Quick shot

I heard a news tease this morning which I've been unable to confirm, that a "New Jersey Legislator" wants to make it illegal to smoke even in your own car.

Now, since I haven't been able to find specifics (I haven't had time to look very hard), I'm not commenting on this law PER SE (there may be more to it, like prohibiting smoking if there are children in the car or other passengers, or prohibiting smoking in a CLOSED car, such that the driver's view is impaired), but in thinking about it, I think I've come to a good, cutesy way of saying why I would disagree with this law as stated in the teaser, while still supporting restrictions on where you can smoke in public:


Government's job is not to protect us from our own stupidity. Government's job is to protect me from your stupidity and you from mine.


And you can quote me on that.

Liam.

Ah, Life...

Recently, life was transformed. My dear wife was prescribed full bed rest by her OB/GYN for some complications in the pregnancy. WITH bed rest, everything should be fine. WITHOUT it... we don't want to think about the result.

The problem is that right now my time is taken up by work during the day and housework in the evening, the stuff that normally Janet would take care of (as a stay at home Mom), and it's not leaving me with much energy to write.

Last night, we had a good talk (while I was doing some housework) and we came up with a lot of good stuff I'd like to write about:

1) Differences between the Religious view of family and reality, in my view. (We had "The Daily Show" on in the background at one point, and saw an interview with a very perky and cheerful, but deluded and overly optimistic Rick Santorum, which is what started the discussion).

2) Differences between Conservative and Liberal/Progressive, and why we vitally need some of both in our society.

There was more that I can't even remember now.

My point is that posting on this blog will be less regular. My gut reaction is to say it'll be less voluminous, but I know myself and as soon as I say I won't be posting for a while, I'll find the time to write up three or four major things.

So just understand that there may be days when I have time to write up my thoughts and there may be days when I just don't have the energy. Please bear with me.

Oh, and if you're a praying person, please add Janet and baby Liam to your prayers.

Thanks,

Liam.

Someone explain this to me...

According to an article in the New York Times, Dick Cheney and the White House are attempting to block a Republican sponsored bill that would regulate treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, in response (in part) to Abu Ghraib.

According to the article: The legislation, which is still being drafted, includes provisions to bar the military from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross; prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees; and use only interrogation techniques authorized in a new Army field manual.

The justification of course, as has become the mantra of this Administration, is that this would hinder the President's ability to wage the war on terror, the same argument we get for throwing away some of our civil liberties with the Patriot Act.

It would seem that this Administration doesn't grasp that our core principles really aren't worth fighting for, if in the process we erode them down to a shell of their former selves.

We've been assured before by the Administration that it doesn't practice any of the tactics which would be proscribed under the legislation being offered, so why the objection? If you don't do it anyway, it doesn't harm you. If you ARE doing it and lying about it, you're making us all look bad.

So, can someone explain to me what in the proposed measures is so wrongheaded that the Vice President has hinted its inclusion might lead the President to veto the $422 billion Pentagon authorization for 2006 to which it is likely to be attached?

Liam.

Another link...

Once again, Cenk Uygur has what I consider to be a great post detailing what factors in THIS administration led him to leave his party and go Democrat.

Personally, in his shoes, I would have stayed with my party and advocated for change from within. I personally have said on many occasions that although I don't like this particular Republican (and think that the party has lost its way in blindly following him and his cronies), that my goal is his replacement, not his replacement with a Democrat.

My goal is for replacing him with someone more responsible, more truthful, and more focused on the good of this country rather than the good of its corporate citizens. If that person is Republican, great. If it's a Democrat, great. If that person comes to us from the Green party or the Libertarian party or even the Weekly Frat Party, I don't care.

But still, I think Mr. Uygur's post highlights a lot of what I think is wrong with this particular Republican Administration.

Liam.

The Role of the Supreme Court

[This was written as a response to a comment on the “Interesting Argument” thread. However, both Janet and I feel it has enough of it's own content that it should be posted as a separate entry in its own right. It is in response to one participant's claim that only elected officials should determine laws, that the responsibility is not, and should not be, in the hands of unelected Supreme Court Justices. --Liam]

And see, my disagreement with that is that I think that's in part EXACTLY what the Supreme Court is about, to be a check and balance against the elected officials, who may do things contrary to the founding principles of this nation in support of their constituencies, since they face the prospect of losing a reelection bid.

The role of the Supreme Court is exactly in being one more check and balance in the system.

Here's how it all is supposed to play out.

Congress passes a law. Both houses have to pass a version of it, they then resolve a combined version and send it to the President. That's the first check/balance, a majority of two houses of Congress must agree.

Next, the President can either sign or veto the bill. That's the next check and balance, the executive branch must agree with the bill.

If he vetoes, then the Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote, a check on extreme power by (essentially) one man, but only if a significant majority agrees that the President is wrong. Third check/balance.

People who disagree with the bill, or who feel they are unfairly harmed or targeted by it file suit against it, ultimately (perhaps) making their way up to the Supreme Court, who is tasked with weighing every case brought before them primarily against the Constitution and their interpretation of the intent of the Founders in writing that document. The Justices, appointed and not subject to reelection concerns, are free to rule in the way they believe the Constitution intends, without having to be concerned that the decision may be unpopular. They can do what they perceive as right under the Constitution, even if it would be an unpopular decision. Fourth check/balance.

Finally, if the Congress STILL feels that the law is correct, they can override even THAT, but only by Constitutional amendment, a process which requires a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress *AND* ratification by 3/4s of the states, meaning that a simple majority in at least 75% of the legislatures of the states must agree that this is a valid and worth change to the Constitution. This is the final check/balance.

Each check and balance gets a little bit harder to accomplish, to avoid any one branch of government having too much power in the system, but all but the last can be overridden by somebody, with sufficient support. In the end, Constitutional Amendment is made so difficult to accomplish that the assumption is that it would not pass unless it truly was the overwhelming majority of opinion in the nation. Note, by the way, that the checks are almost all based on PREVENTING bad laws, not on giving second chances to good laws, and this also supports the contention that laws are enacted to restrict rights which (enumerated or not) are guaranteed by the Constitution unless revoked by due process. The three primary checks (Congressional concurrence, Presidential veto and Supreme Court review) are in place to prevent unfair, unjust or unconstitutional laws from being passed. The other two are secondary checks aimed at placing a balance on the first three checks.

So, understood this way, there is nothing wrong with the courts (and the Supreme Court) passing judgment on laws and overturning them. Far from being "judicial activism", it is in fact their JOB. And if the vast majority of the nation disagrees with their estimation, that law can still be passed by Amending the Constitution.

I will say, however, that we should all be VERY careful before Amending any part of the Constitution in ways that fundamental change the balance of power in the government. Like it or not, these five increasingly difficult steps of checks and balances are fundamental to making sure that we don't end up with laws that are fundamentally anti-American. Certainly, in a fit of fear after the events of 9/11 or the recent attacks in London, it would be possible to frighten the populace into passing an Amendment reducing the courts' power in the process, but in fact that's a very bad choice, just like the "nuclear option" described by Bill Frist is a bad choice for America. It circumvents the right and proper series of steps designed to ensure that majority rules but with significant chances for the minority to dissent.

Yes, maybe it makes the job harder to accomplish, but that's the point. If the job they're trying to accomplish is that worthy, it's worth doing the hard way. If it can't be accomplished the hard way, then it is (in my opinion) wrong to diddle with the fundamental balance of powers in order to accomplish it. Again, all based on protection against unreasonable restriction on basic freedoms.

And that's also why the Congressional “advise and consent” role is so crucial. Because those Justices are free from having to do what is popular, it is important that they be honorable people who will do what is RIGHT, who will interpret the Constitution as it was intended, and preferably as the Founders would interpret it, if they were alive today. Traditionally, extremist judges were not even nominated to the post, because both parties of Congress took their “advise and consent” role seriously and would vote down extremists who would vote partisanship over correct interpretation. In recent years, this role has been replaced by a feeling of “Hey, the President is from our party, if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for us.”

The notion of a Supreme Court Justice who does not fundamentally support the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution, or would read it in ways clearly not intended by the Founders (as expressed both in the Constitution and in the Federalist papers) should be frightening to anyone. We're a free nation. Does that not count for anything any more? Are people really so partisan that they'd give up the core greatness of our nation in favor of Justices who would flout the very core of the Constitution for partisan ends?

And if so, is this REALLY a country I want to continue living in?

Copyright © July 22, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

More wasted expense...

The news yesterday and today has been full of reports that New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is instituting random searches of subway passengers.

This is a waste of resources and here's why:

Because the articles made it clear that passengers who did not wish to be searched would be allowed to leave the station, they simply would not be allowed on the train.

Does anyone see where this becomes problematic?

They're conducting random searches, not searching every bag. Subway stations in Manhattan are generally a couple of blocks apart. So if a terrorist wants to plant a bomb on the subway, he takes it in his backpack down into a station. If he is chosen for random search, he simply refuses to be searched, leaves that station, walks a couple of blocks up the street and tries again. He's a terrorist. Based on the modus operendi of the last few attacks, he's not expecting to live through the day, he's got nothing but time. If he has to try three or four stations before he finds one busy enough that he isn't chosen for "random" screening (even assuming "random" is code for "screening of anyone who looks arabic"), that's not really a big deterrent.

