The Texas House of Representatives, where even the Democrats have their heads stuck so far up their booties that they can’t shake ‘em, have approved a bill that would forbid sexy cheers and allow require schools to punish “overtly sexually suggestive” routines performed by cheerleaders.

Wal-Mart is promising a chain dance all the way to the Supreme Court. “If Texas cheerleaders can’t shake their booties, consumers will stop watching half-time shows on television. This will dilute the value of our advertising dollar,” said Wal-Mart spokesman, Marty Heires.

Okay, okay. I made up that last part. But you believed it.

Given that the world seems to be spinning out of control, with legislatures concerning themselves over the rotational characteristics of cheerleader buttocks, I can’t exactly blame you.

Blinded by the pie,
Wrapped up in a mousse
Another runner from the Right…uh, Left….

The pie-throwing stories are not new. By now, many of you may know that Ann Coulter and William Kristol were hit by idiot protesters throwing pies and that Pat Buchanan received a “dressing down.”

Intolerance is nothing new, either. It afflicts people regardless of which political persuasions they claim.

My own personal opinion is that it primarily afflicts those who haven’t fully thought through their own positions. Like homophobes fearful of becoming gay if they spot a homosexual, those who have no real sense of their own self cannot tolerate anyone different and still feel safe.

Should there be limits to tolerance? Yes. But the boundaries, the limits, are pretty expansive. Mere speech — even “hate speech” — should be not just constitutionally-protected and countered by more speech, not physical attacks, but should be tolerated and even attended-to.

My own blog has received comments from some pretty hateful people in the past, but I let the posts get through the moderation system I have in place to block spammers, anyway. Then I try to respond in a way that highlights their hate, or stupidity, as the case may be. (Ironically, some of the most heated comments surrounded one of my articles about Mel Gibson’s The Passion in which I argued that we should not jump to the conclusion that it was anti-semitic as some were doing before they had even seen it!)

At any rate, I would advocate intolerance for pie-throwing and other physical assaults. When someone throws a pie at someone because of what they said, law enforcement should throw the book at ‘em.

People like Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter are dangers to our society because of the way in which they present their “arguments” — all bluster, name-calling and no substance. It’s funny and entertaining to those incapable of recognizing the lack of thought. Heck, it’s sometimes funny and entertaining to those of us who can recognize the lack of thought.

But it’s no reason to waste a perfectly good pie.

A recent editorial in a high school newspaper set off a furor when the editor opined that there were problems in the school; problems that should be resolved.

This was not CNN, not CBS and not Faux News, which would have presented the opinion piece as “real news” and not an opinion, anyway.

But the perhaps now not-so-intrepid reporter got something she didn’t bargain for. In exchange for making true statements in her opinion piece about actual events that had happened to her, she was yanked into the counselor’s office, “berated and accused of setting back progress in that department by 30 years.”

One can only wonder just how bad things must’ve been 30 years ago.

The “judge” has — well, sort of — made a decision on the question.

Actually, as Ray from misinformation.org put it in his comment to that post, the “judge” essentially side-stepped the issue. To add salt to the wound, he was either incredibly stupid, or deliberately disingenuous, in the way he chose to do so.

On page 3 of his published opinion, James P. Kleinberg, “Judge” of the Superior Court (g-d forbid I should ever practice before him) stated “Movants claim to be ‘journalists.’”

I’ll pause while you wipe from your keyboard the drips of contempt. The “judge” made both his ignorance and his contempt all the clearer in the footnote to that comment:

Some might refer to the moving parties as “bloggers.” The site www.dictionary.reference.com defines blog as “online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a web page; also called a Weblog, Web log.” Apple Computer, Inc. v. Doe (March 11, 2005) Sup.Ct.Sta.Clara.

Yeah, that’s how I’d characterize AppleInsider and PowerPage, two e-zines that provide virtually no personal information regarding the day-to-day lives of their owners or writers. Heaven forbid the “judge” should check a more encyclopedic definition on Wikipedia.

In fairness, it’s difficult to criticize the “judge.” The opinion comes from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. For those who don’t know, the closest thing Santa Clara appears to have to a “real” newspaper is The Santa Clara, “proudly serving Santa Clara University since 1922.” This is not to put down The Santa Clara, but with his lack of experience, it would not be surprising to hear that “Judge” Kleinberg thinks that the San Francisco Chronicle is just a repetitive publication of War and Peace.

