commentary on the passing parade

Agree? Disagree? Tell me

My Other Blog

 
JUDGE APPLIES FIRST AMENDMENT AND HENRY ll REASONING TO SET A BIGOT FREE

Here we go again with those nagging lines in the Constitution about freedom of speech. I wonder if the founders had any idea how their noble concept would be twisted into unimaginable shapes by future generations. I think, had they had the gift of foresight, they would have added a few caveats so that a judge in 2011 wouldn’t have permitted a sub human racist bigot to defame and verbally abuse a fellow citizen for performing a civic duty and in so doing reveal his phone number and home address to perhaps thousands of other sub human racist bigots, to suffer no consequences for his actions.

This is the case of William White who, in a 2008 posting on his now defunct web site of hate, verbally attacked Mark Hoffman, the foreman of the jury that convicted Matthew Hale, calling for the "assassination" of anyone involved in the trial. Strangely enough, while I was happy to see one of the aforementioned creatures sent to prison, at the time of Hale’s conviction of soliciting the murder of a Federal Judge, I had my doubts about the charges.

But that was years ago and today’s comments are about the First Amendment and what I consider to be its abuse. William White was convicted by a jury of his peers of using his web site to solicit an attack on the jury foreman in the Matthew Hale case. It took the jury in White’s case about three hours to agree that what he was posting on his web site amounted to an invitation to fellow bigots to cause harm to Hoffman. It took Federal District Judge Lynn Adelman 66 pages to say that prosecutors hadn’t presented enough evidence to prove that White wanted Hoffman harmed - the jury’s conclusion notwithstanding - and besides which his vicious postings were protected by the First Amendment. It’s truly amazing how that blamed First Amendment is used as a catchall to forgive any and all kinds of sick and dangerous speech. It also makes decisions easier for Judges who don’t have to actually make a judgment but can simply cite the First Amendment - even if it takes one of then 66 pages to do so.

What happens here could never happen in many other countries as I observed here last November - which commentary I also cited a few days ago on April 15. And not all the countries mentioned there have "Constitutions" to tie their hand when trying to apply common sense and logical reasoning. England for example, from whom we adopted our version of common law, has no official Constitution. It has the Magna Carta but that document doesn’t prevent it from deciding that certain kinds of speech can’t be tolerated and acting accordingly.

We have clung to the Constitution of the United States and its early amendments with what I consider to be blind faith for two centuries, much of the time arguing over "original intent" as though circumstances of today can readily be guided by two hundred year old conditions and circumstances. The nonsense about "bearing arms" for example, being used to let anyone own any kind if firearm in an era where we not only have a standing military but weapons that can virtually lay waste to the entire planet. But the biggest culprit, the one that lets us off the need to actually decide for ourselves what "speech" should be not just condemned but curtailed is the First Amendment. What "strict interpretation" of the First Amendment says to us is that Americans aren’t capable of making right and wrong decisions - that even though it is MEN (and of course women) who create laws, we are a nation of laws, not of men - so we shouldn’t make common sense decisions dictated by the conditions and circumstances of the 21st century but just defer to those few lines written two centuries ago.

The reasoning behind the need to stick to a "strict interpretation" of the First Amendment - is that if we mere mortals start to decide what speech is too harmful to be allowed on a case by case basis, we’ll be starting off down a slippery slope that may lead us to a time when all speech might be considered suspect and people would no longer feel free to speak their mind . Right - like the countries mentioned in my November 26, 2010 commentary linked above. Their populations must be so much more sensible than Americans to be able to figure out what fee speech is so bad for a society that it should be made illegal - and still hold their democracies together and keep despots from taking over and throwing all protesters into dungeons.

Twelve people applied common sense to the information presented to them at a trial and convicted William White. Judge Lynn Adelman, all by herself, dismissed that same information as proving nothing illegal - and in a final kiss off to the members of that jury, cited the centuries old standby - Free Speech - protected by The First Amendment. Something smells rotten in a decision like that - and no inference to Denmark is implied.
posted by Jeff Smith at 4/21/2011 03:34:00 PM

 
EIGHT YEARS OF THIS BLOG AND I AM STILL SICKENED AT THE SOUND OF LIMBAUGH

I was out driving for a while yesterday and by the time I got home I felt like I needed to take a shower or uses a disinfectant on my hands - maybe both. The reason for these feelings is that while I was driving I did what I often do and am unable to do at home - punched in various radio stations. It was the time of day when Rush Limbaugh was on the air and I landed on him and for a few moments couldn’t change stations because I was so stunned at what he was saying. I’m aware of the kid of material he does. I hear and read quotes from time to time. But today I feel like the way Joseph Welch must have felt on June 9, 1954 - when he said to Joe McCarthy

"Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" and " Until this moment Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or you recklessness."