So what we have is an inconvenience for "random" travelers and a large expense in terms of metro police who presumably have other tasks which they will now no longer be doing (or else the expense of hiring additional officers), all for no protective result what so ever.

I understand, with the recent events in London, it's important to give the people some measure of comfort that their government is TRYING to protect them, but this measure would seem so obviously futile as to engender cynicism rather than any feeling of safety.

Liam.

Liberal vs. Conservative Activist Judges.

Some time back, there was a discussion on here about liberal vs. conservative judges, and I stated that I felt that while I preferred a judge SLIGHTLY to the right of center, I found one further to the right to be the scariest of all possible outcomes.

The responses varied, but in general they seemed to be of the opinion that conservative judges adhered to the law, while liberal judges tended to invent new and different rulings to support their personal views.

In fact, extremists of both sorts tend to do this, to the detriment of this nation, but extremist conservatives (at least, the likes of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the two justices President Bush says he most admires) are much more likely to view our basic rights as proceeding from the government, viewing government as parental, to dole out rights as rewards and take them away as punishments.

There is a great article that I found here. It is written by Thom Hartmann, who is admittedly very much in the liberal camp, but who nevertheless makes some very good points about the intentions of the founding fathers and the extent to which people like George Bush, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are perverting those ideals today.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both believed that the Constitution should contain no Bill of Rights, because in enumerating one, they believed that they undermined what they felt was the strongest part of the document, the fact that government had no rights to bestow, that rights belonged to the people.

They were afraid that by including a Bill of Rights, someone would come along at a later date and point to them as evidence that anything NOT in that Bill was therefore NOT a right. In order to combat this, they included the Ninth Amendment, explicitly stating that this was not so.

And yet we have Antonin Scalia telling people "You want new rights? Pass a law!", completely misunderstanding that in our country (as founded) rights do not proceed FROM the government.

The Supreme Court has had a long string of 5-4 votes, generally upholding that the Constitution guarantees rights even when they aren’t explicitly stated, a view which (as I’ve said repeatedly now) is exactly codified in the Ninth Amendment. Now, with the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor and President Bush set to nominate someone he admires as much as Scalia and Thomas, we may very well end up with a court that goes completely opposite to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, considering that any right not explicitly granted by the Constitution does not exist.

The Founding Fathers would be so disappointed.

Liam.

Interesting Argument

Today, I heard a very different take on why the word “Privacy” doesn’t exist in the Constitution. A lot of people have argued that there is no right to “privacy” guaranteed in the Constitution, others have felt that it is there, but found in the “penumbra” (aka implied but not directly stated).

However, I heard a historian speaking today, and he pointed out that, at the time that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being written, the word “Privacy” was generally used with regard to toilet functions. The outhouse (or if you were lucky, indoor bathroom) was called the “Privy”, and the way one excused oneself to use the facilities was to announce “Excuse me, but I need a moment of privacy”.

According to this historian, the word “privacy” did not take on its current meaning until the early 20th century, and that prior to that time, what we now call “privacy” was referred to by other terms, one of which was “security”.

As a result, this historian argues that the right of privacy is EXACTLY spelled out in the Constitution, in Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

He argues that the word “secure” in this context is exactly akin to our current use of the word “private” or “privacy”.

I’m not a historian. I can’t confirm or deny what he has to say. But it sounds reasonable, and certainly sounds more in line with what I believe to be the core values of this country than the argument that privacy, not being specifically mentioned, is thus not a right guaranteed.

(Nevermind Amendment IX which, as I’ve previously said, explicitly says that just because we aren’t expressly given a right by the Constitution doesn’t mean we don’t have it. When I get a chance, I have some issue to take with a statement by Justice Scalia that goes, in my opinion, directly in opposition to the intent of the Constitution.)

Liam.

Constitutionality

Lately, I've been hearing a lot of people citing the Constitution of the United States in support of one argument or another, and as often as not, it sounds as if the person citing it has not actually READ the document in question.

As a result, I decided to go back and re-read it and make sure that it wasn't my own memory which was faulty, and now I've decided to enumerate a few of the lesser quoted among the bill of rights, or those I think are less understood.

Beginning with Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Keep in mind, at the time this was written, the United States had no formal armed forces. In those days, there wasn't a standing army to send off to war, if the country was invaded, the men of the town would grab their weapons of choice and head off to protect their little piece of it.

This is not to say that this right can be ignored, but we need to recognize that at the time it was written, “arms” meant muskets and flintlocks, not Uzis and Howitzers. I'm all for people being allowed to own some weapons for their personal protection, or for hunting in pursuit of food, and I'm not prepared to state that I know where the line should be drawn, BUT...

The argument of some seems to be that this Amendment guarantees them the right to own any weapon they can get their hands on, and this is usually an argument in favor of some new semi-automatic weapon the person would prefer to own, I suppose on the grounds that without 20 rounds per second, that darn deer might get away.

I'll take this argument, IF... you're willing to grant that you believe I should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon (and please, if you just read that as “nuke-you-ler”, stop reading now, you're not going to agree with me anyway) based on this same Amendment. If you aren't (and I believe most people would balk at the reasonability of average citizens owning nuclear weapons) then you are already agreeing that the Second Amendment has limits. At that point, like the old joke of the woman being incensed at being offered $10 for sex, after having accepted an offer of $1 million, we're just haggling over price. If you're willing to admit that there is a line, then you're just arguing where the line is. Your definition may be different than someone else's, but you can no longer say that the line doesn't exist.


Next, let's discuss Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Read this one carefully, if you fully support the Patriot Act. Among the provisions of said Act are sections dealing with “administrative” warrants, not actually signed by a judge. Also blanket warrants, allowing one warrant to be used to search a broad variety of locations and people, not particularly described or enumerated. Make no bones about it, certain provisions of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment, and that's scary business.


Amendment V is being violated today in the case of Jose Padilla and probably the rest of the people being held at Guantanamo Bay: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Several things about this wording jump out at me. First, note that it says “No person shall...”, not “No citizen shall...”. This Amendment applies to our Government's treatment of PEOPLE, not merely of it's own people. Next, note the phrase “nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”. Now, the due process of law in war time may cover our treatment of non-citizens, but it does not cover U.S. Citizen Jose Padilla, and it doesn't matter whether he's entirely innocent or whether he's guilty of everything from kidnapping the Lindberg baby to framing Roger Rabbit. The Fifth Amendment is intended to guarantee that what's happening right now to Padilla never happens to anyone, certainly not to any citizen: Being held (deprived of liberty) without due process of law.

Some may point to the clause “except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger” and say that this is the exception that makes this treatment OK, but note the end of it, “when in actual service in time of war or public danger”. Unless the press has entirely dropped the ball, Padilla was not in the service, so this clause does not apply to him. This Amendment and the Sixth should have every American citizen screaming at the tops of their lungs “Charge Padilla or free him!”

And again, it's not because Padilla necessarily deserves his freedom, that's for a court of law to decide. I am not weighing the evidence here nor finding Padilla not guilty. I am merely saying that if they can do it to him and get away with it, what's to keep them from doing it to someone else? What's to prevent the next person accused of terrorism and shipped out of country to Guantanamo being some outspoken critic of the Administration? The way we ensure that too much power is not handed to those at the very top is by requiring that each case be reviewed by a separate judge and jury.


Amendment VI I've already touched on: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Where Five should have guaranteed Padilla his freedom unless charged with a crime, Six should have guaranteed that he'd be informed of the charges against him and should have enjoyed a speedy and public trial. Now, the definition of “speedy” I'm willing to let slide, inasmuch as our court system is overwhelmed and sometimes they're just doing the best that they can. But certainly charges should have been filed and a court date set. It amazes me that more “strict Constitutionalists” aren't more incensed by the gross violations of Five and Six. Again, they must protect even the most guilty among us, or they aren't worth anything.


And now we come to my favorite of the Bill of Rights, something which seems to be often forgotten by those “strict Constitutionalists” who seem to feel that it is an act of judicial activism to find rights implied and not expressly enumerated by the Constitution. Number IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's right, it's right there in our Bill of Rights: Just because we didn't expressly grant a right doesn't mean it doesn't, or shouldn't, exist. This Amendment alone gives Judges the right to interpret the Constitution to fit situations never expressly foreseen by the Founders and Framers. For example, there have been laws against child pornography since long before there was an internet or much in the way of digital pictures. And yet just because the Internet didn't exist at the time doesn't mean that existing laws against child porn can't be reasonably assumed to apply to Internet distribution. That's an interpretation. On reads the statute in question and recognizes that when an old law says “photographic prints” of children in sexual positions are illegal, that the intent clearly includes digital images, although such didn't exist when the law may have been written.

