Is Barry Switzer Racist? Or is He Just Stupid?

Discussing the upcoming NFL draft in general and specifically Johnny Manziel, Barry Switzer was quoted saying:

I love his ability; Johnny can play," Switzer said. "I've always said I'd never recruit a white quarterback. The only way I'd ever recruit a white quarterback to play for me was if his mom and daddy would have to both be black, and that's the only way I would do it."

In his defense, he went on to explain that it is because of the style of offense he plays. However, I think his explanation merely added fuel to the fire.

"My offense is a quarterback-fullback offense," Switzer continued. "I'd have to have a Jamelle Holieway, J.C. Watts [or] Thomas Lott. Those guys are gonna be my quarterbacks, they're great runners, they're great ball carriers and ... able to pass, complete some, and those guys could. Those guys could throw and run."

My rule of thumb on determining if something is racist is to turn the races around and ask how the statement would then be viewed. His qualifying statement about wanting running quarterbacks does not rehabilitate the comments. Years ago when there was uproar about lack of black quarterbacks in the NFL, coaches often explained it away by saying that black QB's coming out of colleges were not pocket passers, etc. Here is an idea. Ignore everyone's race and hire them or select them in the draft based on their talents and whether they can help your organization achieve its goals. Pretty simple huh? Want to end racism? Stop talking about race as if it is germane to every conversation. People are people. I'll end with this youtube clip of Morgan Freeman on 60 Minutes from a few years back.

The Argument for Post Birth Abortion and Our Cultural Decline

Brit Hume tweeted a link to a Slate.com article which discusses a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics titled "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?"

This disgusting notion has several angles to discuss:

First, I notice that Hume's tweet expressed surprise: 

There are now people seriously arguing for abortion AFTER BIRTH.  http://t.co/iisZuaWc3Q
— Brit Hume (@brithume) February 24, 2014

It can be difficult to clearly express yourself within Twitter's 140 character limit. However, it is safe to say Hume was shocked by the fact that we have serious discussion of murdering children after they are born. Hume is a smart guy, but I can not share his surprise at this development. It is actually very predictable. Many people have connected our passive acceptance of abortion with an overall diminished valuing of human life. Also, since the Roe v Wade decision we have seen a greater acceptance of euthanasia which is just another side to the same coin - deciding some human life has less value than others.

Then when you read Slate's article you realize they are on the side of evil and are actually worried that the "doctors" openly advocating abortion after live delivery from the womb will instead advance the pro-life argument. Consider this segment:

" But it isn’t pro-lifers who should worry about the Giubilini-Minerva proposal. It’s pro-choicers. The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t."

The problem for pro-aborts is, if they attempt to be intellectually honest with themselves they can't help but realize there is no difference between an in-womb murder (abortion) and a post partum murder besides location and age. I concede we are unlikely to influence the extremists. However, we may see this influence the mildly pro-aborts (that includes those who are indifferent and the "personally opposed but who am I to tell others not to murder their kid?" crowd) When mildly pro-aborts are able to see that their arguments also apply to a new born they in turn should realize there is no difference between killing a two day old child and killing a two year old. Only a completely morally depraved person could remain in favor of continuing down this path. Last item this drive home to me is the question: where are we culturally that we have reached a point that doctors are debating the merits of murdering children.In a decent society the authors of that paper would be shunned and unwelcome in any respectable setting. Sadly, I strongly doubt they will face any negative feedback professionally. Instead they are likely celebrated for being avant-garde and unshackled by conventional positions. We can continue the March for Life, and can support pro-life politicians and what not, but most important thing to do is to pray that people's hearts and minds change on this subject. Slavery wasn't ended because a politician passed a law or issued a proclamation. Instead what happened was a few people recognized that owning human beings is wrong and they made that case in many different ways and convinced more and more people to share their view. In time the few became a majority. In further time that majority demanded an end to an evil they could no longer abide continuing.

Rep Dingell to Retire

A little good news out of DC today with the word that Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) is finally retiring. Dingell exemplified all that is wrong with our federal government. Career politicians fight for continual growth of government and he is the longest serving congressman at 60 years in office. We can add a touch of nepotism to his list of sins since he became a congressman when he basically inherited his daddy's district in 1955. Good riddance several decades too late! Disgustingly, his wife Deborah Dingell (born year before he was first elected to congress) is the early favorite to replace him.