In April, 2003, when I started this blog, my first post - after sort of introducing myself - was about LIMBAUGH and his recklessness and musing about what I would do with someone like him "If I Were King" - one of the several titles I considered for this blog before I settled on "What’s All This Then." It’s hard to believe that this many years later, I could have written the same comments, word for word, and they would be as contemporary as they were then. Nothing has changed except perhaps that he is even more cruel and even more reckless and if he ever had any sense of decency he has long since surrendered it to his quest for a wider audience and the almighty dollar.

He was talking about the President’s budget speech, which of course he attacked as being the essence of evil. I only listened for a minute or so, but in that time he called the President a small, mean man and among the epithets he used to describe Obama’s "base" - presumably those he can count on to vote for him for a second term - "walking debris." There were other names but I can’t remember them. I was too stunned by what I was hearing to make note of specific epithets. It’s one thing to know about Limbaugh or to hear snippets on programs hosted by some of the people he demeans and attacks. It’s entirely something else to listen to him in the raw. I swear it makes the skin crawl. How people can listen to and believe this excuse for a human being is beyond me. I can’t imagine myself having a rational conversation with a dedicated Rush listener - a "dittohead." I know there are others on the radio dial using the same kind shock/hate/misinformation format - but he is the one who is the most influential - the one who Republican elected officials come to visit - or to crawl to visit to make their apologies if they have dared to sound as if they disagree with him.

On the day after Kobe Bryant was fined $100,000 for using a homophobic slur against a referee, this man was continuing his never ending slur against fairness, decency and truth - and nothing happens to him. Protected by the Constitution, he can and does say virtually anything he wants to say. Nobody can stop him. No one can impose a fine - and stations keep airing his program because they make money. Some owners and managers may hold their noses as they approve a renewal of his broadcasts - but approve they continue to do . I can think of no other democratic country where such a thing would be allowed. There are those who would say that it is something for which we should be proud - that we live in a country where every citizen has a right to speak his or her mind without fear of prosecution other than for the obvious exceptions. I think it’s something for which we should be ashamed - that we have allowed Limbaugh and his ilk to pervert and profit from the six of the forty five words of the First Amendment of the Constitution that guarantee free speech. I expressed my frustration about this in my comments of last November 26 and I’ll probably do it again when I’m accidentally exposed to one of these merchants of schlock.

I suppose in some ways - I guess in many ways, we’re a better country that we were at the time of the Army/McCarthy hearings. After all we have a President whose father was a black man from Kenya. I just wish we also had a modern day Joseph Welch who could find the words and the audience to put an end to Rush Limbaugh’s radio career.
posted by Jeff Smith at 4/15/2011 08:57:00 PM

 
REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION

What a lovely reversal of the ancient plaint that would be - and there are voters in this country who actually believe it possible. Why else would they vote to elect those Republican members of Congress who threatened to shut down the United States government unless the President and the Senate agreed to cut spending for those who need it the most and cut taxes (again) for those who need it least? Listening to Paul Ryan propose that we return to the economics and the mores of 1900 in order to make a dent in our 1.5 trillion deficit and then reading and hearing him being referred to as a "leader" and "courageous" boggles the mind.

I won’t bother to try to estimate or predict the effect of his proposals if, by some miracle they could become law. We’ve all read and heard the reactions from the left and the right - and from neutral analysis that concludes that they would plunge us further in debt. I just want to comment on the mindset of Republicans as they approach the problem of how we can live "within our means" - a term that the President used today in presenting his ideas of how to chip away at our trillions of debt.

My first observation is that the United States is not like a "family" - that social group often used by critics of government spending as an example of how a nation should conduct itself. "A family has to live within its means" they say." So should the government." They rarely if ever say the "nation." It’s always the "government" - the body that, as Ronald Reagan once observed, is "the problem." And that wasn’t a line in a movie. It was in his first inaugural address. And Republicans have been echoing that sentiment ever since - while clawing to become part of that evil being and, when controlling it, spending like a drunken sailor. I don’t recall cries of the sky falling during the eight years of the G.W. Bush presidency - but now, suddenly, the Republican observatory has been able to confirm that indeed earth and sky have become closer to each other and the only remedy is to assure that the 3% of service devoted to abortion offered by Planned Parenthood be stripped of its annual government stipend. I joke of course but I’ll try to be serious.