On the other hand, this “judge” may be gunning for a spot alongside Justice Kennard on the California Supreme Court: He notes that “any casual student” of free speech issues knows that free speech isn’t really free. “[It] is rife with complexities and restrictions.” (Apple, supra, at p. 3.) It’s the “restrictions” column to which the “judge” wishes to add his weight. Kennard — who has yet to meet a constitutional freedom she likes — would be proud.

At page 4, he notes that “Apple has maintained that the information published by the moving parties qualifies as trade secrets under California law.” Well, that settles it. Someone, Apple claims, stole their trade secrets. In perhaps the only correct statement of law in his opinion, the “judge” points out that you’re not allowed to steal trade secrets in California.

What he fails to make note of is that not even Apple is claiming that AppleInsider or PowerPage stole those trade secrets. In fact, there does not appear to be any allegation that either AppleInsider or PowerPage have done anything illegal. Apple just wants them to cough up their sources, so that — sooner or later — Apple can find out who did steal their secrets. It may be the case that whoever told AI and PP the gossip that they published stole the information; it might not be the case — those parties may be innocent of any crimes, as well. They may have heard it from someone who heard it from someone who….

Nobody knows yet. And perhaps they never will. For all Apple knows, the person or persons who told AI and PP the story heard it at a party from someone they don’t even know.

But that didn’t stop the “judge” from steadfastly reinforcing “this state’s strong commitment to the protection of proprietary information…which may…outweigh First Amendment rights.” (Apple, supra, at p. 6.) In the face of this, “movants’ papers and argument is [merely] a recitation of the obvious: the terms and importance of the First Amendment and the value of free speech which this Court recognizes [couldn't give a rat's ass about].” (Apple, supra, at p. 7.)

The “judge” may feel he knows a newspaper when he sees it — and he may have decided that AI and PP are no newspapers — but apparently he’s not so adept at reading Schoen v. Schoen 5 F.3d 1289, 1293 (1993) where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated, “The journalist’s privilege is designed to protect investigative reporting, regardless of the medium used to report the news to the public.” The Court further stated, “What makes journalism journalism is not its format but its content.” (Ibid.) The format of both AI and PP may very well be the format of blogs; the content of both is technology news.

Schoen further stands for the proposition that even non-confidential information — and in the Apple case, we have the stronger fight over confidential informants — is protected. But in Schoen, even where information was obtained from an informant who did not have an expectation of privacy, compulsory discovery via court-enforced subpoena was not permissible. As the Schoen Court, quoting a First Circuit case noted:

The . . . four interests [militating against compulsory discovery] are the threat of administrative and judicial intrusion into the newsgathering and editorial process; the disadvantage of a journalist appearing to be an investigative arm of the judicial system or a research tool of government or of a private party; the disincentive to compile and preserve non-broadcast material; and the burden on journalists’ time and resources in responding to subpoenas.

The court agreed that there was merit to these asserted First Amendment interests. It noted a “lurking and subtle threat” to the vitality of a free press if disclosure of non-confidential information “becomes routine and casually, if not cavalierly, compelled. — Schoen, supra, 5 F.3d at pp. 1294-1295 (bracketed alternation mine; other alternations in the original; citations omitted; footnotes omitted).

Noting the potential damage to the trust between confidential sources and “the press” — which, remember, the Schoen Court indicated was determined “not [based on] its format, but its content” — and the worry that the public would begin to view the press as “an investigative arm of prosecutors and courts[,]” the Schoen Court said,

We find this body of circuit case law and scholarly authority so persuasive that we think it unnecessary to discuss the question further. — Schoen, supra, 5 F.3d at p. 1295.

In the Apple case, the “judge” apparently believes that Apple deposing its own employees would be an “unusual step.” Consequently, even though AI and PP argue that this should be done before any determination that “other sources of information have been exhausted[,]” the “judge” disagrees. Again, the “judge” would do well to read some case law.

After a discussion of the steps taken by plaintiffs in Schoen, the Court notes,

Only by examining a witness live can a lawyer use the skills of his trade to plumb the depths of a witness’ recollection, using to advantage not only what a witness may have admitted in answering interrogatories, but also any new tidbits that usually come out in the course of answering carefully framed and pin-pointed deposition questions. — Schoen, supra, 5 F.3d at p. 1297.

