The House Attacks Our Rights

First, let's be clear about the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The official story of H.R. 347 is that Congress wants to make it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House.  This is in response to several cases in recent years where some citizen decided they wanted to make a point to the President in person.  Currently, it's not clear that it's illegal for citizens to enter White House grounds to protest something; after all, it's not private property; taxpaying citizens pay for it. It might be illegal, but it's a gray area.  So Congress is doing what Congress does, it's passing a law to clarify the matter.

But it may be doing more than simply making the White House more secure.

Let's look at H.R. 347, introduced by Representative Thomas J. Rooney, (R-Fla Dist. 16), which was passed in the House of Representatives 388-3, to see what the fuss is about

(a) Whoever--

• (1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
• (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
• (3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
• (4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

Well, disrupting the status quo has long been part and parcel of large protests, going back to The Boston Tea Party. Sure, we don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry urinating on the White House porch to show their disdain of the President.  But the law doesn't stop at simply keeping people off the White House lawn without permission:

(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

• (A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;
• (B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
• (C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance...
  

"Special event of national significance?"  Like an Independence Day celebration?  Or a Thanksgiving Day Parade?  This is awfully vague.  Consider:

Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

What this bill seems to say is that if a group of citizens gathers in a crowd outside someplace the President is at - the White House, Congress, a high school auditorium, whatever - with the intent of making sure that he sees them and hears their message, that they will be arrested if that protest hampers him in any way.  I can see Richard M. Nixon being delighted with this kind of law.

The way I read it, if protestors are outside the Capital building and chanting "Give Peace A Chance" loud enough that Congress can't ignore them, they could be arrested.

And the punishment is no slap on the wrist; if the citizen is exercising their second amendment right to bear arms, as many Tea Party attendees have done in the past, they could face up to ten years in prison.  And even if they aren't armed, they could do a year in jail.

Tom Rooney seems to be turning his back on our Founding Fathers, and trampling all over the Constitution; the First Amendment is intended to allow protest,  LOUD protest.  What good is having the freedom to say what you want when you can't say it loudly enough not to be ignored without being thrown in jail?

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...

When you can be thrown in jail for speaking loudly enough that Congress has to stop to listen, Freedom of Speech has clearly been abridged.

This is a bad law.

Dictionary Fun with Dave Engle

Dave Engle should read a dictionary. Assuming he can read of course, which is a huge leap of faith, given the breadth of ignorance so far displayed in this article.

He recently visited the Kansas City Zoo. While visiting the asian-themed section of the park, he noted a pair statues of Buddha. He angrily wrote the park's management and accused them of idolatry.

idol·a·try: the worship of a physical object as a god

KCTV5 has a photo of the statues; they are standing on either side of a walkway. No one appears to be bowed down before them in worship, nor is there any sign of sacrifices left at their feet.

In fact, they appear to be little more than decoration.

dec·o·ra·tion: something that adorns, enriches, or beautifies : ornament

You see, David Engler is misreading the 2nd commandment, which states "You shall not make for yourself an idol."

See that little bit of text I emphasized there? The ten commandments are meant to be a code for the individual believer.

In fact, Mr. Engler seems to be violating the 9th commandment (You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor) and the 10th (you shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.)

If Mr. Engler spent more time reading, he might have a chance of saving his own soul. But right now, it's not looking so good for him.

Andrew Meyer, John Kerry and Campus Security: Clusterfuck Royale.

I've seen the video. The audio quality is poor, but you can make out what's being said. Then there's all the hullabaloo: Critical Miami is horrified, Stuck on the Palmetto is torn: Alex goes one way, Rick the other.

First, it was a forum for students to ask questions of Kerry.

Andrew Meyer was standing at the microphone, and asking Kerry a question. Well, two or three questions, really. But all he was doing is what the event was specifically set up to do: allow students to ask a US Senator and major US political figure direct questions. Andrew Meyer might have been doing it badly, but he absolutely wasn't breaking any law.

Second, Andrew Meyer really sucks at asking questions.