One great example is the right to Privacy. It has been held time and again by the court that a right to Privacy exists in the intent of the Bill of Rights, even if it is not expressly enumerated. In my quick re-reading of the Ten, I find clear indications of privacy rights in III and IV, and others have argued for more subtle indications in other Amendments.


The last one is another important one. It is the cause of many unpopular Supreme Court decisions, and is also one of the most widely infringed by the Federal Government. Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Powers not expressly given by the Constitution to the Federal government are not their business, and they have no rights to them.

I've rather enjoyed this, and so if I get some time later in the week, perhaps I'll go through the rest of the Amendments, lesser known, lesser quoted, but no less important.

And heck, maybe if I really get going, I'll review the core document as well.

Copyright © July 20, 2005 by Liam Johnson. Http://www.liamjohnson.net

Constitutionality

Lately, I've been hearing a lot of people citing the Constitution of the United States in support of one argument or another, and as often as not, it sounds as if the person citing it has not actually READ the document in question.

As a result, I decided to go back and re-read it and make sure that it wasn't my own memory which was faulty, and now I've decided to enumerate a few of the lesser quoted among the bill of rights, or those I think are less understood.

Beginning with Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Keep in mind, at the time this was written, the United States had no formal armed forces. In those days, there wasn't a standing army to send off to war, if the country was invaded, the men of the town would grab their weapons of choice and head off to protect their little piece of it.

This is not to say that this right can be ignored, but we need to recognize that at the time it was written, “arms” meant muskets and flintlocks, not Uzis and Howitzers. I'm all for people being allowed to own some weapons for their personal protection, or for hunting in pursuit of food, and I'm not prepared to state that I know where the line should be drawn, BUT...

The argument of some seems to be that this Amendment guarantees them the right to own any weapon they can get their hands on, and this is usually an argument in favor of some new semi-automatic weapon the person would prefer to own, I suppose on the grounds that without 20 rounds per second, that darn deer might get away.

I'll take this argument, IF... you're willing to grant that you believe I should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon (and please, if you just read that as “nuke-you-ler”, stop reading now, you're not going to agree with me anyway) based on this same Amendment. If you aren't (and I believe most people would balk at the reasonability of average citizens owning nuclear weapons) then you are already agreeing that the Second Amendment has limits. At that point, like the old joke of the woman being incensed at being offered $10 for sex, after having accepted an offer of $1 million, we're just haggling over price. If you're willing to admit that there is a line, then you're just arguing where the line is. Your definition may be different than someone else's, but you can no longer say that the line doesn't exist.


Next, let's discuss Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Read this one carefully, if you fully support the Patriot Act. Among the provisions of said Act are sections dealing with “administrative” warrants, not actually signed by a judge. Also blanket warrants, allowing one warrant to be used to search a broad variety of locations and people, not particularly described or enumerated. Make no bones about it, certain provisions of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment, and that's scary business.


Amendment V is being violated today in the case of Jose Padilla and probably the rest of the people being held at Guantanamo Bay: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Several things about this wording jump out at me. First, note that it says “No person shall...”, not “No citizen shall...”. This Amendment applies to our Government's treatment of PEOPLE, not merely of it's own people. Next, note the phrase “nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”. Now, the due process of law in war time may cover our treatment of non-citizens, but it does not cover U.S. Citizen Jose Padilla, and it doesn't matter whether he's entirely innocent or whether he's guilty of everything from kidnapping the Lindberg baby to framing Roger Rabbit. The Fifth Amendment is intended to guarantee that what's happening right now to Padilla never happens to anyone, certainly not to any citizen: Being held (deprived of liberty) without due process of law.

Some may point to the clause “except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger” and say that this is the exception that makes this treatment OK, but note the end of it, “when in actual service in time of war or public danger”. Unless the press has entirely dropped the ball, Padilla was not in the service, so this clause does not apply to him. This Amendment and the Sixth should have every American citizen screaming at the tops of their lungs “Charge Padilla or free him!”

And again, it's not because Padilla necessarily deserves his freedom, that's for a court of law to decide. I am not weighing the evidence here nor finding Padilla not guilty. I am merely saying that if they can do it to him and get away with it, what's to keep them from doing it to someone else? What's to prevent the next person accused of terrorism and shipped out of country to Guantanamo being some outspoken critic of the Administration? The way we ensure that too much power is not handed to those at the very top is by requiring that each case be reviewed by a separate judge and jury.


Amendment VI I've already touched on: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Where Five should have guaranteed Padilla his freedom unless charged with a crime, Six should have guaranteed that he'd be informed of the charges against him and should have enjoyed a speedy and public trial. Now, the definition of “speedy” I'm willing to let slide, inasmuch as our court system is overwhelmed and sometimes they're just doing the best that they can. But certainly charges should have been filed and a court date set. It amazes me that more “strict Constitutionalists” aren't more incensed by the gross violations of Five and Six. Again, they must protect even the most guilty among us, or they aren't worth anything.


And now we come to my favorite of the Bill of Rights, something which seems to be often forgotten by those “strict Constitutionalists” who seem to feel that it is an act of judicial activism to find rights implied and not expressly enumerated by the Constitution. Number IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's right, it's right there in our Bill of Rights: Just because we didn't expressly grant a right doesn't mean it doesn't, or shouldn't, exist. This Amendment alone gives Judges the right to interpret the Constitution to fit situations never expressly foreseen by the Founders and Framers. For example, there have been laws against child pornography since long before there was an internet or much in the way of digital pictures. And yet just because the Internet didn't exist at the time doesn't mean that existing laws against child porn can't be reasonably assumed to apply to Internet distribution. That's an interpretation. On reads the statute in question and recognizes that when an old law says “photographic prints” of children in sexual positions are illegal, that the intent clearly includes digital images, although such didn't exist when the law may have been written.

One great example is the right to Privacy. It has been held time and again by the court that a right to Privacy exists in the intent of the Bill of Rights, even if it is not expressly enumerated. In my quick re-reading of the Ten, I find clear indications of privacy rights in III and IV, and others have argued for more subtle indications in other Amendments.


The last one is another important one. It is the cause of many unpopular Supreme Court decisions, and is also one of the most widely infringed by the Federal Government. Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Powers not expressly given by the Constitution to the Federal government are not their business, and they have no rights to them.

I've rather enjoyed this, and so if I get some time later in the week, perhaps I'll go through the rest of the Amendments, lesser known, lesser quoted, but no less important.

And heck, maybe if I really get going, I'll review the core document as well.

Copyright © July 20, 2005 by Liam Johnson. Http://www.liamjohnson.net

Hmmm. Tail may be wagging the dog here...

The Wall Street Journal reports today that a new memo indicates that the original source of the information about Valerie Plame may in fact be George W. Bush himself. A confidential State Department memo, read by the President on Air Force One on June 10th, 2003 contains information about Mrs. Wilson / Ms. Plame, including explicit verbiage not to share that information.

We'll see how this plays out, but I can't help but wondering if this is why, after days of talking about working in bipartisan fashion to find a moderate Republican for the seat on the Supreme Court, Bush hurredly nominated someone bound to spark controversy.

Perhaps this is who Bush wanted to nominate all along, but the timing, and the difference between this candidate and the rhetoric from the past week are both suspicious.

We, as American citizens, just need to make sure that this administration doesn't "David Copperfield" us, making us look where they want us to look, hoping we'll forget about the other story.

Still developing, of course. I'll have more as I learn it.

Liam.

30 Days

[Note: Update below.]

Folks,

I've mentioned before, but there's a show called "30 Days", and I couldn't feel more strongly that everyone should be watching it.

While I have read some of the descriptions of upcoming shows that don't sound as socially important, the three I have seen so far absolutely are.

So far, I've seen:

• One in which a "good ol' boy" spends 30 days living with a gay roommate in San Francisco. It should be hard for anyone to come away from that one without a little bit less of an opinion that gays are evil and should have no rights, or to think that somehow gay marriage is even important enough to be on the radar screen
• The premiere, in which the producer and his fiancee move to a city in Ohio (I think it was Ohio, anyway) and try to live on minimum wage for 30 days. Amazing to watch. As with most minimum wage jobs, neither of their jobs carried insurance. The show's producer ended up taking a second job, just to sqeeze by for the month. During the course of the show, each of them got sick (she got sick, he got injured doing his manual labor job) and it was amazing watching them try to figure out whether they could afford a doctor, how to get treated, etc. Nine years since the minimum wage went up, and the purpose of the law (to make sure that anyone who works can at least live above the poverty line) is no longer being met.
• The first one I saw, and in current times still the most important, in which a devoutly religious Christian man from West Virginia goes to live for 30 days as a Moslem in the American city with the largest Moslem population in the U.S. Anyone who still thinks Moslems are evil, or that Islam is any more inherently evil than Christianity, really needs to watch this show.
• Whoops, I initially missed one. I also saw one episode taking a quintessential consumer couple and making them live 30 days on an eco-commune type community, living off of the land, etc. I forget this one because I really rather hated the woman of the couple. She was so totally self absorbed. For example, throughout the whole thing, she was incensed that he (a 6 foot plus bodybuilder type) was more concerned with finding some meat to eat than that she couldn't use her hair spray. Let's see, he's trying to sustain a massive body on rabbit food (not easy to do, based on the looks of everyone who lived in the community full time) and literally slowly starving, she's got a hair or two out of place, but yet she's convinced HE'S selfish because he can't see her need.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention that. There does seem to be a "fluff" show coming up, in which apparently a mother of a teen daughter for 30 days lives the hard partying college life, I guess with the hope that either the daughter will see how stupid the life is, or the mother will stop harping on her daughter.

