411POLITICS BLOG
By Enrique on March 17, 2010, at 8:33PM
In the late 90's, the Food and Drug Administration issued a rule change that made it legal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products on television. And so began the Era of Amusing Disclaimers, where 75% of the typical prescription drug ad is devoted to telling us not to buy it. For the rest of my life I'll be haunted by the idea of having a four-hour erection, and having to explain to the hospital ER personnel I'm actually not happy to see them. *rimshot*
Traditional advertising is just one method Big Pharma employs when marketing its products. Sometimes drug companies pay doctors directly to endorse their wonder-pills. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Or is there?
Republicans have finally decided to take a stand. No more will they allow the deficit to get any higher. They didn't take a stand when they were in power. So when the trillion dollar Medicare entitlement was debated, the deficit didn't matter. The trillion dollar Iraq War, no problem. They have decided to take a stand against those collecting 10 billion dollars of unemployment? Really?
One of the things I learned about Economics is that you can't have everyone work in a capitalist society. There needs to be a certain amount of unemployed so that firms can hire better workers and replace old ones as well as expand. New businesses also need a pool of unemployed workers. The latest statistic is that there are six people for every one job. For those five that do not get the job, help is needed.
Another thing I learned in Economics is that when people save too much, it hurts the country. That is why after 9/11 Bush wisely told us to go about our normal lives and shop. When you give someone who is used to making 800 a week 300 a week, they will put all of that money back into the economy.
At some point, government has to draw a line just as it did for welfare. But people should be given fair warning. In addition, during the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, Americans should be sympathetic to those looking for work.
A good friend of mine lost his job in New York City. With a $1400 a month one bedroom apartment, he would have been crushed without unemployment insurance. The money allowed him to stay afloat until he found a new job. He deserved that assistance because he had a solid work history and paid taxes when he was working.
By Enrique on March 10, 2010, at 7:51PM
As you may have heard, last week Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was accused of committing sexual assault at a Georgia nightclub. You certainly didn't hear the name of his accuser, since it's standard practice for authorities and the press to preserve the anonymity of women who make allegations of sexual predation.
Funny, isn't it? (Not ha-ha funny.) A well-known athlete has been accused of a heinous crime, and his accuser's identity is kept confidential. In a free society, is such a practice appropriate? Certainly, some may argue the privacy of women who make rape allegations should be protected, what with the humiliation that results from such a monstrous violation. But that's assuming the allegations are true. What if they're not? What exactly is the disincentive for a woman to make a false accusation of rape?
I'm loathe to write anything more about health care because as President Obama mentioned a couple of times this week, pretty much all the arguments have been had, all the ideas put forth, and the complexities contemplated. But the current Republican meme, that the current health care reform legislation isn't bipartisan, just isn't true.
This vital fact has been lost or forgotten by the media in the last year, chock full as it was of staged town hall protests, lies about death panels, and Senate Democrats taking so long to pass health care legislation that they forgot to defend Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat and thus jeopardized the entire reform enchilada. But in June 2009, a set of comprehensive policy recommendations for health care reform was released by a bipartisan health care commission chaired by former Senators Howard Baker (R-Tennessee), Bob Dole (R-Kansas) and Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) and including former George W. Bush health care advisor Mark McClellan and Chris Jennings, who held a similar post under President Clinton -- hardly a group of Berkeley hippies. Congressional leaders didn't ignore the report; in fact, virtually every recommendation of the Leaders' Project on the State of American Health Care, as the commission was dubbed, made it into the health care reform legislation that passed both the House and the Senate last year. The substance of these recommendations are also consistent with the final legislative fixes to those bills, which Congressional Democrats hope to pass with a majority vote and which President Obama intends to sign into law within the next few weeks.
Also lost and forgotten is the fact that the Senate Finance Committee, including 10 Republican senators like Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Mike Enzi (R-WY) spent months last year crafting (using the Leaders' Project as a blueprint) what became, in large part, the final Senate health care legislation. So, the reform legislation passed by the House and Senate is already bipartisan, and really has been from the beginning. Furthermore, after the president's recent health care summit, he publicly announced he would include three additional Republican proposals in the final legislative package. So why, if Republican ideas are in the core of the legislation and always have been, are Republicans insisting upon trying to use the filibuster to block the final legislative fixes to health care reform?
