Tragedy visited Arizona over the weekend. A representative of congress was seriously wounded and 6 others were killed. The gunman’s motives are unclear right now and may never really be known.
The debate after all of this is about the freedom of speech. The representative that was wounded was the focus of harsh comments by many that didn’t agree with her politically. The question that is being tossed around the media is what responsibility do those that preach political hate have? The answer for many is none. Political pundits and talk show hosts, many say, are just exercising their freedom of speech and should in no way be connected with what this young man did in Arizona. Even though his actions killed people, the freedom of speech should be protected at all costs.
Well, unless of course, politics get in the way.
Members of the Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kansas will be in town for the funeral of Christina Taylor Green, a 9 year old girl that was one of the people that were killed. The church group is most famous for showing up at the funerals of veterans suggesting that the reason they died was because the United States accepts the gay lifestyle, as well as other issues. This time, they will arrive because “God sent the shooter to deal with idolatrous America.”
The Westboro Baptist Church is the focus of a Supreme Court case about the freedom of speech. Last fall, they argued that they have the right to express their opinion and should not have to pay damages to the father of a veteran that they picketed. That case is expected to be released sometime this Spring.
Lawmakers in Arizona have now crafted a law that will not allow the members of the Westboro Baptist Church from picketing the funeral of the little girl. The lawmakers suspended most of the rules to make this happen before the funeral. Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, signed the bill.
Even if every last person in Arizona agrees with the law banning the picketers, that doesn’t make it right. You can’t on one side of the argument defend the freedom of speech, then, make laws that limit the freedom of speech for no other reason than because it is uncomfortable.
The Westboro Church group may make us cringe to think that anyone would want to turn a funeral into a political statement and not respect the deep sorrow of the families of the 9 year old girl. The Westboro Church, though, at the very least broaden the limits of our freedoms. The lawmakers that are worked so hard at banning the Westboro group are limiting our freedoms in ways that may come to haunt us in the future.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Politicians need to open about their income and contributions
Jack is the owner of a diner in Pontiac. He services up good food to working class people from the neighborhood and others that work in the area.
Jack immigrated to the United States from Iraq between the wars. He has known first hand corrupt politicians and officials. He lived under a dictatorship that only held elections to appease the voters. Where money came from to run campaigns and pay people was not known. That is no way to run a government he would often say.
When he came to America, Jack just knew things would be different. He quickly adds that it wasn’t the money. It was the way the government is run. But, it hasn’t turned out like he thought.
“They are all corrupt,” he was ranting the other day. “Every politician that is elected is corrupt.”
Thinking he meant the local politicians and officials from the city, I begin to quiz him about what he was really saying. There may be a few corrupt people working in Pontiac, but for the most part they are just everyday people.
“No, I don’t mean them…” he said with a roll of his eyes. “I am talking about everyone that goes to Washington.”
He must of seen my own roll of the eyes. Seems that most people think politicians are corrupt, even though they don’t have any proof. Everyday people, just like those that come into his diner, knows it for a fact… mostly because everyone else thinks so.
“Look, every time Verizon, or GM or some other big corporation gives money to one side, they give money to the other side,” he started explaining. “If they were giving money for the right reasons, they wouldn’t give money to both sides. Do you think anyone in this restaurant right now would give money to someone if it weren’t in their best interest?”
“This was a hard working class of people, they won’t give any of the little money they do have if it wasn’t for something good,” I had to admit. “But, giving campaign contributions is legal. It isn’t corrupt if it is legal. Besides, the Supreme Court said not only can they, but they don’t have to reveal themselves to the public.”
“But, the outcome is the same,” he challenged back with a growing passion. This was clearly a subject he had strong feelings about. “If I kill someone, it doesn’t matter if it was legal, the person is still dead. It is the same here. Politicians go to Washington and even if they don’t want to, they learn how to be corrupt.”
Jack’s words were harsh and passionate. But, his comparative approach to his home country and the United States did have merit. If the contributions to a politician come from a business or organization that disagreed with his or her political positions, most politicians will still take the money. Not that they can be blamed. Even the most honest politician knows that it takes money, and lots of it, to run a campaign. Politicians that have little money because they take limited contributions from only individuals most always loses to the one with lots and lots of money.