To be fair, Andrew did have to set up some background to give his question absolute relevance. Unfortunately, in the process he got so wound up that he seemed to forget which question he actually wanted to ask. And then he kept repeating it, cutting off Kerry several times. Andrew, Andrew, Andrew; once you've ASKED a question, you have to let the guy actually ANSWER, or at least respond. Your interview technicque sucks ASS. But you didn't deserve to be manhandled by thugs and tasered.

Third, the audio engineer was asleep at the desk.

I've worked this kind of event. It's boring to run the board. There is supposed to be someone in control of the mic. The Audi Engineer should have cut Andrew's microphone the third or fourth time he cut off Kerry's response.

Fourth, who was running this event?

Where was the moderator? The moderator should have sent a monitor out to explain to Meyer that part of asking a question is letting the man answer. And there is supposed to be someone there to do just that; keep order at the microphone. That person was not evident in any of the video, and they ought to have been. Whoever was supposed to be running this event wasn't doing it. They should be fired.

Fifth, WTF was campus security thinking?

Meyers was participating in the event in the manner the event was designed for. He was passionate, and a little disorganized. The campus cops were completely out of line. The shouldn't have tried to get him away from the mic, they should not have grabbed him, and they absolutely should not have tasered him. They were out of line. WAY out of line.

Conservative detractors have wasted no time to bash Kerry for not jumping in. In fact, Kerry can be heard trying to tell the police to stop. "Please - I'm going to answer his question. Hey! Let me finish!" I think Kerry did the right thing; if he'd gotten emotionally involved in the police brutality, the crowd would have grown agitated, and then we'd have been watching video of "the ensuing riot" instead of "redneck cracker cops beating up a student for no defensible reason."

Rick at SotP felt that Meyer should have capitulated when the jackbooted thugs ordered him to "stop resisting." Rick is wrong, plain as that. While I know that law enforcement has a tough job, and that keeping the peace is a difficult task in a crowd, the public should not capitulate to illegal actions by rogue officers. These "officers" were not arresting a criminal, they were haranguing a citizen engaging in a spirited exercise of his first amendment rights. What was Meyer's crime? Being passionate? Failing to resolve all his questions down to one?

Why did Meyer resist? Because he wasn't doing anything wrong. He was fully within his rights to be there, and to be asking his questions, and he absolutely had the right to stand there and listen to Kerry's response. And Kerry wanted to answer Meyer; and he told the stormtroopers that even as they were assaulting Meyer. Meyer did what a journalist should do: make everyone pay attention.

It's this kind of lack of self control on behalf of law enforcement that lead me to think that giving all patrol officers assault weapons is A Very Bad Idea. A taser is supposed to be used against violent offenders, not students shocked that their rights are being trampled. Give these same bozos the ability to lay suppressing fire? Fuck that. I'd rather they take cover and wait for SWAT to show up, given the propensity for undue escalation.

It is chilling that anyone could defend the UF campus hoodlums. This is the worst violation of free speech and the civil rights of students since Kent State. Law enforcement needs to expel these thugs and condemn their behavior; it's "cops" like these that make the jobs of real cops that much harder.

Related Group; Corporate Thugs Still Up to Dirty Tricks

Once again, The Related Group has decided to sue someone for exercising their constitutional right of free speech.

This isn't the first time the development corporation has viciously attacked its opposition; earlier this year, the repugnant company filed suit against the Stranahan House, a museum and historic landmark in Fort Lauderdale.

RG bought a property adjacent to the landmark property, surprising everyone in Broward County; the board of the Stranahan House and the City of Fort Lauderdale had tried to acquire the property, but were rebuffed by the owners. As soon as RG announced its plans for the site, the citizens of Fort Lauderdale voted in support of plan to purchase the parcel from RG and either create a public park, or add it to the Stranahan House parcel.


Related Group, in its typically greedy disregard for the will of the people, pushed ahead with its unwanted project, refusing to negotiate with the city. And then, because simply telling the people of Fort Lauderdale to fuck off wasn't enough, they sued Stranahan House - and a protest organizer - for "loss of income."

As you can see, RG's glass and steel monstrosity dwarfs the Stranahan House. Much in the way Vizcay has complained that RG's new project would dwarf the historic mansion.