By Enrique on March 3, 2010, at 7:47PM
One nifty thing about being human is our unending desire to make the world a better place in some barely perceptible way through trivial, symbolic actions. On the terribly amusing blog Stuff White People Like, this human drive is explicated by the entry for Awareness. The belief that raising awareness is an end unto itself "allows [white people] to feel that sweet self-satisfaction [of solving a problem] without actually having to solve anything or face any difficult challenges." Thanks to the unholy trinity of YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, the power to raise awareness in our modern era is positively devastating.
One woman who has taken the art of raising awareness to a whole ‘nother level is Angie Jackson of Tampa, Florida. Recently, Ms. Jackson used her various social networking tools to "demystify" a certain treatment she was undergoing to cure her of an unfortunate medical condition. Apparently, some people have a problem with this.
One of the most common complaints I hear from the Left is their frustration that Republicans were able to pass their agenda with smaller majorities only a few years ago. They can't seem to figure out why the Democrats with 60 to 59 Senators and the White House can't get things done like health care, etc.
The main reason why the Republicans passed more of their agenda is because the agenda is more popular and less controversial. Notice I did not say their agenda is what is best for America necessarily. However, it is easier to pass a tax cut then it is to reform a health care system with special interests all over the place. As big as the deficit is, I would have a hard time getting upset if a Congressman wanted to give me another tax cut today.
If you take a look at what the Republicans did with their majority here is what sticks out.
• Two major tax cuts
• The creation of Medicare drug entitlement, which still boggles my mind how the "Party of Reagan" voted for increased socialized medicine.
• War Authorization of force in Iraq – No 9/11 and this war never happens.
• Patriot Act – Passing it was easy after 9/11 and would have been impossible beforehand.
• No Child Left Behind – Who would oppose more Federal monies being spent on Education?
So if you look at the 5 major legislations passed by the Republican majority, 2 got passed due to 9/11 which was a major shock to the system and probably wouldn't have happened under normal circumstances. NCLB and Medicare Part D were actually Leftist/Socialism bills. Finally, a tax cut is basically a legal bribe to get your vote. Some may dispute my bribery charge but Bush's job creation record didn't exactly back up the effectiveness of the tax cuts. I couldn't include the bailout because while it was developed by the president's cabinet, it went through the Democratic Congress before it got to Bush.
Oh, it appears I have forgotten one more reason why the Democrats can't pass things with a big majority: they have a bigger tent. If the Republicans were ever fortunate enough to claim 60 seats, mark my words, I doubt all 60 would be strict conservatives. In essence, the larger the majority, the increased number of opinions there will be.
According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, about 80% of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court's decision last month in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow corporations and unions to make unlimited contributions to federal election campaigns. The article is especially interesting because the results are roughly the same across party lines: 85% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans and 81% of Independents disagree with the ruling. BTW, I hope it's okay with everyone that I read something in the Washington Post. Last time I mentioned a media source half of you became hysterical. Let's stay focused on the story this time.
As any 8th grade graduate should know, our government is made up of three equal branches that are designed to check and balance each other. The Judicial branch is checked in two ways: the Executive branch appoints new Justices when they step down, and the Legislative branch can amend the Constitution if a particular ruling is overwhelmingly found to be wrong. Each house of Congress must pass the amendment by a 2/3rds majority, then the states must ratify the proposed amendment by a 3/4ths majority. I'm just recapping this to underscore that it is decidedly difficult to pass an amendment, and that is by design. If the most basic principles our nation is founded on changed every time the political winds shifted, we would have chaos. In this instance, however, every group polled agrees by more than 3/4ths that the decision was wrong. This leads to a logical conclusion that an amendment is in order.
By Enrique on February 24, 2010, at 8:26PM
On Thursday, President Barack Obama hosted a much ballyhooed bipartisan summit on healthcare reform. I thought Scott Brown had single-handedly slayed this beast, but apparently healthcare reform is one of those monstrosities that can be repeatedly brought back from the dead to wreak unspeakable havoc on us all, like Jason Voorhies, Michael Myers, or Jesus Christ. To set the table, Mr. Obama opened the week with a reform proposal that was generally in line with what he's been pushing for months, except this one is even more expensive and includes price controls. Bloody hell, it just never ends.