We as individual voters, not unlike all the people that eat lunch at Jack’s, need to know where that money is coming from for campaigns. It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court says. If we as voters will not support a candidate, even if they take positions we agree with, unless they reveal all their sources, it would stop.
An example is Carol Moseley Braun. She is one of six candidates, including ex-White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who made the cut yesterday in the run for Mayor of Chicago. She first said she wouldn’t release here income tax records. Then, changed her mind and did release them. But, now, she refuses to release details about her income.
If open government has any meaning, it means that the lives of politicians lose a lot of privacy when they run for office. Just as it should since they are suppose to be representing people, just like us, at Jack’s.
-----
Jack immigrated to the United States from Iraq between the wars. He has known first hand corrupt politicians and officials. He lived under a dictatorship that only held elections to appease the voters. Where money came from to run campaigns and pay people was not known. That is no way to run a government he would often say.
When he came to America, Jack just knew things would be different. He quickly adds that it wasn’t the money. It was the way the government is run. But, it hasn’t turned out like he thought.
“They are all corrupt,” he was ranting the other day. “Every politician that is elected is corrupt.”
Thinking he meant the local politicians and officials from the city, I begin to quiz him about what he was really saying. There may be a few corrupt people working in Pontiac, but for the most part they are just everyday people.
“No, I don’t mean them…” he said with a roll of his eyes. “I am talking about everyone that goes to Washington.”
He must of seen my own roll of the eyes. Seems that most people think politicians are corrupt, even though they don’t have any proof. Everyday people, just like those that come into his diner, knows it for a fact… mostly because everyone else thinks so.
“Look, every time Verizon, or GM or some other big corporation gives money to one side, they give money to the other side,” he started explaining. “If they were giving money for the right reasons, they wouldn’t give money to both sides. Do you think anyone in this restaurant right now would give money to someone if it weren’t in their best interest?”
“This was a hard working class of people, they won’t give any of the little money they do have if it wasn’t for something good,” I had to admit. “But, giving campaign contributions is legal. It isn’t corrupt if it is legal. Besides, the Supreme Court said not only can they, but they don’t have to reveal themselves to the public.”
“But, the outcome is the same,” he challenged back with a growing passion. This was clearly a subject he had strong feelings about. “If I kill someone, it doesn’t matter if it was legal, the person is still dead. It is the same here. Politicians go to Washington and even if they don’t want to, they learn how to be corrupt.”
Jack’s words were harsh and passionate. But, his comparative approach to his home country and the United States did have merit. If the contributions to a politician come from a business or organization that disagreed with his or her political positions, most politicians will still take the money. Not that they can be blamed. Even the most honest politician knows that it takes money, and lots of it, to run a campaign. Politicians that have little money because they take limited contributions from only individuals most always loses to the one with lots and lots of money.
We as individual voters, not unlike all the people that eat lunch at Jack’s, need to know where that money is coming from for campaigns. It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court says. If we as voters will not support a candidate, even if they take positions we agree with, unless they reveal all their sources, it would stop.
An example is Carol Moseley Braun. She is one of six candidates, including ex-White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who made the cut yesterday in the run for Mayor of Chicago. She first said she wouldn’t release here income tax records. Then, changed her mind and did release them. But, now, she refuses to release details about her income.
If open government has any meaning, it means that the lives of politicians lose a lot of privacy when they run for office. Just as it should since they are suppose to be representing people, just like us, at Jack’s.
-----
Monday, January 10, 2011
6 gunned dead in Arizona, including a 9 year old girl
A shooting in Arizona brings back the debate about the freedom of speech and foreseeable harm that may result.
It was just two weeks ago a post was made on this blog about a disgusting man who wrote a book to help pedophiles. (The pedophile's book is free speech) A sheriff in Florida sent deputies to Colorado to arrest him because the author had sold a book via mail order to the deputies. Charged with breaking Florida’s obscenities laws, the author’s defense lawyer claimed the book is protected speech. The conservative Republican sheriff’s response was that it is speech, but speech and words have consequences and can cause some to take action that can cause harm.