Jorge Perez
Now, I guess because Related Group's CEO Jorge Perez hasn't disenchanted enough taxpaying citizens, he's suing City Commisioner Marc Sarnoff.

Marc Sarnoff

Related Group accuses Sarnoff of "writing a memo that's defamatory and reflects a ``reckless disregard for the truth.'' They seek a copy of the memo, and $15,000 in damages for the defamation. ''I have a good-faith reason to believe that the contents of this document are extremely, extremely defamatory with respect to the corporate reputation of Related,'' claims their shyster lawyer, John Shubin.

They haven't explained how this is remotely possible. After all, according to Sarnoff's attorney Alan Wachs, ''To my knowledge, only three people have ever seen this document.'' Presumably, Sarnoff and Wachs are two of the three.

Wachs goes on to say that he personally told Related's shyster counsel to simply subpoena the document as part of the pending court action.

It's apparent even to small children that this lawsuit is intended to defame Commissioner Sarnoff. As Wachs put it: "They're trying to put a muzzle on Marc."

But Related group didn't stop there: as in Fort Lauderdale, they are suing the historic landmark that has been vigorously opposing the condo project.

From the Herald article: "...The Related Group...accused The Vizcayans...'of secretly engaging in ''a campaign of rumor and innuendo'' aimed at injuring the developer's corporate reputation."

Hmm. Maybe The Related Group should try suing themselves. No one has damaged their reputation as much as they themselves have. Suing not one but TWO charitable organizations? Suing a lawmaker to get a memo that they could already request via a subpoena? Hardly the action of a company concerned with its public image.

Let's face facts: Related Group itself is responsible for the bad press these projects have generated. No one forced Related Group to pick the hospital grounds for their project. Their project isn't appropriate for the zoning of the parcel. The Zoning Department reviewed the project and rejected the request for a variance. The Zoning Department also recommended to the City Commission that the zoning change should be rejected. The neighbors - which include Vizcaya - do not want the zoning changed.

In the United States, citizens have a right to speak out against changes in their community. They have a right to lobby their government to reject projects or changes in law. Related Group's actions are a blatant attempt to silence the citizens of Fort Lauderdale and Miami. After all, The Relate Group is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, has access to entire law firms, and can write the costs off their taxes as a business expense. Private citizens and charitable organizations such as the Stranahan House and Vizcaya do not have the financial resources to fight a protracted, if frivolous, lawsuit. And that's why Related Group filed the suits.

Of course, there is an ongoing investigation to rumors that Related Group bribed a city commissioner to change the zoning for the parcel involved: currently, that parcel is zoned for use as a hospital or related supporting structures. The City's own Zoning Department has repeatedly rejected the zoning change. The Commission is ignoring its own rules and its own plans, with no explanation as to why they are disregarding them.

Hmm, zoning board rejected the plan, the parcel is set aside for a specific use, a neighboring national landmark warned it would detract the historic site, and still some commissioners voted for this loser. Damned RIGHT there's a criminal investigation!

And then there's this story: "the Third District Court of Appeal concluded that Miami officials flouted the city's development rules by permitting the $162 million Coastal on the River project, a 633-unit, twin-tower high-rise on the south flank of the river."

This is the SECOND TIME THIS MONTH that the court has overturned a decision by the City Commission to approve land-use changes against its own standing zoning and land use policies.

It seems that the courts aren't as easily bought swayed as the City Commission is. And that's probably why Related Group is using sleaze-ball tactics to scare its opponents; they are desperate to knock out the opposition and get this unwanted turkey started before the law catches up with them. In slapping their vocal opponents with these frivolous lawsuits, Related Group is blatantly trying to distract everyone from something most of the community already knows:

By approving this project, the Commission has acted against the best interests of the citizens of Miami, and has violated its own policies in the process.

*************UPDATE********************

The Old Grover weighs in.

Censorship in Wilton, Connecticut

I've written before on the attacks the Miami-Dade School Board has made on our most basic rights. Now here's a case of another School Board violating our most treasured right.

A group of students at Wilton High School, in Wilton, CT, worked to create a play that was relevant to their lives. They chose to create a play using the words of soldiers fighting in Iraq. They gleaned the material from published letters and interviews with soldiers.