As you may be aware, opinion polls show many Americans are conflicted about healthcare reform. If you're a supporter of Democrat proposals, one way to spin these polls is to say Americans oppose Obamacare until…wait for it…they know the details of the president's plan. Well, of course – Americans have a long history of favoring government handouts as long as they perceive someone else is paying for them.
Readers:
I am curious to know how many of you would agree with the following statement:
"Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it's time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country's leaders don't see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political ‘representatives' (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the ‘terrible health care problem.' It's clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don't get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in."
If you think there is merit to the above thoughts, you too may be qualified to burn down your own house and fly a plane into an IRS office building in Austin, TX.
The quote is from an online posting by 53-year old computer programmer Joe Stack, who this morning set fire to his own suburban house, drove to the airport, and then killed himself when he flew his Piper Cherokee PA-28 into a building in northwest Austin which housed hundreds of Internal Revenue Service employees. (The IRS has a large subsidiary headquarters in Austin -- miraculously, it appears only one person besides Stack was killed.) Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell dismissed the crash as an "isolated incident," but you have to wonder how long it will be before the next "incident," if the corporate vampires continue to suck money and life from ordinary Americans while enjoying the benefits of being too big to fail -- as 47 million face every day without health insurance, and unemployment remains stubborn at 10%. Mr. Stack was at least (self)employed and was affluent enough to own a private plane, but he sure as hell was angry anyway. I have a feeling he is only the tip of the iceberg.
I'm troubled that I agree with every line of Mr. Stack's rant above – am I next? I don't own a plane, but I too am self-employed; and I don't have health insurance because there is no point in paying the monthly premiums – the insurers will simply deny all your claims and stick you with astronomical bills anyway, as I have discovered three times in the past four years, under three different insurance plans. I am just as angry as Mr. Stack is about the appalling imbalance of power between corporations and ordinary American citizens, but I have no desire to kill any overpaid CEOs. Then again, I don't feel hopeless about our future; life has been good to me, knock on wood – but what about the tens of millions who have given up hope? Who will be the next person to snap, the next person whom shocked neighbors describe as "mild-mannered," to walk into an office and gun down the HR manager because, like Mr. Stack, they cannot continue to pretend anymore that life is okay in 2010 America?
Mr. Stack's full suicide note was, unsurprisingly, taken down by his web hosting company -- but you can still read the full monty here. Take a look, and ask yourself, how different are any of us from Mr. Stack except for the kamikaze raid? And what does this say about the state of our nation?
By Enrique on February 18, 2010, at 12:28AM
Despite the fact the U.S. is currently running a trillion-dollar deficit, the American public at large still seems blissfully ignorant of the sacrifices we are going to have to make over our lifetimes to pay off our obscene debts. Rather than confront the reality that massive tax hikes and spending cuts are going to have to be enacted in the less distant future, most of us would prefer to continue electing politicians who tell us we can have our cake and eat it, too. The result has been the growth of government at all levels, to the point that public servants have become our masters.
One story that has been getting more attention recently has been the exorbitant retirement benefits local governments have conferred on their employees. Over the last decade, elected officials have made generous promises to public sector workers, represented by gold-plated pension funds that now threaten to bankrupt cities and states. Can we finally stop kidding ourselves about the nobility of public service? These people are parasites.
One of the things that I never understood about Dick Cheney was that he said very little when he was in power and won't shut up now that he is out of power. As Vice President, Cheney mostly talked in the lead up to the Iraq War where he lied to us about Muhammad Atta's links with Saddam Hussein. In addition, Cheney along with Rummy were delusional about how easy the Iraq War would be. Once Bush took his thumping in 2006 and Condi took more of a role, Cheney sort of disappeared. He has now resurfaced not only to attack the Obama administration but he is attacking George W Bush's policies.
When told that the Bush Administration read the Shoe Bomber his rights, Cheney said that was wrong. When Bush ended the practice of secret prisons and waterboarding, Cheney also stated that it was wrong to do that. So what gives? It is clear that this isn't just a partisan attack but he's at war with a lot of people.