But the three I've seen so far... there's an old saying about walking a mile in a man's shoes before you criticize him. I think most Americans would do well to follow this advice. And if you can't do it yourself, the next best thing is to watch someone else do it, and open your mind to the possibility that the journey that person goes through, the conclusions they come to, might be yours as well.

Liam.

Over zealous weenies...

I'm getting a little bit annoyed by the extreme significance being placed on George Bush's words regarding the current Karl Rove/Valerie Plame issue.

Yes, in answer to a question, he did make a somewhat watered down version of earlier statements, that if someone had broken the law they would no longer work in his White House.

SO WHAT?

What will count is deeds, not words. I'm as inclined to believe as the next guy that the rhetoric in 2000 about returning honor to the White House was merely election year empty promises and not likely to change things.

But in this case, it was not George W. Bush coming out and saying "I want to issue this press release to clarify my position." It was an answer to a question during a Q&A period.

I'm not going to say I don't think the whole situation smells really bad, and I'm not going to say that I don't think that likely Rove will skate by on a technicality with the full support of the President.

But c'mon, this kind of word parsing to assign extreme meaning to exactly what was said is exactly what Rove's opponents hate about him (and that Republicans hated about Clinton as well). "I did not NAME Ms. Plame" (literally true, he never used her name). "What is the definition of the word 'is'?".

If a politician doesn't live up to what he promised, hold his feet to the fire. If he changes what he promised, make sure you remember both promises, so that you can point out the original promise when the politician points to the new one and claims to have lived up to his promise.

But if I promise you that I'll eat 8 grapes, and later say "I promise I'll eat at least 6 grapes", that doesn't mean I won't eat 8. 8 would fall under the definition of "at least 6", and I've not broken my word. The time to call me on it is if I eat 7 grapes and say "See? I lived up to my promise", at which point you have every right to say "Um, yeah, you lived up to your second promise, but your original promise was 8, you didn't do that."

Liam.

Long Weekend.

Today was my daughter's 10th birthday.

Today I spent the majority of the day in the ER with my wife, who is experiencing a rather extreme drop in blood pressure.

It is the capping event of a long and stressful weekend, which I won't, at least at this juncture, detail.

However, that is why I've had neither the time nor the energy to post this weekend, and may not for a few days.

Sorry to regular guests to my blog. I hope to be back out swinging by week's end.

Liam.

P.S. Medical opinion is that Janet is fine, just experiencing some extreme reactions to the heat and humidity of the past week. That opinion notwithstanding, we're still concerned about her ability to function when, at the height of it, she could not rise from bed nor even sit up for dizziness.

Oh, Really?

The latest in the "defend Rove at all costs" is an anonymous White House source (haven't we had enough of those on this case) who says that Rove didn't tell Robert Novak about Valerie Plame, that in fact Novak told Rove, who then told Matt Cooper.

There are a number of reasons to suspect this, although clearly if Rove can convince the prosecutor that he got the information from a journalist rather than from his clearance to access government files, then he's not subject to the leak law.

First off, I'll be very interested in seeing what they actually say (I haven't read the NYTimes article yet, just descriptions of it), but if I had to guess, I'd bet that the phrasing, if parsed carefully, doesn't preclude Rove having told Novak that "Wilson's wife works for the CIA", and then Novak coming back with "Wilson's wife, the CIA agent, is Valerie Plame". Thus, Rove could legitimately claim that Novak named her to him, but not that Novak was the source of the information about her affiliation with the CIA. But that is just speculation.

My biggest reason to suspect this is Occam's Razor. Which is easier to believe:

1) that Karl Rove had the information and leaked it, either to discredit Wilson or as a punishment/warning to others who might cross him "We'll find a way to get you"

2) that Robert Novak had some reason to provide this information to Rove (not asking for a confirmation, that would still involve confirming secret information), knowing that it was a scoop that he was still several days away from getting released.

We'll see what happens. I suppose it's possible someone else leaked the information to Novak, who then leaked it back to Rove, who then leaked it to Cooper. Keep in mind, however, that Rove is on record as saying that he didn't say anything to Cooper until after the story had broken, and there's already proof that in fact he was discussing it with Cooper three days before the story was published.

Liam.

I just have to get this off of my chest...

Folks,

For anyone who reads this blog, please understand, there's no such thing as a way to get rich quick.

Why to I bring this up? Because there's an ad playing lately on a station I sometimes listen to that has a guy with an Australian accent (not important, but if you've heard the ad, this will help identify it) saying that he bought his first income producing real estate property at 17 "without a penny to my name", and has subsequently "made millions" in real estate.

And how he wants to sell you his "proven system" to become "really rich" in real estate.

Folks, if you ever felt tempted to fall for one of these things, think about these things. If his system really works, why would he sell it to you?

If he's really rich from this system, then why does he need MORE money? And if it works so well, why would he want to set up other people to compete with him?

More likely, he's got some half-assed theory about how it SHOULD work, was never able to make it work for himself, and so now his "get rich quick" scheme is to get YOU to pay HIM to tell you how he wants you to believe it would work.

I don't know why I'm bothering to write this, I'm pretty certain the people who read this blog are intelligent enough not to fall for these things. But the sad thing is, they wouldn't try these tactics if there weren't people falling for them in droves.

Don't let it be you.

Liam.

Rove talking points...

There is a set of Republican talking points on the whole Karl Rove, Valerie Plame/Wilson situation floating around the internet, and I think there's a very important thing to note:

This is not an unusual tactic for this particular batch of Republicans. They're attempting yet again to refocus the debate on minutia. These talking points are not factual, they aren’t intended to be factual.

In fact, they’re intended to be so partisan (and yet in such an innocuous way) that those who disagree with them politically will be drawn into disproving the falsehoods. They will (so the strategy goes) succeed, but in so doing, will lose focus on the end goal, and then if Mr. Rove walks free, the public has become so tired of the bickering that they don’t care whether a top government official flouted the law and beat it on a technicality.

This is actually, apparently, a standard Rovian tactic. Redirect the conversation in such a fashion that your opponents (and perhaps yourself) look like you’re engaging in partisan bickering. It doesn’t matter that you look that way, the burden of proof is on the other guys (innocent until proven guilty and all that), and so if both sides can be made to seem petty and childish, the American public gets tired of the story, rolls its collective eyes at the stupidity of politicians, and the guilty end up going un-punished even in (or especially in) the court of public opinion.

Lies and underhanded tactics are nothing new to politics, but just to give you some idea of the man in question (Rove), here are some highlights of his political career (thanks to several other bloggers who did the actual research that I’m flagrantly copying):

In 1969, Rove goes to work for the Senate campaign of Ralph Smith. One of his tactics was going into the offices of the Democratic candidate for State Treasurer to steal some stationary and then distributed fake invitations advertising a party with “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing” timed to coincide with the time and location of the opening of the Democrat’s campaign headquarters. These were distributed at hippie communes, rock concerts and soup kitchens. This led to Democrat supporters who showed up feeling like they’d been lied to by the Democrat, and others pointing to the decadence of the Democrat. The trick did not work, but it was also fairly minor compared to later tricks Rove would pull. A mere college prank.

In 1986, Rove was working for Texas Gubernatorial candidate Bill Clements against Democratic incumbent Mark White. When neither side could break out and things were running in a virtual dead heat, Rove suddenly announced in the papers that he’d found a bug in his office and loudly and publicly implied (but never quite stated) that the White campaign was behind it. Evidence points to the whole incident being faked, but the bad press turned the tide and Clements won.

In 1994, Rove was supporting W against incumbent Texas Democratic governor Ann Richards. Once again, things were close, and Rove had W’s campaign workers begin making “pollster” style calls asking questions like “If you knew that Governor Richards’ staff consisted largely of lesbians, would it make you more or less likely to vote for her?” The allegation was false, but of course it was not illegal because they didn’t SAY that it was true, only asked what the voter would do if he or she knew it was true. But the impression left was that the Richards campaign was a hotbed for radical homosexuality, and Richards lost.

There are several cases of information being leaked and then sources drying up, making the news organization in question lose credibility, that all have Rovian fingerprints on them. The Newsweek article about Korans in toilets, leaked from a high placed anonymous source, and then suddenly no longer supported by that source, once the story was published.