The blog took the side of freedom of speech, but hoped that someone could find a way to censor the author’s book without damaging one of the most important freedoms of all, the freedom of speech.
Sunday, six people were killed and a Democratic congresswomen was left with a bullet wound to her brain by a 22 year old gunman. (Congresswoman still sedated after gunman’s attack; second person of interest sought) The congresswoman was one of the 20 districts that Sarah Palin had targeted on her website, with cross hairs like that of a gun site. (We diagnosed the problem... )Others across the country, using a variety of media as their outlet, have also expressed in very vitriolic rhetoric, their hatred of people that disagree with their opinions in politics. The sharpness of political debate has come to the edge if not just crossing the line of speech that has consequences.
There are plenty of people with personalities that are easily manipulated. Political opinion leaders in the media know it well. They have built their careers, and filled their pockets, on the loyal readership, viewers and audience that follow their every word. As was suggested by the sheriff in Florida, speech can provide the justification needed to lead some to take action that they might not have otherwise.
This rhetoric flows in a circle. The opinion leader makes expressions that pulls in the audience. The audience then responds with their own harsh comments. That is then echoed back and forth until the debate loses any rational basis, leaving only the hate. In the last Presidential election, Senator John McCain stopped the echo when he shut down a woman in a televised town hall meeting. To his credit, he brought back the debate from the edge. Political opinion leaders need to do the same.
Political debate has always been hot. But, the opinion leaders’ venomous expressions have taken a sharp turn to the edge of lunacy. It will be difficult to find that line between freedom of speech and criminal activity. But to continue without backing up from the edge means that the expressions of some will be like the man that yells “fire” in a crowded theater or incites a riot. The freedom of speech ends when as a result, there is foreseeable harm.
-----
It was just two weeks ago a post was made on this blog about a disgusting man who wrote a book to help pedophiles. (The pedophile's book is free speech) A sheriff in Florida sent deputies to Colorado to arrest him because the author had sold a book via mail order to the deputies. Charged with breaking Florida’s obscenities laws, the author’s defense lawyer claimed the book is protected speech. The conservative Republican sheriff’s response was that it is speech, but speech and words have consequences and can cause some to take action that can cause harm.
The blog took the side of freedom of speech, but hoped that someone could find a way to censor the author’s book without damaging one of the most important freedoms of all, the freedom of speech.
Sunday, six people were killed and a Democratic congresswomen was left with a bullet wound to her brain by a 22 year old gunman. (Congresswoman still sedated after gunman’s attack; second person of interest sought) The congresswoman was one of the 20 districts that Sarah Palin had targeted on her website, with cross hairs like that of a gun site. (We diagnosed the problem... )Others across the country, using a variety of media as their outlet, have also expressed in very vitriolic rhetoric, their hatred of people that disagree with their opinions in politics. The sharpness of political debate has come to the edge if not just crossing the line of speech that has consequences.
There are plenty of people with personalities that are easily manipulated. Political opinion leaders in the media know it well. They have built their careers, and filled their pockets, on the loyal readership, viewers and audience that follow their every word. As was suggested by the sheriff in Florida, speech can provide the justification needed to lead some to take action that they might not have otherwise.
This rhetoric flows in a circle. The opinion leader makes expressions that pulls in the audience. The audience then responds with their own harsh comments. That is then echoed back and forth until the debate loses any rational basis, leaving only the hate. In the last Presidential election, Senator John McCain stopped the echo when he shut down a woman in a televised town hall meeting. To his credit, he brought back the debate from the edge. Political opinion leaders need to do the same.
Political debate has always been hot. But, the opinion leaders’ venomous expressions have taken a sharp turn to the edge of lunacy. It will be difficult to find that line between freedom of speech and criminal activity. But to continue without backing up from the edge means that the expressions of some will be like the man that yells “fire” in a crowded theater or incites a riot. The freedom of speech ends when as a result, there is foreseeable harm.
-----
Thursday, January 6, 2011
A cross at a war memorial needs to be removed
So what does it matter that a single cross is at a war memorial in San Diego?
On Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California, there is a war memorial honoring the fallen in the Korean War, a respectable and virtuous thing for a community to do. But, in the center of the memorial it has a single religious symbol, a cross. The cross is arguably the religious symbol solely of Christianity. People have been debating since 1989 that the cross, or any other religious symbol doesn’t belong on this or any government site. The 9th district court of appeals in California ruled that the cross endorses a single religion over all others. The court sent it back to the lower courts to determine what should be done with the cross.
Keep in mind, the Constitution commands that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” If this has any meaning, it means that through any direct or indirect act of congress, the government cannot establish a law that even appears to endorse religion. By owning the memorial, the federal government has endorsed this memorial and has chosen to keep the religious symbol of a single religion as part of the memorial.
So what does it matter that a single cross is at a war memorial in San Diego? A Jewish war veterans group, who was one of the individuals and groups that fought the presence of the cross in the memorial, said that it excludes veterans that weren’t Christian. So what about the Hindu’s, the Muslims, the Buddhist or the Catholics for that matter since their cross has Jesus on it? As a community, are we to begin to select the symbol of a single religion to represent all religions at government sites? Which we can’t according to the Constitution, nor should we in a Responsible Community. Are we to begin the process of determining what a religion is then place a symbol for each at sites such as this? That would be a confusing and exhausting task because if you would like to see a long list of religions of the world, click here. It would also set up court battles for those individuals that feel their religious beliefs, as minor and subtle as the difference might be from one on the list, are not represented fairly.
It is a very wise and thoughtful concept to not have a single religion established by any legislative body in the community. It is also wise to not attempt to represent all religions just to allow religion to be part of a government site.
Government was not established to govern our religious life, only our civilian. By keeping government out of our religious life it gives us the greatest religious freedom possible.
-----
On Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California, there is a war memorial honoring the fallen in the Korean War, a respectable and virtuous thing for a community to do. But, in the center of the memorial it has a single religious symbol, a cross. The cross is arguably the religious symbol solely of Christianity. People have been debating since 1989 that the cross, or any other religious symbol doesn’t belong on this or any government site. The 9th district court of appeals in California ruled that the cross endorses a single religion over all others. The court sent it back to the lower courts to determine what should be done with the cross.
Keep in mind, the Constitution commands that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” If this has any meaning, it means that through any direct or indirect act of congress, the government cannot establish a law that even appears to endorse religion. By owning the memorial, the federal government has endorsed this memorial and has chosen to keep the religious symbol of a single religion as part of the memorial.
So what does it matter that a single cross is at a war memorial in San Diego? A Jewish war veterans group, who was one of the individuals and groups that fought the presence of the cross in the memorial, said that it excludes veterans that weren’t Christian. So what about the Hindu’s, the Muslims, the Buddhist or the Catholics for that matter since their cross has Jesus on it? As a community, are we to begin to select the symbol of a single religion to represent all religions at government sites? Which we can’t according to the Constitution, nor should we in a Responsible Community. Are we to begin the process of determining what a religion is then place a symbol for each at sites such as this? That would be a confusing and exhausting task because if you would like to see a long list of religions of the world, click here. It would also set up court battles for those individuals that feel their religious beliefs, as minor and subtle as the difference might be from one on the list, are not represented fairly.
It is a very wise and thoughtful concept to not have a single religion established by any legislative body in the community. It is also wise to not attempt to represent all religions just to allow religion to be part of a government site.
Government was not established to govern our religious life, only our civilian. By keeping government out of our religious life it gives us the greatest religious freedom possible.
-----
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Pontiac Promise Zone brings hope to a community
Without detailing study after study, educated people earn more money, they have less children and make better decisions in the market place and in the voting booth. Families that make education and lifelong learning their primary focus are functional and healthy. They have less issues with abuse. Communities that are populated by educated people have less crime and less blight. Communities with high education levels replicate themselves.
When one part of the complete quadrangle of education fails, the other parts must work twice as hard to be successful. The student, the family, the institution and the community must work equally as hard and work together for an education system to succeed.
That is why the Pontiac Promise Zone that was announced last month is so important.