I think Cheney honestly believes that America is in great danger if we don't do what he believes is necessary. I also believe Cheney is unfortunately a super pragmatist. By that I mean he'll do anything to achieve a result even if he has to ignore the Constitution. When we are at war, Cheney wants to throw out the rule book. The problem is that the Executive Branch/Army swears to uphold and defend the Constitution that Cheney is shitting on. When we look back at history, we see many cases of Constitutional abuses during wartime. Throwing Japanese-Americans in internment camps without due process (And doing nothing to German-Americans) was an enormous abuse of the Constitution. I truly believe one of the reasons that another 9/11 hasn't happened is that we have treated Arab-Americans fairly.
The best way to keep America safe is to go after terrorist groups – something Obama has done even more than Bush with the surge in Afghanistan, the capture of a high Taliban official this week, and the increase of drone attacks. Another way to keep America safe is to not have the world hate it. Obama is working on that and doing much better.
It is fair to criticize Obama's and Bush's tactics in the War on Terror. But Cheney's remedies aren't even Constitutional! And he is lying when he states Obama pretends we aren't at war.
I just want Cheney to go away. He is still whining that Obama bashed him for two years. IT WAS A CAMPAIGN! Dick, what did you expect Obama to say? Now you are waging a campaign and I don't even know why? You claim Obama dithered on Afghanistan but you didn't exactly light the world on fire in Afghanistan. You had five deferments so it appears that you aren't willing to die for your country. In the 1990s you spoke of how difficult it would have been for George HW Bush to attack Baghdad because it would have been impossible to control after the fall of Saddam but you didn't tell us that in 2002-2003. You are the worst Vice President in American history because you forgot your role is to - as John McCain said, check the president's pulse and break ties in the Senate.
By Enrique on February 10, 2010, at 8:01PM
You may be familiar with the work of the Innocence Project. They describe themselves as "a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice." Last week, the Project celebrated the milestone exoneration of its 250th client since its founding in 1992. Well, I don't suppose "celebrated" is the right word…
Many rightwingers claim to be in favor of limited government, but then make excuses for government overreach in the areas of national security and law enforcement. For our story this week, let's have a look at how our unfounded fears of criminals getting off on technicalities end up ruining the lives of patriotic Americans.
The purpose of a judiciary is not only to interpret laws but to draw a line. For instance, we allow people the right to own some pretty powerful guns/arms but we don't want people to own rocket launchers or nuclear weapons. Even with free speech, we can't make threats but we can call porn freedom of expression. The problem with money is that when there are no limits, it corrupts.
The Supreme Court's decision to allow unions and corporations no limits when it comes to campaign advertising is potentially disastrous. If a Senator changes his vote because he got some free stuff, we call that bribery. However, if a Senator changes his vote because he got a campaign contribution, it is called free speech? Now the theory is that with limits, we can give enough money to show approval or support a cause but not enough single handedly to change a Senator's mind. Yet, with corporations able to spend unlimited capital (something which they have a lot of) that may be enough to let the banking committee's ignore their outrageous bonuses despite owing their existence to the federal government.
What compounds this problem is that many politicians leave politics for very lucrative business positions that makes one wonder how they were able to get such a cushy job in the first place? A Senator's voting record should not be a reward when they leave politics for a private sector job that relies on government contracts. If corporations and unions have more money in the system, this problem will only get worse. This "free speech" is why we have the military industrial complex and now what appears to be the health industrial complex.
Now this court decision won't change elections dramatically but if corporations and unions can spend without limits on advertising, why have limits for people? Limits allow a middle class man like me to have just as much speech as Bill Gates which I think is essential for a Democracy. Both of us can give 2,000 dollars to Obama to show our support, but if the limits are done away with, Gates will have far more influence to the point where I may feel like 3/5 of a person.
With the amount of corruption and money in our political system, the US is looking increasingly more like Mexico. How did Joe Lieberman voice only a year ago to change Medicare eligibility to 55 and then when it came to an actual vote, he stayed with the status quo. I'd follow the money.
Think of all the things you would do for the right price. If someone gave me enough money, I would do a lot of things that may be immoral or unethical; why should Congress behave any differently? Do we really want more money in our political system? Do we feel more free as individual Americans by the Supreme Court ruling? This decision makes government, big business and unions more powerful… something that doesn't appear conservative.