The same was done with regard to Bush’s alleged 1972 arrest on charges of cocaine possession. In 1999, a biography called “Fortunate Son” was published, which listed the drug bust and quoting “a high-ranking Bush advisor”, who said that the record was expunged in exchange for community service by W. In this case, though, the story was leaked (by Rove, it was later revealed) to an author who was also a convicted felon and had spent time in jail. When the author's own sordid past was revealed, the publisher pulled the book, and the surrounding publicity pushed the story into the public’s “politics is a dirty lying business” file. President Clinton was excoriated for trying marijuana (but “didn’t inhale”), but through this tactic, Bush’s past with alcohol and cocaine were turned into a non-story. Truth or falsehood, the public simply didn't care about it. Similar tactics were used in 2004 to discredit those who tried to shed light on Bush's highly questionable service record.

During the 2000 Presidential election, someone in the Bush camp sent a tape of Bush preparing for debates to the Gore campaign offices, along with detailed political strategy notes. Rove accused the Democrats of secretly bugging Bush’s offices (reminiscent of his 1986 ploy and also the Watergate scandal), a story which cost Gore some votes. Subsequent to the election, a Bush insider admitted to sending the tape to the Gore team.

So as we can see, Rove tactics generally revolve around leaking information in ways that steer the topic of conversation in the direction Rove would like it to go, with any of a number of endgames (disproving a potential source of damaging information, smearing a political rival, or simply misdirecting public opinion).

And that’s what’s going on here. The talking points aren’t true. They know they aren’t true. But in putting them out, there is a legion of un-critical thinkers who will parrot them verbatim, leading (if the tactic works) to one of the following outcomes, all positive to Rove:

1) Rove opponents stay “on message”, don’t allow the conversation to be steered off course, but the public now has these talking points creating a “reasonable doubt”. Public opinion hardly stirs if Rove gets off scot free.

2) Rove opponents waste resources proving the falsehood of the talking points. In the process, those resources are NOT used in keeping the original message out there. The public loses focus on the idea that outing a CIA agent is wrong (whether technically a crime or not) and Public opinion hardly stirs if Rove gets off scot free.

3) Rove opponents successfully manage to prove the falsehood of the Republican talking points while also successfully keeping their message in the forefront of public opinion. But now there’s so much conflicting information flying around that the average citizen has tuned it out or decided it’s old news by the time any verdict comes out. Public opinion hardly stirs if Rove gets off scot free.

In the mean time, all Rove has to do is convince the prosecutor that he does not meet the very strict set of circumstances necessary to be deemed in violation of the law. If he is successful and he gets off, he walks away a free man, and the Administration is not hurt at all by the fact that, intentionally or through carelessness, a part of our covert intelligence network on terrorism was destroyed.

You have to give Rove credit. He may be truth-impaired and he may be partisan and he may be more interested in his own power than the good of the United States, but he is damn good at politics.

Liam.

Patriotism vs Partisanism

As I mentioned earlier, this post is originally by Cenk Uygur, a former Republican who has become disillusioned with the current administration. He has not given up his Republican beliefs, he has simply decided that the party has fallen under the control of a small group who have taken it in directions contrary to the philosophies of the party and the good of the country. It is this group (commonly called "neocons") having taken the party away from its traditional basis that fuels my own belief that regardless of who replaces it, this administration has to go.

And so Mr. Uygur wrote this essay to describe how he got to where he is now, and my hope is that conservatives can accept from a fellow conservative an argument they can't as well accept from an independent. That argument is that it is not partisan politics, nor unpatriotic, to decry the actions of the President, an Administration, or even the entire leadership of a party, if those people are behaving in ways you perceive to be ultimately harmful to the country.

Without further ado, Cenk Uygur.



Put Your Country Above Your Party

by Cenk Uygur, reposted by permission.

Many of the responses I have received to my posts lately have started with the premise that I am a partisan. The supposition is that I want to bring down the Bush administration because I am a liberal Democrat.

Well, here’s the funny thing – I’ve been a life-long Republican. I just happen to care more about my country than I do about my party.

I’m not a Zell Miller like pretender, a Democrat posing as a Republican. I supported Ronald Reagan (though I understand that he had many faults). I voted for and whole-heartedly supported – and to this day continue to support – George H.W. Bush. I’m against affirmative action, I’m a fiscal hawk and I held pro-war rallies during the first Persian Gulf War.

I’m not playing. I really am a conservative in many ways. But I grew up believing that being a conservative didn’t mean you didn’t care. It meant that you had a different idea of how to get the best results for the people of this country.

For example, I think affirmative action is a band-aid on a giant problem of inequality. It’s too little, too late. It stigmatizes minorities and separates us by race. I’m not the kind of conservative who thinks the better idea is to do nothing instead. I think we should start equalizing education at the elementary school level (a far more radical idea since it involves messing with the public school money of rich communities). And I think we should equalize opportunities based on socio-economic considerations, not based on race.

On foreign policy, I do believe in spreading democracy and our way of life to other countries and cultures. And again, here I am even more radical than the neo-conservatives – I think we should take on other cultures and try to make our culture the dominant force on this planet.

But the question isn’t, “What is our objective?” The question is, “How do we achieve our objective?” I can’t, for the life of me, believe that the neo-cons thought the best way to spread American ideals throughout the world was by invading other countries.

That seems so astoundingly dumb that it shocks the conscience they were able to take over this country ideologically – and that they still haven’t been kicked out of power.

Of course, people are going to respond with nationalistic fervor if you invade them. Of course, you are going to get stuck in a morass of urban warfare if you try to occupy a country indefinitely, especially a country with a culture that already feels humiliated and oppressed by you.

This is exactly why we warned the administration not to go into Iraq before the invasion on our show. This is exactly why George H.W. Bush decided not to go into Iraq in 1991. This is exactly why I left the Republican Party.

The party went from being dominated by practical moderates, like the first Bush, to ideological and fundamentalist zealots, like the second Bush. In the interim, President Clinton gave us balanced budgets, welfare reform and a war in Kosovo so brilliantly conducted we did not lose a single soldier and completely achieved our objective.

In the face of the evidence that Bill Clinton had accomplished everything I had wanted out of government and that the second Bush was headed in a disastrous direction in foreign and fiscal policy, I could have stayed the course and kept arguing for my party. But I decided to do the rational thing, to do the patriotic thing instead – change course.

I knew, as did every one who was paying attention at the time, that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. I knew that if we sent 150,000 troops to Iraq while we only had 10,000 troops in Afghanistan fighting al-Qaeda, that we would be hurting the war on terrorism. I knew our priorities were completely out of whack. And that we were going in with rose-colored glasses, thinking that the Iraqis were going to treat us as liberators.

But if all of this wasn’t enough to convince me to let go of my party so that I could help my country, certainly what we did next would be. We started torturing people in the name of America. To stand by an administration that does that would not only be willfully ignorant and unforgivably partisan, it would be un-American.

America is supposed to stand for all that is right in the world. If we stoop to the level of our adversaries in a misguided attempt to outdo them in savagery and brutality, then they have won because they have converted us to their way of life, instead of the other way around.

We will win this war on terrorism (more accurately, this war on fundamentalism) when we win the hearts and minds of not just the Middle East, but the world. Every commander in the field will tell you that. You can’t kill enough people to win militarily. You have to win ideologically.

When our top priority should have been protecting and spreading our way of life, our culture, our idea of America, we sullied the good name of America instead.

And I was supposed to stand with my party through all that? I’m far too much of a patriot to do that.

After all this, we now see one more shining example of how Republicans are clinging to their party rather than their country. The president’s top political advisor has admitted to revealing the identity of a CIA operative (for political purposes at that). His main defenses are that he explained who she was, but didn’t technically give her name and that he revealed that she was a CIA agent, but he might not have known how secret her identity was (if it wasn’t secret, why did he have to reveal it?).

If you’re a partisan, you will stand by your man and argue the finer points of the legal case at hand. If you are a patriot, you know instinctively that it is a reprehensible act to leak classified information about a CIA agent that might endanger her life and the life of her contacts. She put her life out on the line for us, and now the partisan hacks are going to argue over legal minutia?

If you’re a Republican reading this now, you know it’s wrong. You know it down to your core. Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen are serving life sentences for revealing the identities of U.S. agents. At the very least, on an ethical level, it is unconscionable. It is un-American.

So, do I still call myself a Republican after all this?

Hell no. I care too much about my country to put a political party over the interests of our nation. Could there come a time again when I go back to supporting Republicans? Of course. When they go back to representing what we used to believe in and when they go back to representing the ideals of this country.

Until then, I think it’s not only crazy but un-patriotic to support these Republicans.



(You can visit Mr. Uygur at his website at www.youngturk.com.)

Media Bias

Time for another Huffington Post link.

One writer there compares media coverage of the Clinton White House vs. the W. Bush White House and makes a pretty compelling argument that, far from having a liberal bias, in the last 14 years, news media have had a distinctly CONSERVATIVE bias.

But of course, this won't put to rest the old "Liberal Media" claims by the Republicans. After all, they've got a rallying cry, and it seems to work for them. Why bother letting go of it for such a trivial reason that it doesn't happen to be true?

Liam.