The people who suffer the most from a community that has failed are the students. But, even in tough situations, if the individual student and his or her family can see the proverbial light at graduation from high school, they will feel a sense of hope. If they make the effort to graduate, they know they will be able to go on to college. The Pontiac Promise Zone brings hope to thousands of children for many generations.
Let’s us all applaud the Pontiac Promise Zone and all those that have worked so hard to bring it to the community. This is a brilliant example of a community drawing together to build a better future.
-----
When one part of the complete quadrangle of education fails, the other parts must work twice as hard to be successful. The student, the family, the institution and the community must work equally as hard and work together for an education system to succeed.
That is why the Pontiac Promise Zone that was announced last month is so important.
The people who suffer the most from a community that has failed are the students. But, even in tough situations, if the individual student and his or her family can see the proverbial light at graduation from high school, they will feel a sense of hope. If they make the effort to graduate, they know they will be able to go on to college. The Pontiac Promise Zone brings hope to thousands of children for many generations.
Let’s us all applaud the Pontiac Promise Zone and all those that have worked so hard to bring it to the community. This is a brilliant example of a community drawing together to build a better future.
-----
Friday, December 31, 2010
Law enforcement officers protect us, let's protect them
On this New Year’s Holiday, I would like to step back from the normal blog to tell a personal story that will never leave my memory.
On a pleasant summer afternoon when I was 12 years old, the family went for an outing. My father drove the car with my mother next to him in the front seat. My brother and I were in the back seat, he on the passenger’s side and I on the driver’s side. The windows were down because it was hot. We were all talking while I was fighting with my brother.
Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, four guys on motorcycles quickly passed our car. The speed and noise gave everyone except my father a fright. He had seen the bikes coming from a long way off in the rearview mirror so he was prepared. The guys on the bikes thought they saw a familiar face and slowed down dramatically. My father had to slow the car down to avoid hitting them because they were taking up both sides of the road and he couldn’t pass them. As they recognized my dad, one stayed in front to keep our car in check while the others slowed to come up beside the driver’s side of the car.
Sitting just behind my father in the car with the window down, I had a front row seat to something this country boy hadn’t seen very often. They starting yelling obscenities at my father at the same time they were giving me the evil eye. After a few more obscene jesters, they drove on ahead and disappeared from sight.
Everyone in the car starting asking my father what that was all about. We were all scared and in shock. My father, the quite guy he was, didn’t say much other than he had put them in jail one time.
My father was a cop in the Shelby Police Department. It was something he had always wanted to be and was very proud of it. The Detroit Police had stricter guidelines so he wasn’t able to join the force there. He did finally get on the force at Shelby and retired from there after many years.
The bad guys are out there. They would love to know more about the police so they can carry out attacks of terror and seek revenge for whatever punishment they received for the crimes they had committed. The above story is just one of many my father and family experienced over the years. It is likely that thousands take place every day in America to other officers and families.
In Tacoma, Washington, a man convicted of stalking and assault has asked for the names, addresses and other personal information of police officers that work for the city. He has requested the information through the Freedom of Information act. The Tacoma Police Union Local No. 6 has filed a motion with the courts to prevent the individual from receiving the information on the officers. Unless the courts place an injunction on the request, the bad guys, like those mentioned above, will be able to get all the information they need to carry out attacks on the officers and the families in their homes.
It was announced in the past couple of days by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund that more law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty in 2010 than in 2009. The number of deaths in 2010 spiked to 160 from an almost 40 year low of 117 in 2009. As a law enforcement officer, the risk of losing your life is very real.
The right of people to know who is working for the government and what they are doing is not an absolute right. When there is a real risk that innocent people will be hurt by the right to know, then the community must prevent it from happening. In the Tacoma case, the courts need to block not only this individual from receiving the information, but all such requests need to be prevented.
It is important that the citizens of a community have oversight of their government. But, in the case of law enforcement officers, who place their lives on the line, there is plenty of oversight by the city government. There is no need to provide the personal information that would endanger so many lives.
-----
On a pleasant summer afternoon when I was 12 years old, the family went for an outing. My father drove the car with my mother next to him in the front seat. My brother and I were in the back seat, he on the passenger’s side and I on the driver’s side. The windows were down because it was hot. We were all talking while I was fighting with my brother.
Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, four guys on motorcycles quickly passed our car. The speed and noise gave everyone except my father a fright. He had seen the bikes coming from a long way off in the rearview mirror so he was prepared. The guys on the bikes thought they saw a familiar face and slowed down dramatically. My father had to slow the car down to avoid hitting them because they were taking up both sides of the road and he couldn’t pass them. As they recognized my dad, one stayed in front to keep our car in check while the others slowed to come up beside the driver’s side of the car.
Sitting just behind my father in the car with the window down, I had a front row seat to something this country boy hadn’t seen very often. They starting yelling obscenities at my father at the same time they were giving me the evil eye. After a few more obscene jesters, they drove on ahead and disappeared from sight.
Everyone in the car starting asking my father what that was all about. We were all scared and in shock. My father, the quite guy he was, didn’t say much other than he had put them in jail one time.
My father was a cop in the Shelby Police Department. It was something he had always wanted to be and was very proud of it. The Detroit Police had stricter guidelines so he wasn’t able to join the force there. He did finally get on the force at Shelby and retired from there after many years.
The bad guys are out there. They would love to know more about the police so they can carry out attacks of terror and seek revenge for whatever punishment they received for the crimes they had committed. The above story is just one of many my father and family experienced over the years. It is likely that thousands take place every day in America to other officers and families.
In Tacoma, Washington, a man convicted of stalking and assault has asked for the names, addresses and other personal information of police officers that work for the city. He has requested the information through the Freedom of Information act. The Tacoma Police Union Local No. 6 has filed a motion with the courts to prevent the individual from receiving the information on the officers. Unless the courts place an injunction on the request, the bad guys, like those mentioned above, will be able to get all the information they need to carry out attacks on the officers and the families in their homes.
It was announced in the past couple of days by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund that more law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty in 2010 than in 2009. The number of deaths in 2010 spiked to 160 from an almost 40 year low of 117 in 2009. As a law enforcement officer, the risk of losing your life is very real.
The right of people to know who is working for the government and what they are doing is not an absolute right. When there is a real risk that innocent people will be hurt by the right to know, then the community must prevent it from happening. In the Tacoma case, the courts need to block not only this individual from receiving the information, but all such requests need to be prevented.
It is important that the citizens of a community have oversight of their government. But, in the case of law enforcement officers, who place their lives on the line, there is plenty of oversight by the city government. There is no need to provide the personal information that would endanger so many lives.
-----
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
End of story, Joe
As a follow up to yesterday’s post, a federal judge has cleared the way for U. S. Senator Lisa Murkowski to take her seat in the new session of congress that begins January 3, 2011. Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate during the last general election after losing in the primary to fellow republican and Tea Party favorite, Joe Miller.
Miller contested the Alaskan election commissions’ decision to accept write-in votes that were clear as to their intent, if not the correct spelling of Murkowski’s name. After exhausting his challenges in state courts, including the Alaskan Supreme Court, Miller asked a federal court to rule on the election.
Federal District Judge Ralph Beistline released the injunction he had placed on the election. The judge ruled that, "Generally speaking, the Alaska Supreme Court is the final expositor of Alaska law. That must be the case here."
Federal courts have consistently ruled that unless civil rights are violated that evokes the Fourteenth Amendment, elections are a matter for each state to set and arbitrate. The Constitution clearly states that it is up to each state who they send to represent them in congress.
End of story, Joe.
-----
Miller contested the Alaskan election commissions’ decision to accept write-in votes that were clear as to their intent, if not the correct spelling of Murkowski’s name. After exhausting his challenges in state courts, including the Alaskan Supreme Court, Miller asked a federal court to rule on the election.
Federal District Judge Ralph Beistline released the injunction he had placed on the election. The judge ruled that, "Generally speaking, the Alaska Supreme Court is the final expositor of Alaska law. That must be the case here."
Federal courts have consistently ruled that unless civil rights are violated that evokes the Fourteenth Amendment, elections are a matter for each state to set and arbitrate. The Constitution clearly states that it is up to each state who they send to represent them in congress.
End of story, Joe.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)