By Enrique on February 3, 2010, at 8:07PM
Happy Super Bowl week, dear readers! Super Bowl season has its own MSM clichés, and one of the more tiresome is that more people watch the advertisements than the game. Oh c'mon, that's just silly. When a pollster calls and asks you if you watch the Super bowl for the ads, don't be a dumbass and say "yes." Christ. You're not even going to remember any of them the next day. For fun, when you go into work on Monday, ask your colleagues to name five companies that advertised during the Super Bowl. More than likely, they'll remember a mascot or a gimmick, but they'll have a hard time naming five brands. Try it, it's good for laugh. You're welcome.
One of the advertisers they won't remember is the one paying for a pro-life ad featuring college football star Tim Tebow. You may have heard some lawyers and so-called "women's groups" are whining about CBS agreeing to run a politically charged spot. For our story this week, let's manufacture some outrage over the fact that politics poisons everything. Jesus, can't we just a watch a football game between two teams we don't care about without all the drama?
"I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It's interesting: he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he's gone a long way to become a leader of this country, and past so much history, in just a year or two. I mean, it's something we don't even think about. I was watching, I said, wait a minute, he's an African American guy in front of a bunch of other white people. And here he is president of the United States and we've completely forgotten that tonight -- completely forgotten it. I think it was in the scope of his discussion. It was so broad-ranging, so in tune with so many problems, of aspects, and aspects of American life that you don't think in terms of the old tribalism, the old ethnicity. It was astounding in that regard. A very subtle fact. It's so hard to talk about. Maybe I shouldn't talk about it, but I am. I thought it was profound that way."
First, there's the obvious irony that Chris Matthews apparently only forgot "for an hour" that Obama is black, which would seem to indicate we are not in a post-racial era at all. For all the subjects in that speech, the moment where the President directly chastised the Supreme Court as they sat before him, the promises made on top of those not yet kept from his campaign, who was thinking about Obama's blackness? If you read Matthews' remarks and thought "What does that have to do with anything?" you are probably part of the post-racial America he's thinking of. If you share his way of processing things, not so much. Count me among those who were completely confused. Tribalism? Both Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann were clearly rattled by what they were hearing. It reminds me of a rant several years back from Chris Rock when he said calling Colin Powell "well spoken" was not a compliment. "He's an educated man. What voice were you expecting to come out of his mouth?" Had Matthews been remarking on the reaction Obama was getting, it might well have made some sense. But his fascination with Obama's delivery smacks of what Rock criticized. Yes, our first black President gave a major speech and not once sounded like Malcolm X or Al Sharpton. As far as I can tell, Chris Matthews was the only person on earth who was surprised by that. Well, maybe Harry Reid.
But Matthews wasn't done making confusing statements that night, as he came back under 90 minutes later to say this:
"I went in the room tonight, you could feel it wasn't there tonight and that takes leadership on his part, to get us beyond those divisions."
It takes leadership to get people to simply listen to what you're saying rather than consciously think about your skin tone? Does anyone have that problem with Michael Steele? When James Carville speaks, do you find yourself so enthralled with his odd-shaped head that you can't listen to what he's saying? If so, apparently it just means they're bad leaders, not that you need to take a serious look at your priorities. If you didn't previously hear the quote above and didn't know who said it, what did/would you think of it? Had those exact same words been spoken by Lindsey Graham, wouldn't there be a media firestorm? Olbermann and Maddow would have roast Matthews on a spit if he worked for Fox News and said that. If Matthews gets a free pass because he's an animated Obama supporter, what does that say about the standards we hold people to? Harry Reid was harshly criticized for using the word "negro", even in a context where he seemed to be ignorant rather than actively offensive. Is Matthews' choice of words any better than Reid's? Is a racist remark made in ignorance really any better than one made in hatred? Whether the person in question is a politician or a pundit with years of experience, shouldn't we expect them to know better?
Barack Obama was elected under the guise of change and transformation. This dream is gone, but not solely by his hand. There are others to blame for his failures. I would admit that Obama did inherit many problems from past administrations, but a transformational leader does not continue to place these blames at the heart of his own failures.