You might think that this is a fine way to honor our soldiers who are risking their lives to defend our country. Well, you and I might; the principal of the school and the school board didn't: They canceled the scheduled performance of the play.

Wilton High School principal Timothy Canty , quoted in The New York Times felt that it might "hurt Wilton families ‘who had lost loved ones or who had individuals serving as we speak,’ and that there was not enough classroom and rehearsal time to ensure it would provide ‘a legitimate instructional experience for our students.’ "

Remember, this isn't commentary about the soldiers, it's their OWN WORDS. Canty isn't just silencing his captive student population, he's silencing the voices of those making great sacrifices for our country.

And one would hope that the School Board would have more sense; but no such luck:
Superintendent of Schools Gary Richards: "The student performers directly acting the part of the soldiers ... turns powerful material into a dramatic format that borders on being sensational and inappropriate."

So reciting the words and adapting the persona of the soldiers to explore their views is "inappropriate." In my day, that was called "effective instruction."

As much as the canceling of the play distresses me, the REALLY distressing fact is this:
during their history classes, they also discuss CURRENT history, with one caveat: “We are not allowed to talk about the war while discussing current events.”

How can you competently discuss current events in the world that affect our country and NOT discuss the war? Of course, you CAN'T. Wilton students are being deprived of more than their first amendment rights, they are also being deprived of an adequate education.

Our school administrators and school board members are supposed to set an example of what a good American is: someone who defends the Constitution, who protects our freedoms, and respects the rights of others. Wilton's Canty and Richards fail miserably as role models for children of The Constitution State.

These incompetent hacks not only owe their students an apology, they owe the citizens of Wilton their resignations. These men have no place in any education system in the United States; they should perhaps pursue work in Cuba, China, or North Korea.

Fortunately, the students were able to present their play: at the Culture Center, in New York City. A performance at The Public Theatre is scheduled, and some of the soldiers portrayed in the play will attend. Stanley Tucci helped arrange it; he was already working on helping students at his alma mater who were punished for performing "The Vagina Monologues" and using the word "vagina." (Noting that his alma mater was only 15 miles from Wilton, he quipped "perhaps it's something in the water!" What a shame that it's not.)

Theatre is supposed to alter our perception of the world around us; at its best, it moves us to consider things outside our comfort zone. Ours is a country with unprecedented freedoms; it gives us opportunities to express bold new ideas and question ancient taboos. It is this freedom that has allowed us to develop into a premier nation in the world. Men like Canty and Richardson would throw all that away. There simply isn't any good argument FOR censorship; so why expend energy doing it?

We shouldn't stand for it, and we don't have to. Come election time, toss the bastards out. If we don't take steps to remove those who erode our freedom, we deserve to lose it.


REFERENCES:
TruthDig.com
Christian Science Monitor
Hartford Courant
NY TIMES

Rural Georgia outshines Metro Miami.

The good news is that not all elected officials are as idiotic as our own school board.

In a recent court decision, the judge ruled against a mother who had been crusading to have the HARRY POTTER books removed from school libraries.

So what's her beef? (don't be eating when you read this next sentence!)

"Harry Potter is a terrorist threat, for the spells in the books are speical codes for terrorist groups in the middle east. The characters represent well known terrorist who have attack our borders. This is why we should ban these books from our schools."

That's right; Laura Mallory (MySpace page) not only believes that the series of books about a young wizard coming of age are evil; she believes that J.K. Rowling is in league with Al Queda.

Perhaps our school board simply believes that Castro is far more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden et al, but I think that rational thinking has more to do with the complete lack of support Mallory is finding.

The position of the school board, as outlined by their attorney, Victoria Sweeny:
"This case is a very simple one," Sweeny said, accusing Mallory of trying "to censor materials that are rightfully in the public libraries of this county."

Sweeny went on to say "... we urge the court to heed the words of Thomas Jefferson, who admonished that freedom of speech cannot be limited without being lost."

Hey, Miami-Dade School Board, see that? YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO FIGHT CENSORSHIP, NOT SUPPORT IT!