I agree with much of what the President said today - particularly his defense of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He seemed to be drawing a proverbial line in the sand. And I was glad to hear him mention words that Republicans try to eliminate from the nation’s vocabulary. Taxes. Taxes that should be paid by the rich. Of course when you are considering the nation’s finances, you must look at expenditures and revenues . You can’t balance budgets by tackling only one of them - unless of course you’d be happy with a society of the very, very rich - and the poor - the very, very poor with nobody in between. No middle class. So let me suggest the way it should be done in a rational world - but won’t because the irrationality of politics interferes. Nonetheless, here goes.

You begin with deciding the basic services that government should provide to the people. That includes such things as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and many of the other things the President mentioned, including the military - though a much reduced military. You go through all of the existing expenditures and retain those programs and benefits that you deem beneficial and necessary and eliminate or curtail those that are not. Then you tot up the cost of everything that the government will be paying for and you begin the task of assuring that costs will be balanced by revenues. Our problem seems to be that we do things the other way round. For Medicare and Social Security, we devise taxes to pay for them - but when, after a few years the taxes seem to be less than what is needed, we throw up our hands and say the sky is falling. We devise tax codes not necessarily designed to take care of all the nation’s needs. We throw in a couple of wars and reductions in taxes - and suddenly we’re spending more than we’re taking in. Republicans then say that we have a "spending" problem and we need to cut the spending. We have to live within our means - just a like a family must. But a nation is not like a family. A family can’t increase its revenues to meet expenditures it has laid out for itself. A family can use credit cards and maybe family members can get a second or third job - but ultimately it has to make the decision to do without certain things that it hasn’t the money to pay for. A nation has the option of acquiring as much money as it needs to pay for the services it deems necessary to provide. It’s called an increase in taxes.

No one enjoys paying taxes - even the disgustingly rich who wouldn’t miss any tax that they’re asked to pay. But when a nation is in debt, it is sheer madness to believe that you can get out of debt by cutting programs that are of value to most people other than the rich while at the same time cutting taxes that the rich have to pay. It’s downright crazy. We pay less in taxes than most other industrialized countries - and while we once were taxed at a higher rate -a marginal rate as high as 90% in the 1950’s, our current limit of 35% just isn’t providing the revenue we need. I’m not suggesting that we should return to the rates we paid under Eisenhower and Nixon - only that we should do what is necessary to balance our budget - and that includes such things as raising the income limit for FICA payments - getting wealthy corporations to pay their fair share and cutting such things as farm and oil company subsidies - and raising income taxes. We simply have to stop saying such things as a tax increase for those earning above a certain amount is a "non starter" as Speaker Boehner has been saying. Look at the title of this piece. It isn’t possible.

It was a good speech. I hope the follow through is just as good.
posted by Jeff Smith at 4/13/2011 08:05:00 PM

 
BIASED BBC MIDDLE EAST REPORTER CALLED TO TASK

It’s been a while since I was last in England and much as I try to keep abreast of things there by glancing through the Guardian and the Telegraph on line - even an occasional glimpse at the Daily Mirror - I had never heard of BBC Middle East correspondent Jeremy Bowen until the other day when a niece of mine who lives there sent me the story of him being criticized by his bosses for being less than impartial in his reporting of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. From what I know of BBC reporting on Arab/Israeli issues, it has not always rigidly impartial and its bias, when it appeared in a report, did not favor the Israeli position. But I guess on more than one occasion, Mr. Bowen stepped over whatever lines existed at the legendary broadcasting icon.

I have also never heard of Leon Ruskin who objected to Bowen’s biased reporting and penned a criticism in the form of a letter to him which can be found at several sites on the Internet. I think it’s worth being available on more sites including this one - so here it is.

Mr. Bowen, in your reports on the BBC, you warned us, and the brilliant diplomats warned us. The think tanks warned us. Even the Arab dictators warned us. For decades now, you have all been warning us that if you want "peace in the Middle East ," just fix the Palestinian problem. A recent variation on this theme has been: Just get the Jews to stop building apartments in East Jerusalem and Efrat. Yes, if all those Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would only "freeze" their construction, then, finally, Palestinian leaders might come to the table and peace might break out.