Obama blaming Bush, and he did so at least five times last night, is like Ronald Reagan blaming Harry Truman for the problems with the Soviet Union. Reagan inherited the Cold War, but that did not stop him from producing solutions to solve the problem. Franklin D. Roosevelt inherited the Nazi problem from Woodrow Wilson. Wilson could have insisted on European reconstruction and reunion after the Great War, but instead he simply pulled the United States back into isolationism and that led to the rise of Nazi Germany. Not once did Reagan or FDR blame the guy before them for their current problems.
The fact is Obama ran for President knowing what challenges laid before him. He made promises that he would fix the enormous problems we are facing today. He claimed to know how to do it. He even had an unprecedented majority congress to pass his bills and agenda and overwhelming popularity with the people and the world community following his election.
The speech last night gave new meaning to the word "Rhetoric".
8:00 – Flipping channels checking out the pre-speech coverage. On MSNBC, do you ever get the impression Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann don't like each other? Pelosi and Biden seem in good spirits; I wonder if they have discussed who will use the baseball bat on any Republican who shouts "You lie!"? On CNN, Wolf Blitzer seems to always be wishing he were somewhere other than at work, like wearing linen pants and sipping a cognac.
8:05 – CNN reporting that Obama's speech will contain a call for Congress to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and allow gay folks to serve openly in the military. This is like dropping raw meat in a tank full of socially conservative sharks. Will Republicans seek to exploit this wedge issue to their benefit (again)?
8:06 -- I know this is shallow, but the president's teeth look slightly less perfectly white than I recall. How much does anyone want to bet that Obama has been sneaking the occasional cigarette outside the Oval Office? I would!
8:08 – Obama looks confident, good body language. A friend texts to say "better b speech of his life – again," and I respond "great, if follow thru of his life ensues".
8:15 – Obama returns once again to a post-partisan stance, and comes out fully populist. As it should be, methinks. He's tied the present shithole to what got us in this mess, and in turn ties the campaign-era demand and promise of hope back to the here and now. "Change hasn't come fast enough" for many Americans, he acknowledges.
8:18 – "We all hated the bank bailout." – Republicans see the cameras panning across their side, and reluctantly applaud.
8:20 – Looks like the proposed fee on big banks to recover TARP money is a hit idea.
8:21 – I'm surprised how much fun Obama seems to be having in spite of the stakes. He gently made fun of himself and the Republicans when his litany of tax cuts didn't garner any GOP applause.
8:24 – Whoop, there it is: "I am calling for a new jobs bill TONIGHT."
By Enrique on January 27, 2010, at 9:49PM
Last night, President Barack Obama delivered a smashing State of the Union Address in which he promised to freeze spending on non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans affairs, non-entitlement, non-healthcare reform, non-stimulus items. In other news, this is the week Guantanamo Bay was supposed to be closed. So, you know, he makes a lot of promises. Obama also promised that government would continue picking winners and losers, and that what the economy really needs is more central planning. I'm sure that's non-change we can believe in.
In other-other news, the U.S. Supreme Court found greedy corporations not guilty of improperly influencing elections, due to a technicality called the First Amendment. Patriotic Americans and New York Times editorialists were outraged at the idea of politically-connected corporations possibly manipulating lawmakers. I mean, can you imagine?
But you can read about that stuff anywhere, dear readers. For our story this week, let's talk about prison rape. You're welcome.
Free speech and the First Amendment is a touchy situation because the courts have to draw a line, but we all have a different idea of where the line should be drawn. Oliver Wendell Holms once wrote about shouting fire in a crowded theater would be an overreach of free speech when he stated: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." We can all agree that premeditated lies can cause someone to sue for liability and defamation of character. However, satire of public officials is acceptable as Jerry Falwell found out when he lost his court case to Larry Flynt despite the emotional distress Falwell claimed.
Last night I watched the free speech documentary on HBO entitled "Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech." The first section of the documentary featured our old buddy Ward Churchill. Since 2005, I've been writing for 411 Politics and never once wrote about Mr. Churchill. Churchill wrote an op-ed essay after 9/11 where he wrote of American foreign policy abuses which may have been the cause of 9/11. In addition what got him the majority of the attention was his stance that the victims were not innocent. For 41 straight days the O'Reiley Factor reported on Churchill and conservative watchdog groups pressured the university to fire him. Since they couldn't fire him for writing an op-ed essay, after all it is his opinion; they came up with some charges of exaggeration and plagiarism and fired him. Of course had he never written the essay, he would never have been fired. In 2007 he sued the university and won.