Homophobia

When pushed to justify their belief that homosexuality is biblically condemned, Christian opponents of gay marriage invariably point to Leviticus 18:22. And there can be little doubt in the words in my “New Revised Standard Version” Bible: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Similarly, in my “Master Builders: Bible for Men” the translation is similarly unambiguous: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”. Alternately, we have Leviticus 20:13, either “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.” Or “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

However, what you’ll note is that both of these are translations, and while close, they are not exact. According to one web site, a more proper translation of the original Hebrew is “Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman’s bed; it is ritually unclean.”

Is there any reason to trust this later translation over the former? Perhaps not, but it does point out that ambiguities arise in the document just based on the linguistic skill and personal bias of the translator. Imagine if, in fact, the last translation is actually more in keeping with the intent of the document? Then there would be NOTHING wrong with two men engaging in sex with each other, but engaging in sex in the bed of a woman (who had presumably had a menstrual period at some point while making use of that bed) was in fact the sin. Interesting thought.

The fact is, one can find translations of the Bible to support vastly different points of view, and oddly enough, very few people indeed have access to ancient versions in the original language, nor the linguistic skills to check. So, does it make sense to condemn a whole segment of society on the basis of a possibly flawed translation?

Regardless, let’s assume for the rest of this article that my “New Revised Standard” Bible translation is, among all of the English translations of the Bible, the one that holds truest to the original meaning. (Inasmuch as it and most other English versions are based on re-casting the words of the King James Bible into more modern speech patterns, they’re all pretty similar anyway.) If that’s the case, let’s take a look at Leviticus a bit more closely for the “The Bible is the Literal Word of God” folks, the ones who refused to accept that Leviticus, the third book of the Old Testament, might not be 100% applicable to today’s world.

For those people, I’m curious when the last time was that they sacrificed an animal to the Lord. At the very start of Leviticus, the Lord commands Moses “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When any of you bring an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering from the herd or from the flock.” It goes on to describe the specific rituals which are to be followed in slaughtering the animal and the method in which it is to be placed on the fire. Actually, this is a cook book. Really! The offerings to the Lord are there for the Priests (the Sons of Aaron) to eat. So perhaps we can dismiss this part of the book as no longer applicable to today, in so far as the sons of Aaron are surely all dead. But Moses was commanded to give these instructions to the people, if they are the literal word of God, then perhaps we should be bringing livestock and barbecuing them for our priests and pastors, especially if your priest or pastor is one who considers himself a descendent (or “son”) of Aaron.

The next section describes how to bring offerings of grain, once again with basic cooking instructions so that a small part of the offering can be burned in tribute to the Lord, and the rest consumed by the priests.

The next few sections (actually a good portion of the book) are all about the different forms of offerings that should be brought under various circumstances, and as restitution for various sins.

So, we get to 8:24, and the ordination of Aaron and his sons as priests. Several bulls are slaughtered, and Moses “took some of its blood and put it on the lobe of Aaron’s right ear and on the thumb of his right hand and the big toe of his right foot” after telling them this was what the Lord had commanded be done. Moses goes on to dab blood on each of the sons in the same fashion, and then throw the rest of the blood against the four sides of the altar. Shall we, then, as literal “word of God” Christians, take from this that our priests and our pastors are not properly ordained unless we slaughter several bulls and take blood from one of them and dab it on? Or doesn’t that part apply in modern day America?

So, now we come to the parts of the book which start really telling people how to behave. 10:6 says “Do not dishevel your hair, and do not tear your vestments, or you will die and wrath will strike all the congregation”. Reading carefully, this is clearly an admonishment not to behave in like fashion in mourning for two who had just been consumed by the Lord’s fire, but must we not, as literalist Christians, keep our hair neat and our clothing orderly? How many Christians who are so against the marriage of homosexuals make sure their children are running around with fresh haircuts and eschew the current fashion of torn jeans?

10:9 says “Drink no wine or strong drink when you enter the tent of meeting. It is a statute forever throughout your generations”. I suppose that since Jesus later asked his disciples to drink wine as symbolic of his blood, shed for them, that it’s now quite OK to consume wine in the “tent of meeting” or Church?

OK, now we get to the real meat of the book (pun not intentional). The Lord speaks to Moses and Aaron and tells them to tell the people a list of foods which they must not eat. Among these: (11:7) “The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you.” (11:10-12) “But anything in the seas or the streams that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and among all the other living creatures that are in the waters – they are detestable to you and detestable they shall remain. Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall regard as detestable. Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.” So, I suppose all of us strict, literalist Christians have never eaten bacon or pork roast, crab or lobster, shrimp or clams or oysters? Quite certainly we must not have, if we are (as quoted later in the Good Book) “without sin” and thus willing to “cast the first stone” against gay men.

Here’s one for the mothers among us literalist Christians. Chapter 12 says that you are ceremonially unclean (as during your period) for 7 days after the birth of a son or 14 days after the birth of a daughter, and your time of blood purification shall be thirty three days for the male child and sixty six days for the female. I can only assume that when you had your children, you did not touch anything holy (including your Bible) or enter into a Church sanctuary for the prescribed 33 or 66 days? At the end of which time, I’m quite sure you brought a lamb in it’s first year of life and a pigeon or turtledove to your local priest as offering to purify the sin of childbirth!

Thank heavens there aren’t that many people suffering leprosy any more, so we can pretty much skip over Chapters 13 and 14. But we must remember them, in case we come into contact with a leper or at some point contract this disease.

And I’m sure we’re all quite aware (from Chapter 15) that women are unclean for seven days from the start of their period (15:19), and men are unclean until the evening on any day that they have an emission of semen from their member (15:16). Men, keep in mind that anything your wife has touched during her seven days, if you touch it as well, you are unclean and must immediately bathe yourself in water. If you come into contact with her menstrual blood, you also are unclean for 7 days!

And now having, as I’m sure we all have, followed the letter and the spirit of all of these instructions, now we reach Chapter 18, the first chapter which instructs us that our sexual relations must only be between members of the opposite sex. Before we can get to the homosexuality, however, we are, I’m sure, all very careful not to have sexual relations with our wives during their unclean menstrual period of seven days as described above, right? 18:19 clearly says that’s wrong. Oh, but wait, according to the end of Chapter 18 (verses 28-29), if we break any of the rules in Chapter 18, “the land will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people”.

I’m tired of the literary device into which I have fallen. Just read 18:28-29. If Leviticus is the literal word of the Lord, then any man who has ever had sex with his wife within 7 days of the start of her period, or has had sex with another man, should have been vomited out of their land and cut off from their people. Strange that although the consequence is CLEARLY described, there are an awful lot of homosexuals, and an awful lot of men who do not wait the full 7 days after the start of their partner’s period, who have clearly NOT been “vomited” out of the land. So somehow the rule is the literal word of God, but the consequence... isn’t? Mighty selective of you. By the way, Chapter 26 also talks about the penalties for disobedience, including consumption and fevers, your enemies eating the fruits of your labors and much more. So let’s see, if God has already declared what punishment He will mete out on those who disobey, why do we worry so much about it? If it’s a sin, God will deal with it.

So, why is it so vital that we pay strict attention to that ONE passage, but somehow when the next chapter, (19:11) tells us not to lie, we don’t have quite the same objection. Why, our current President, the darling of the Religious Right, has been caught in a number of lies. Same book, same set of commands from God, but when it’s homosexuals, Leviticus says it’s a sin. When it’s lies, eh, who cares? 19:13 says that people who work for you must be paid on that day, it is a sin to hold the money until a later day. How many of us receive a daily paycheck for our work? Why isn’t this a big deal?

By the way, at several points in Leviticus, the text makes it clear that these are commandments for the Lord’s people. For example, 20:26 “You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine”. So arguably, it’s not wrong for men to lie with other men, only for ancient Jewish men, and by extension, Christian men.

This is getting long. There are more things in Leviticus that we oddly don’t follow with the same vehemence with which we choose to enforce 18:22. In the interest of not making this too much longer, I’ll just list them, with occasional short commentary:

19:18 – Love your neighbor as yourself. (Keep this one in mind as you condemn homosexuality. Those who behave in a hateful manner towards a homosexual are clearly sinning as badly as the homosexual himself, according to Leviticus.)
19:19 – Do not sow fields with two different kinds of seed, nor wear garments made of two different materials (cotton-poly blend t-shirt, anyone?)
19:27 – Don’t round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. (Hmmm. All of us clean-shaven men are sinning? It would appear so.)
19:28 – No tattoos.
19:32 – Defer to the elderly.
20:10 – Adulterers should be put to death. (Really. A whole lot of people ought to be put to death for this one!)
20:18 – If a man and woman have sex during the 7 days of her period, they should be cast out and banished from society.
20:21 – If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is impurity, they shall be childless. (Hmmmm. If that were true, Jerry Springer’s show would have a lot less guests. There sure seem to be a lot of children from these childless people.)
21:7 – A man must not marry a woman who has been divorced.
21:12 – Priests shall not leave the sanctuary.

My point is that even if you want to take the Bible as the strict, literal word of God, and want to assume that His hand guided the translation that sits before you, so that you are getting His exact intention, it’s really quite intellectually dishonest to point to this one passage as proof of the sin of homosexuals, while we condone, ignore and even (many of us) engage in some of the other sins listed.

