Illinois, and its neighbor to the east, the Austin neighborhood of Chicago:

“There are hundreds of different squirrel species worldwide, but basically two, fox (or Sciurus niger) and gray (or Sciurus caroliniensis) squirrels, call the Chicago area home. 

The fox squirrel, the largest tree squirrel in the country, is distinguished by its rust-colored belly and its tint that appears tanned orange.  The gray squirrel's belly is usually white and it typically sports a large, bushy tail. 

‘Austin is almost all fox squirrels, right up to the border in Oak Park, which mostly has gray squirrels,’ [Dan] Protess [, producer of WTTW digital series “Urban Nature,”] noted.

Ogden Nash: Sexual Predator

The politically correct and terminally sensitive have put out a revision of “Baby, It’s Cold Outside.” According to the concerned, the 1944 song “sounds hopelessly dated … in an age of informed consent and egalitarian relationships.”  One of the writers of the updated version of the song explained, “It was important to us to open a conversation about consent and make sure people's stories get told and the rhetoric gets changed.”

Apparently, when the current generation hears “say, what’s in this drink”, they think date rape drugs.  And the constant pleading in the song removes the necessary element of mutual constant from the sexual relationship.¹ 

East Germany Comes to Mizzou

Earlier this week I wrote a post I called “East Germany Comes to Tibet.”  You can find it, and the reason for the title, here.  Now it appears that East Germany may be coming closer to home.

Following up on everything that has been happening at the University of Missouri, the MU Police Department sent out an email Tuesday morning, with a subject line of “Reporting Hateful and/or Hurtful Speech”:

“To continue to ensure that the University of Missouri campus remains safe, the MU Police Department (MUPD) is asking individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions to:

• Call the police immediately at [phone number redacted]. (If you are in an emergency situation, dial 911.)

• Give the communications operator a summary of the incident, including location.

• Provide a detailed description of the individual(s) involved.

• Provide a license plate and vehicle descriptions (if appropriate).

• If possible and if it can be done safely, take a photo of the individual(s) with your cell phone.

Delays, including posting information to social media, can often reduce the chances of identifying the responsible parties.  While cases of hateful and hurtful speech are not crimes, if the individual(s) identified are students, MU’s Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action.”

It’s Easy to Stand Up Against “Discrimination” When There’s No Risk

I have been trying to ignore the brouhaha regarding Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  What with all of the wars in the Middle East (a lot more than normal), the talks on Iran’s nuclear program (and trying to figure out what we are going to have to concede on to get them to sign an agreement that they will then violate), Russia invading Ukraine, and baseball season starting Sunday night at Wrigley Field (with a video board but without restrooms; first things first), it just didn’t seem all that important.  It actually has seemed pretty silly.  But, it keeps on keeping on, so here are a couple of thoughts.  I will use Tim Cook’s, head of Apple, op-ed in The Washington Post, as representative of those who are protesting.

Mr. Cook “remember[s] what it was like to grow up in the South in the 1960s and 1970s.”  I would imagine that it might have been difficult for him.  On the other hand, I don’t think anybody reasonably thinks Indiana’s new law, or the 1993 federal law that it is modelled after, is going to result in “Whites Only” signs on shop doors and restrooms.  (It certainly won’t in the left field concourse at Wrigley Field.  The restrooms there aren’t going to be open to anybody.)

Can Americans Be Trusted With Campaign Finance Disclosures? – UPDATE

Last week I asked whether Americans “can be trusted with campaign finance disclosures.”  On Thursday, the New York Post reported that one of the parties* in New York sent out a letter to voters that said, in part:

“Who you vote for is your secret.  But whether or not you vote is public record.

We will be reviewing voting records ... to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014. …