And further, according to Sweeny: "This was not just an issue about one book. This was actually a First Amendment issue... These books have been in our public school libraries, and will continue to be in our public school libraries"

Imagine that... a school board that actually fights to KEEP books in the library. All we have to do is NOT re-elect ANY of the bozos on our current board, and we could have school board that makes us proud.

(And have you noticed that no one trying to ban VAMOS A CUBA has quoted anyone who signed the Declaration of Independence? I guess it's hard to find a quote from Jefferson that is in favor of something he and the rest of our founding fathers abhorred so much.)

BANNING BOOKS IS BAD, a primer for the Miami-Dade School Board.

The gang of drooling morons that comprise our school board are once again championing a cause that's a loser in every sense of the word. Most of us remember the flack they got LAST year over their attempts to ban the book "VAMOS A CUBA."

For those who are not familiar with this book, it is one of a series of books about children growing up in different culture around the world. The basic message is that even though people in other cultures have seemingly very different lifestyles, they really have the same core values. Each volume deals with single culture, and uses idealized archetypes to demonstrate how the cultures can be superficially different, but fundamentally the same. It's intended for elementary level readers.

Last year, some Cuban-American parents protested this book's presence in school libraries. Their complaint: while the books accurately described aspects of Cuban culture, it failed to mention that Cuba's government is an oppressive dictatorship that strips its citizens of many basic human rights.

And that is true; it doesn't mention such details. Just as the book on the Swahili children didn't mention that for years their tribe and others were hunted down and enslaved, and in many places only recently gained basic human rights, and just as the book on American kids didn't mention that our culture basically wiped out the one that USED to live on our lands. These books aren't intended to to explain those aspects of geography.

This misguided board apparently believes that Truth can only be arrive at if it is fully spelled out in every document we have access to. The board's demand is tantamount to banning The Bible because it doesn't mention that the universe is millions of years old and that all life on the planet evolved from earlier forms.

No, VAMOS A CUBA doens't mention dictatorships, or human rights, quantum physics, torte law, and thousands of other worthy topics. It's aimed at eight year olds.

There are arguments back and forth over whether or not the School Board has the legal authority to trample the First Ammendment. Excuses are being tossed about, arguing about curricula, decency, political indoctrination blah blah blah.

The point being missed by the School Board, and according to reports, the court reviewing the case is that WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BANNING BOOKS.

Book banning is simply WRONG. I don't care if this is a case where it can be twisted into being legal: IT IS WRONG TO BAN BOOKS.

Here, I'll use a sentence that even the morons on the School Board can understand:
BANNING BOOKS IS BAD, AND IT'S UN-AMERICAN.

In a free society, we must be able to express differing viewpoints. Some viewpoints will contradict each other. Some will be based on false information or faulty reasoning. Some will be based on fact and solid logic. But there is only one way we can sort it out, and that's by allowing the viewpoints to be expressed, and to be scrutinized and judged on their merits.

VAMOS A CUBA is certainly viewing Cuba through rose-colored-glasses, idealizing the positives and ignoring the negatives. So did my High School US History book. So does most literature we give our students.

That History Book was never banned. It never mentioned that our European ancestors broke faith with the Native Americans, over and over again. It never mentioned that 98% of the Native American population was wiped out by diseases the Europeans brought with them, and that THAT is the reason the land looked empty and unused to the first European settlers. It told us that General Custer was ruthlessly massacred at Little Big Horn: it didn't mention that he and his troops had massacred an undefended village of women and children.

But if that is the history book used in my school, how can I know about its inaccuracies? Because I read OTHER books. Books written specifically to correct what our schools had been teaching. In many cases, those NEW books are now being used instead of the old ones. But the old ones remain; so we can see the truth of the claims made about their mis-statements and fallacies.

VAMOS A CUBA doesn't mention the dictatorship or the harsh conditions: but it presents us with the opportunity to discuss those things. And THAT is why this book should remain on the shelves of our school libraries, along with books that tell about how Castro took over Cuba, and about what that has meant for the Cubans that stayed AND the Cubans that left.

You don't defend the truth by hiding lies and inaccuracies: you have to hold those lies and inaccuracies up to the light, so we can see them for what they are. Leave VAMOS A CUBA on the bookshelves, and the First Amendment intact.