Just keep all of this in mind, the next time you eat shell fish. Or don’t wait the full seven days to have sex. Or go to church right after childbirth. Or get a tattoo. Or, oh yeah, condemn homosexuals.

Copyright (c) July 11, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Big Brother's comin' to visit...

[Yes, I know there are several comments on prior posts that I haven't gotten to responding to. It's been a bad couple of days. However, this is important enough that I want to get it posted.]

I just learned that the supposedly theoretical RFID chip ID cards aren't so theoretical. The "Real ID Act" was included in the Military Spending bill which passed the House on May 5th and the Senate on May 10th. Bush signed it into law on May 11th.

If not repealed, starting in three years, we will all be required to carry a national, federal ID card in order to open bank accounts, travel on airplanes or participate in practically any government program (including Social Security).

Stored on this card will be name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph and address, in a "common machine-readable technology" to be determined by the Department of Homeland Security. Although this has not been fully specified, it is expected to be RFID technology (Radio Frequency Identification). As I said before, this will mean that anyone with the proper reader will be able to steal all of this information out of your pocket merely by passing near you. The Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies could set up surreptitious readers throughout the country and keep track of who travels where.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, what the act does is create "standards" for state Driver Licenses, including a new national ID number. Proponents insist this makes it different from a Federal identification, but the inclusion of this new Federal ID number makes that difference moot.

This is REALLY scary. And it's not even as though we can just leave the ID at home, except in the cases listed above, because keep in mind, this will also be your state Driver License. If you operate your motor vehicle, you are required to have this with you. Is it that much of a stretch to imagine scanners set up along major highways to read the tags in every car that goes by? Is it necessary for the government to know if I decide to spend the afternoon driving down to Boston to see a friend?

Just be aware, this is no longer a theoretical, this is actual. This is a signed law.

Liam.

Security? Really?

In case anyone hasn't gotten the memo yet, here's another reason why Bush and his party have not made our country a whit safer with his war on terror.

For a moment, let's forget our differences over the war in Iraq. We don't even need to discuss whether it was a good thing or not, who the insurgents are, etc.

Let us merely focus on George Bush's repeated assertion that we have to take the fight over there, so that they won't bring it to us here.

The budget for next year (2006) for protecting American seaports, railways, subways, bridges, tunnels, busses and energy facilities is 600 million dollars. So far, we've spent that much twice each week on the war in Iraq.

If last week's bombings in London proved nothing else, it proved that al Qaeda is not a one-front organization. A "sleeper cell" that's spent time getting itself established and under cover isn't going to blow that cover just to run back to Iraq to attack us there.

Assuming the conspiracy theorists are not right and there really is an al Qaeda, we have a huge problem on our hands. We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war in Iraq, but can't scrape together more than 600 million for actual homeland security?

Truly, we have our priorities straight.

Liam.

Journalism Backlash...

It didn't take long in coming, the backlash from the troubles of Judith Miller and Matt Cooper.

There is a Chicago newspaper, the "Plain Dealer", whose editor Doug Clifton says they have decided not to publish two investigative pieces of "profound importance" because they are based on illegally leaked documents and the paper fears similar reprisals. The interesting thing is, they're apparently so concerned that the paper has not even given a hint as to the broad topic, there's really no way to know if this relates to Valerie Plame, the war, or perhaps something of a more local nature, which might be important only to those from the Chicago Area.

According to Clifton, both he and the reporters in question would be willing to go to jail over the piece, if it came to that, but the paper is not willing to go to the same lengths to keep the source anonymous, so they won't run the story. He originally mentioned the stories in a column on June 30th. In that column, he writes "As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands. The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?"

Now, I don't know the paper in question, so I don't know what their reputation is. I do know that the New York Times ran the story (albeit on page 10).

The thing is, whether this paper is a good source of news and being honest about the “profound importance” or a cheap, sensationalistic rag pretending to have something it doesn't, this is still exactly what I fear about the Miller/Cooper issue. Someone has information they think is being covered up and wants to leak it to the public, but either the leaker or the leakee feels enough reason for concern that they opt to NOT release the information to the public.

Say what you will about leaked information. There are certainly times when it is not appropriate, and the correct channels should be followed. Nevertheless, there are also times when official channels may already have been compromised by the very thing that needs to get out. That was the situation with Deep Throat: Although many say he should have gone through channels, he'd already watched his boss at the FBI turn over the investigation of the case in question to the very people being investigated, there was every reason to believe that “channels” would result in guilty people going un-caught.

Like it or not, confidential leaks of information are actually one of the most important weapons in our nation's arsenal, in terms of keeping us free. Large scale conspiracies generally can't survive for very long, because someone gets a conscience and reports them.

We already have a media that, by and large, has substituted reading press releases and then the other party's counter releases for actual investigation and fact checking, we already have reason to wonder if Watergate, if it happened today, would even be caught by our main stream news outlets.

We need an official, federally-recognized anonymous source protection for journalists (not to protect the sources, should they be found, but to protect the journalists from having to finger their sources). Apparently, 49 states already have such a thing at the state level, with none of them Federally recognized. But of course, the odds of our getting such a thing are inversely proportional to how much the party in power has to hide.

It'll be interesting, given that last sentence, to see whether we get such a law. There's certainly enough brouhaha over Cooper and Miller to justify discussing one now.

Liam.

The Environmental President Strikes Again

This time, the target of the Administration and his pals in Congress is the National Environmental Policy Act.

Joining a 2002 provision exempting logging sites of less than a thousand acres from review, an item in the House's pending energy bill would exempt most gas and oil exploration projects from NEPA oversight.

Just one more in a long list of ways the current party of record has shown that their allegience is to big business and profit, rather than to the public who elected them and who they work for.

Liam.

I hate conspiracy theorists...

...not because they're crazy, but because they always manage to make their conspiracies sound so damn plausible.

The latest one I've heard is people who are claiming that the timing of this bombing in London isn't coincidental, with Bush's popularity sinking and the Patriot Act vote coming up this week.

There was also a report on UPI originally that Benjamin Netanyahu was warned not to leave his hotel room prior to the first bomb going off, and this, the conspiracy nuts say, is proof that al Qaeda was not behind this bombing.

And like all conspiracy theories, they're almost definitely insane and paranoid. But we have enough movies and television shows that deal with conspiracies, and the hero can never convince anyone what's really going on, that sitting here at 1am, my heart rate is racing, not with the belief that these are true, but with the paranoid fear that I may be naive to so quickly dismiss it.

Those late night "what ifs" have set in, and I can no longer be sure what's true and what isn't. I can't wait for the light of day again.

Liam.

As fellow blogger Tony so eloquently posted:



Nothing more needs to be said.

Response to a Huffington Post article

Eugene Volokh is one of the conservatives on Huffington Post (yes, they do exist), and his latest post (the link on his name) argues the standard line about detention of "enemy combatants" without trial. My summary (in that I disagree with him) will obviously not do his argument justice, so I urge you to read it, but to my eyes, it boils down to "In war, POWs are detained until the end of the war but never charged, because the rank-and-file soldiers generally aren't guilty of crimes, only of being in the army for their country. As a result, you hold them until the war is over, at which point they become non-threatening, and you release them."

He also neatly avoids (by saying that he's going to) the argument that there may be among the detainees those who were seized by mistake. This is the jumping off point for my reply.


Ah, but I'm afraid you can't so easily lay aside the question of whether the person was mistakenly apprehended, because that's EXACTLY why people don't like the indefinite holding without trial.

Look, the problem isn't with the terrorists. If there were a way to know, absolutely know without ambiguity or chance of mistake or corruption, that someone was guilty of a crime, few people would argue for that person's rights or fair treatment.

But the problem is, in the admission that there MAY be people in there who have been detained mistakenly, falsely accused or picked up because they had the wrong name or were in the wrong place at the wrong time, you set up a situation where you are honor bound (by the rules of our society) to find these people and free them.

But how can we reliably detect the ones we have detained mistakenly? If we could reliably tell, we wouldn't have detained them in the first place. Without some form of trial or advocacy, who knows when any innocents among the detainees will be identified and freed?

Your arguments on detention during war time have merit, of course, but only in a conventional war, when the infantry and the enlisted men are fighting because they were told to, rather than for an ideology, and would stop if told to stop. This war will never be over, so long as human beings remain on this planet. There will always be those who feel they have right on their side and are being oppressed, and there will always be among this group those who feel the ends justify whatever means they must employ. So there will always be terrorists. And as long as there are, there will always be a war on terror. And as long as terrorism is perpetrated not by a country, but by martyrs who wholly believe in their cause, you can't beat them, because removing the head of the organization will cause another hydra head to sprout in it's place.

So the argument that enemy combatants are released when the war is over is spurious in this war for two reasons:

• It presumes that those enemy combatants will go back to their country and, since the country has ceased hostilities, so will they. Not true of terrorists who, in large part, perpetrate their heinous acts alone or in small groups. The head of this cockroach doesn't have to be attached for the body to continue to scurry.
• It presumes that this war will at some point end. The war on terror is like the wars on drugs, hunger, poverty, etc. Or like many people's war on flab. It's a war you can be "winning" or "losing" at any given point, but it is never a war you can entirely win.