What is unbelievable is that his take on 9/11 isn't that out of line. Ron Paul also blamed American Imperial Foreign Policy on 9/11 and he had a lot of support. On the question of whether or not the victims were innocent, one could argue that in a Democracy, the citizens are responsible for their government's actions since it is a government by the people. Where I disagree with Churchill is that some people who died may have opposed American intervention in other countries and some could have been immigrants that had nothing to do with foreign policy. When a Native American complains about the "white man" taking their land, I remind them that my family did not come to America until the 1920s and they weren't exactly welcomed here either. Nevertheless, he should not have been fired for stating his views just as I should not be fired for commenting on his views.
The other free speech abuse that caught my eye was the student that put tape on a shirt that stated: "Homosexuality is Shameful." He was ordered to remove the shirt because it could have caused a disruption to the other students learning. The student had Court precedent on his side when the Court in the Tinker decision allowed students to wear wristbands protesting the Vietnam War. There is a legitimate argument to be made that the First Amendment doesn't apply to schools. After all, a teacher can tell students to quiet down when the teacher is talking. However, a shirt is expression and it is no different than a student saying homosexuality is a sin during a classroom debate.
We need to protect our First Amendment rights no matter how offensive some speech can be; Nazis and gay bashers have a right to be heard as well as long as they do so peacefully. In the next couple days I will be commenting on the latest controversial 5-4 decision to allow corporations and unions more power to influence campaigns in the name of free speech. This is where I will draw the line in the sand.
I first heard about comments made by South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer on the Rachel Maddow Show. Here are his quotes from a town hall meeting:
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
During the town hall meeting, Bauer said he "can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina."
I never doubted there are politicians who think this way, but most of them have more sense than to say these things out loud. They usually hide behind claiming it's wrong to spend tax dollars to help the poor. No doubt there are people who really feel that way, and those people get upset when someone equates their position to being indifferent to the needs of others or not being charitable. They find themselves so accused because those who really don't care about others hide among their ranks. Lots of people who oppose government run social programs give their time and money to charity, so to be perfectly clear, I am not calling them out. Some commenters here have pointed out that while Christ advocated for giving to others, he never made mention of government involvement. I think that's a valid point, so the whole "Christians who oppose social programs are hypocrites" argument doesn't hold up.
I don't think it was possible for Andre Bauer to more blatantly say "poor people are stupid" without just coming right out and saying it. He also comes right out and says that aid to the poor should be cut off to keep them from reproducing. It isn't possible for someone to say such things unless they harbor a belief that poor people are inherently inferior to others. As I stated in a previous article, while there are opportunities to escape poverty, there aren't nearly enough for everyone with a work ethic to succeed. The fact is, poverty is primarily an accident of birth, not a natural consequence of lacking intelligence, ability or ambition. As anyone struggling to find work in this economy can tell you, having a four-year degree or other developed skill set does not guarantee success. You can take actions to improve your chance to succeed, but that's really it.
What of Bauer's suggestion that food be cut off to keep the poor from reproducing? I remember the first time I saw a commercial for the Christian Children's Fund. I was four years old, seeing images of starving children in impoverished countries. I thought "Why do people there have kids if they can't afford to feed them?". Personally, I lack any desire to procreate, so it's hard to understand most people's natural inclination toward parenthood. Maybe poor kids are born because birth control is unavailable to the poorest people. Maybe it's because the act of conceiving them is one of the few forms of pleasure the deeply impoverished can afford. Maybe it's because there are welfare queens. Or maybe the poor feel they have just as much of a right to live what they see as a full life as anyone else. Wages in America have stagnated. The proportion of people who can be classified as the working poor has never been higher, and there aren't openings for good jobs just waiting to be filled by those with the drive to claim them. Our economy has been shedding middle class manufacturing jobs for years, with only low paying service jobs to replace them. Bauer looks at those who have been forced into that position as "the problem". His take on poverty is to solve it by ensuring that poor people cease to exist.