And what would happen if peace would break out between Jews and Palestinians? Would all those furious Arabs now demonstrating on streets across the Middle East feel any better? What bloody nonsense. Has there ever been a greater abuse of the English language in international diplomacy than calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the " Middle East peace process?" As if there were only two countries in the Middle East . Even if you absolutely believe in the imperative of creating a Palestinian state, you can't tell me that the single-minded and global obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the enormous ills in the rest of the Middle East hasn't been idiotic, if not criminally negligent.

While tens of millions of Arabs have been suffering for decades from brutal oppression, while gays have been tortured and writers jailed and women humiliated and dissidents killed, the world -- yes, the world -- has obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As if Palestinians -- the same coddled victims on whom the world has spent billions and who have rejected one peace offer after another -- were the only victims in the Middle East . As if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has anything to do with the 1,000-year-old bloody conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or the desire of brutal Arab dictators to stay in power, or the desire of Islamist radicals to bring back the Caliphate, or the economic despair of millions, or simply the absence of free speech or basic human rights throughout the Arab world.

While you and your fellow self-righteous Israel bashers have scrutinized every flaw in Israel 's democracy -- waxing hysterical that the Jewish democratic experiment in the world's nastiest neighborhood had turned into an embarrassment -- you have kept your big mouths shut about the oppression of millions of Arabs throughout the Middle East . Oh yes, it is now opportune to suddenly vilify President Mubarak, previously held up by you as a bastion of democracy, an thanked by President Obama previously " for his willingness to work with us on critical issues, and to help advance the interest of peace and prosperity around the world."

Mr Bowen, you cried foul in your reports if Israeli Arabs -- who have infinitely more rights and freedoms than any Arabs in the Middle East -- had their rights compromised in any way. But if a poet were jailed in Jordan or a gay man were tortured in Egypt or a woman were stoned in Syria , all we heard was screaming silence. Now suddenly, it is self-serving to expose breaches of human rights in Egypt . Think of the ridiculous amount of media ink and diplomatic attention and Jeremy Bowen reports that have been poured onto the Israel-Palestinian conflict over the years, while much of the Arab world was suffering and smoldering, and tell me this is not criminal negligence.

I do not ever recall seeing a UN resolution or an international conference in support of Middle Eastern Arabs not named Palestinians Why? Of course, now that the Arab volcano has finally erupted, you and all your chronic Israel bashers have suddenly discovered a new cause: Freedom for the poor oppressed Arabs of the Middle East ! Imagine if, instead of putting Israel under your critical and hypocritical microscope, you and your fraternal world's Israel bashers had taken Israel 's imperfect democratic experiment and said to the Arab world: Why don't you try to emulate the Jews? Why don't you give equal rights to your women and gays, just like Israel does? Why don't you give your people the same freedom of speech and freedom to vote that Israel does? And offer them the economic opportunities they would get in Israel ? Why don't you treat your Jewish and Christian citizens the same way Israel treats its Arab and Christian citizens? Why don't you study how Israel has struggled to balance religion with democracy -- a very difficult but not insurmountable task? Why don't you teach your people that Jews are not the sons of dogs but a noble, ancient people with a 3,000-year connection to the land of Israel ?

Yes, imagine if you Israel bashers had spent a fraction of their energy fighting the lies of Arab dictators and defending the rights of millions of oppressed Arabs. Imagine if President Obama had taken one percent of the time he has harped on Jewish settlements to defend the democratic rights of Egyptian Arabs -- which he is suddenly doing now that the volcano has erupted. Maybe it's just easier to beat up on a free and open society like Israel . Well, now that the cesspool of human oppression in the Arab world has been opened for all to see, how bad, Mr Bowen, BBC Middle East Editor, is Israel 's democracy looking? Don't you wish the Arab world had a modicum of Israel 's civil society? Would you still be worrying about "stability in the Middle East ?" You can preach to me all you want about the great Jewish tradition of self-criticism -- which I believe in -- but right now, when I see poor Arab souls being murdered for the simple act of protesting on the street, I've never felt more proud of being a supporter of the Jewish state. I do hope that you will take the time to read this message as you shelter from bricks and molotov cocktails, and wonder why Israel alone in the area is able to change administrations without such civil unrest.

Leon Ruskin

Not much that I can add to Mr. Ruskin’s comments except that it seems appropriate that it’s receiving exposure at the same time that editorials are appearing in the world press in response to Judge Richard Goldstone’s op-ed in the Washington Post - backing away from the report that he authored on the 2008-2009 military offensive in Gaza which accused Israel of targeting civilians as a matter of policy!!!
posted by Jeff Smith at 4/08/2011 12:31:00 PM