So by your logic, we will be holding these "enemy combatants" until they are dead of old age, and because we argue we have no moral obligation to try them for anything, we will never identify those who may truly be innocents captured accidentally. And thus, innocent people (maybe only one or two in all 500, but even so) may spend the rest of their lives in prison, deprived of friends, family, their lives and their freedom.

Doesn't sound, to me, like what America is supposed to be about.

Liam.

Separation of Church and State

It seems the rallying cry for the Religious Right these days is that the separation of church and state is an attack on Christianity. Some of the more cagey term it an attack on “religion”, but it is clear that they aren’t particularly concerned with Islamic rights or Hindu rights or Buddhist rights.

This separation is being eroded. A bill is under consideration in Congress which (among other things) would make it illegal to sue or punish a public official for recognizing his religious faith first and his duties second. Judicial rulings based on Biblical teachings would not be subject to appeal if the Judge issuing the ruling was a devout Christian.

The thing is, the hard-line fundamentalist Right seem not to understand that there are only two real differences between their philosophy of government and that of the Taliban and al Qaeda:

1) Which religion they want codified in law, and
2) The means to reach their ends.

Now, to be sure, the second one is a big one. So far we have not seen fundamentalist Christians setting off bombs in our cities (except for the occasional shooting at an abortion clinic), and I don’t mean to suggest that they are (in this regard) morally equivalent to terrorists.

But the fact is, both sides strongly believe in greater ties between government and religion; both sides believe when government and religion differ, religion should win. It’s just that difference of WHICH religion that makes each side see themselves as “defending morality and decency” and the other side as “evil heathens out to destroy our way of life”.

This has led the Republican party to a sort of schizophrenic dichotomy of belief, which appears to be completely invisible to themselves.

On the one hand, current party line pushes for ever more Christian oversight of governmental affairs and ever more Christian basis for laws, while at the same time decrying the recent Iranian elections because they were overseen by Moslem leaders under Moslem influenced laws.

How, exactly, are the fundamental philosophies of these two groups different? And how does anyone NOT see that the founding of the United States not as an atheistic society but as an agnostic one is one of its greatest strengths?

To clarify what I mean by the distinction, the Soviet Union was an atheistic society (at least according to the propaganda about “godless communists” which was fed to American society in the 50s, 60s and 70s), meaning that it did not believe in religion and made atheism the state religion. If you were theistic in any fashion, you were not well tolerated by the Kremlin.

By comparison, the United States is has an agnostic government, one which does not know the right or wrong answer and so stays out of the discussion. The very basis of our society is that government does NOT declare an official religion, nor an official lack of one, but that all governmental affairs should be conducted in a way completely separate from religion, so as not to infringe on anyone’s religious freedoms.

This is not to say that laws cannot be enacted which have a historical basis in religion, most rules that we set up as a measure for how we’re going to relate to one another within our society will have at some point been a tenet of some religion or other. But we should not enact laws based solely on the fact that they exist in some one religion or other. And clearly, this has traditionally been the case.

Take the Christian Ten Commandments. We clearly have laws against murder (#6), adultery (#7), theft (#8) and perjury (#9), but we expressly avoid criminalizing other religions (#1) or their artifacts (#2) or differences in holy day (if any) (#4). As much as those of us who are parents might like it, it is not illegal for our children to disobey us (#5), and trust me, in our capitalist society, there seems for many to be no higher calling than to covet that which belongs to someone else (#10).

And as to #3, tell me the last time anyone in this country was prosecuted for (or even looked askance at for) yelling “G—damn you” at some moron in another car that just cut them off on the road. Certainly Christians should not behave this way, but to those who do not believe in the Christian deity, such an imprecation has no more innate wrongness than to say “May Santa bring you coal!” or “I hope the Easter Bunny brings you rotten eggs!”

Laws which make sense in society, which prohibit infringing on other people’s core rights, such as those against murder, theft and perjury, should be enacted for the good of all of society. Laws which simply serve to legislate morality, criminalizing behavior which does no real harm to society (coveting, for example, or gay marriage or even adultery) have no basis in our government. Behavior on these matters is between a person, their Church, their moral code and their deity(ies). It no more makes sense to try to force non-Christians to have no other deity before the Christian one than it does to enact laws preventing Christians from doing between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday any of the things an Orthodox Jew is prevented from doing during those hours.

This current push by the Religious Right to make us a more Christian society through laws (instead of through proselytization and evangelism, which they remain free to participate in) is no different, morally, from the Taliban ruling Afghanistan or the Ayatollahs ruling Iran. And if THAT doesn't scare you, perhaps you shouldn't be reading my blog.

Copyright © July 7, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Blogging for the Fourth Estate

Fellow blogger Ken Grandlund has posted a great and thoughtful piece on the state of the news media today. I urge everyone to read it.

This post is my reply to it, originally posted as a comment on Ken's blog, but there's enough here to be worth posting myself, so here goes:


Ken,

GREAT piece! Unfortunately, I do not have the faith that some do in blogging as a replacement for the overall failings of our mass media outlets, because blogs have all of the same problems in microcosm.

People talk about the increase in information flow as a good thing, but the problem is that with that increase has come a huge increase in the noise-to-signal ratio. Sure, like Fox Mulder's motto, "The Truth Is Out There", but it's out there amid hundreds of thousands of other, less truthful, less reliable voices.

Blogs have certainly increased the opportunity to find out what the populace is thinking, but that can't take the place of a news media, people can not form valid opinions in a vacuum of fact, or you get what we have today, a situation where most people pick a political party like a favorite sports team and root for it to the exclusion of all else, taking their cues as to what is correct by what that party says and does.

The fact is that most bloggers (myself included) do not have the resources to actually gather the news ourselves, we can merely sift through what we find on the internet and other sources, attempt to correlate it until we have what we believe is a balanced picture, and then opine endlessly about it.

Don't get me wrong, I love blogging (although I'm sometimes dismayed that my political ramblings seem to be far more popular than my humor column, which is what I got into blogging to write), but I don't think anyone should ever confuse my site with “hard news”.

So, what do we need to repair this problem?

1)We need a federal protection law for journalist's sources. Whether you like leaks or not, they are a time honored way of getting news out to the public that those in power would rather sweep under the rug (from Watergate to Monica Lewinsky), and like the old dictum “t'were better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be hanged”, it's far better if ten top secret information leakers are not be caught to retain the chance that when there's something going on that we SHOULD know about, someone will be willing to get that information out as well.

2)We need to return to the older, more restrictive laws on media ownership, or perhaps even more restrictive ones. I don't recall the previous specifics, but due to the importance of a varied media voice, no media outlet should be allowed to own more than 10% of any media outlets in an area, more than one of the broadcast media types in an area (radio & TV), and no one media outlet conglomerate should be able to cover area totaling more than 15% of the populace. All of these designed not to harm corporate profits, but to ensure that one or two rich men sitting in a cigar bar somewhere can't decide what version of reality the American public should hear.

3)We need a more robustly funded PBS system, and one made (by Constitutional amendment, if necessary) entirely free from political influence. Whether you like PBS or not, it should be like the Federal Judge of media outlets: Funded by the government, appointed by the government, but not subject to the temptations to slant their reportage for profit or ratings in much the same way a Judge is appointed but then free to make unpopular decisions because they are also free from reelection concerns. And so the funding for a national news media outlet should be both guaranteed and inviolate, not subject to the whims of whatever political party is currently in power (whether by partisan oversight by the CPB chairman or through threats against funding).

I'm sure there are other things we should do as well. Another down side to the whole blogging arena is that most of us have day jobs and other real world concerns that sometimes force us to bring an argument to a halt before we may be done talking.

Either way, though, great piece, Ken, and certainly we're better for its being out in the blog world.

UPDATE: At least one reader has confused my point #3 with suggesting creating a federal news AGENCY, such as the Soviet agency Tass. That was not my suggestion. In no way do I think that a publicly funded news source should replace our other news sources. Although this more robust, more independent PBS news agency that I propose would not be subject to oversight or content control by anyone (including advertisers), it would not be free to become a propaganda machine for whoever was currently running it. There would still be the ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX network news programs, the CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC news channels, the newspapers, and the Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken radio shows to correct anything that got too far out of whack.

I just feel that we've seen what happens when our media becomes consolidated under a few owners, beholden to major advertisers and subject to political pressures. We need to figure out how to fund honest news gathering, with in depth research and on-the-ground reporting without reporters having to be concerned that their controversial topic may be deemed politically inappropriate or negative to a major advertiser, or that they may be taken to jail for reporting something controversial and refusing to give up a source.

If anyone has a different idea for how to accomplish this, I'm open to it. This is almost certainly not the only way to accomplish it. But we need to do something. I honestly wonder whether, if Watergate happened today, we'd have a young Woodward and Bernstein step forward to break the story, or a Washington Post willing to run with a risky, politically unfavorable story.

Copyright (c) July 7, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net