Does that mean you love the situation of the girl's basketball team, too, Bob?
"[T]oo?" Which thing have you given my affections to this time without my permission, Mike? I told you, no more Biker Bimbos without clearing them with my wife first, and she's pretty darn tough to convince. Last time I think it was you tried to give my heart away to a bunch of Washington Bureaucrats, and the time before that it was to a group of sexually ambiguous Terrorists from — was it Tunesia or Iran or Saudi Arabia?
You've got to stop doing this, Mike. I'm a happily married man. Much as I like to watch the occasional well turned out Women's College Basketball team, I'm no chicken hawk, and you'll have to keep your wishes for the Women's High School Basketball Champions to yourself. You're a well known dirty old man, and I love you anyway, but leave me out of your more complex fantasies that way. There may well be Federal Laws involved here.
On a slightly more serious note, it seems to me that the school authorities have a responsibility to act in loco parentis for the kids in this situation, and they must make the judgement that reflects the most adult judgement that they can make. If they see the situation in Arizona as potentially difficult either because they believe the law itself is bad, or they believe the President has made a correct judgement call, or they believe that the situation down there is fluid enough that there may be civil unrest that may affect their kids simply because their kids would not be respecting a boycott and folks on the left might be upset or any other reason, then they have a responsibility, first and foremost to protect the kids.
They may like that decision or they may dislike that decision, but the amount of upset the parents may feel about the kids having to stay home is nothing compared to the upset the parents would feel if there was anything like an incident involving their kids in Arizona, and the administrators are acting like administrators are supposed to act. They're being protective of the kids and of their own hindquarters, the interests of which in this case may have some significant overlap.
Do I love this?
I neither love nor hate this. It is bureaucratic normality and I accept it. As is said of pilots, so may it be said of administrators: There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
It's really interesting that in a country where one of the rights, which you believe in so strongly, is innocent until proven guilty...and yet here we have a situation where punishment is applauded BEFORE any act is committed which warrants it. IS that the democrat version of the constitution then?
You might want to complete the sentence before I comment on it. I can give you better and more coherent a response that way, which I think you probably deserve here.
I do believe in the presumption of innocence in matters of law, but I don't believe that we're actually talking about law here, are we? There have been no charges filed by anybody that I am aware of. The notion of punishment, therefore, doesn't seem to come to bear. There is much of the country that is horrified by the law passed by the State of Arizona. The country is horrified enough by that law that it is boycotting many events and activities that help the Arizona Economy run. This is what much of the world did in terms of South Africa twenty years ago, when much of the world felt that South Africa was pursuing racist policies in their treatment of their minorities. It imposed voluntary economic sanctions. Most people joined that boycott on their own.
To what am I supposed to apply the presumption of innocence here, Mike? Do you intend to force me to spend money in Arizona? Do you suggest that people who do not have confidence in Arizona to act constitutionally act as though they do? This law has seriously damaged the confidence that much of the rest of the country has in that state to act in a lawful and cooperative fashion and to be a partner with the rest of the country in the compact of laws that the country runs upon. Should I pretend that this is not true for me? Should I pretend that I feel the State of Ariza provides a level of safety for those traveling inside its borders that it does not, in my opinion, provide?
I am breaking no law be avoiding Arizona and its products. The passage of the law, by the way, was the act which, as far as I'm concerned, provided reason for the rest of the country to become cautious about their interactions with that state. And yes, I do believe it is a racist law. The State felt that it could pass the law, and it could. It could not pass the law, however, without provoking a reaction from me, and there are other people who agree with me in this matter.
I would suggest to you that as long as you talk about this in the terms that you are using here, you probably do not understand what the Democratic and civil libertarian response to this sort of thing is about.
I don't say that you actually have to know or understand it, because that would be wrong. You don't. But it would keep you from being quite so puzzled about why folks actually become concerned about this sort of thing, and the discussion wouldn't seem so strange to you.
Whether that's a valuable outcome or not for you, I don't know. It may be.