It’s not likely that the number of Apple employees privy to such a significant trade secret is large. Again, in Schoen, the Court said:

The journalist was ordered to disclose his source only after the court held a series of hearings, at which each of the attorneys still alive denied, under oath, that he was the source of the leak. At that point, the only untapped source for the wrongdoer’s identity was the journalist. — Schoen, supra, 5 F.3d at p. 1297.

Similarly, in the Apple case, the journalists should be ordered to disclose their sources only after either a series of hearings held by the court, at which each “exposed” employee still alive denies, under oath, that he is the source of the leak, and at which point the journalists are the only untapped source.

Otherwise, here as in Schoen, “it is too early in the discovery process for [the] journalist privilege to yield.” — Schoen, supra, 5 F.3d at p. 1297.

It’s unclear what connection the title has to the article, but the topic of the article relates to one Ward Churchill, some bizarre comments he made about 9/11 and the “technocrats” of the World Trade Center, with meandering commentary on the subsequent fall-out.

Nitpicking

Frankly, this section is just nitpicking; I can’t resist the “ad homonym” comment. You’ll lose nothing except possibly some quirky entertainment if you skip this part and go to “The Meat of the Matter” below. Here I just note a couple of stylistic or typographical quibbles with the article.

“Ad homonym” — unless this perhaps means it sounds like a commercial — should be spelled “ad hominem.” “Holocaust” is usually capitalized, when used to refer to the actions of the Third Reich against Jews; if one just means to use the ordinary word “holocaust,” it would not be.

Another minor point, regarding rhetoric: Why bother to say that Front Page “sounds eerily like” Storm Front ? [Editor's Note: Front Page here is a Republican e-zine; Storm Front is a white supremacist group.] That’s just the sort of thing that gets people to thinking the writer is some kind of crackpot. Front Page also “sounds eerily like” a Microsoft product. Why not note this? Maybe it’s all part of a worldwide corporate conspiracy to steal Lakotan water by making Churchill look bad.

Seriously, Front Page sounds like a perfectly rational choice for the name of an e-zine. Important news is frequently referred to as “front page news” and it would not surprise me that a group publishing an e-zine thinks what they have to say is important.

The Meat of the Matter

On a more substantive note, I’m not sure I understand why the writer feels that “some sort of reprimand against Churchill is in order.” I mean, if Churchill really is equating WTC victims and, by extension, all Americans, with Nazis, I don’t like it either. As will be well-known to regular readers of my blog, I’m a Jew and my interactions with Holocaust deniers causes me to dislike people who misuse that history; the writer has given me reason to believe Churchill does both. (For the record, much of what’s contained in the linked Zundelsite article is false. The only part of it which is true is that I refused to supply resources for them to publish anti-semitic material. Oh, that, and they spelled my name right. Almost every other detail was made up by Bradley Smith.)

That said, I don’t see why a writer would believe that anyone should be reprimanded for publishing what the writer himself described as “solidly researched.” Until I read the article on thatcoloredfella’s blog, I’d never heard of Ward Churchill. I don’t know enough about him to assess Churchill’s work. And I’ll confess that I have doubts about the research of anyone who compares WTC “technocrats” — whatever Churchill means by that — to “little Eichmanns.”

Truth is, though, that the best response to “solidly researched” arguments we don’t like is counter-argument. There are exceptions. Some “arguments” — Holocaust denial comes to mind — should be ignored for the bigot-produced garbage that they are. Others, such as those promulgated by the Flat Earth Society, are so far into absurdity as to hardly ever be mentioned by the sane. But normally “the marketplace of ideas” serves us best when someone explains why another speaker is wrong.

In the academic environment, fraud, deceit and other deliberate scholarly abuses — and there’s reason to think Churchill may be guilty of some of these — justifiably call for reprimands. Otherwise, reprimands based on content and personal attacks upon a speaker’s heritage — Ralph seems to call for the former; others have engaged in the latter — “save” the “debate” either by distracting us from it, or by killing it.

This is America’s new paradigm, though. You don’t like something someone else is saying? Well, that person should be silenced! If we can’t just outright silence them, can we neutralize them? Does it matter how we do it? Should we spend millions on commercials that lie about them? Should we call them unpatriotic? Shall we accuse them of providing succor to the enemy? Maybe we could just accuse them of being “liberals”? (Personally, I like being called a liberal. The Founders of the United States were all liberals; the Tories who opposed them were conservatives. That’s why today, the destroyers of the Constitution are known as neo-cons; they’re the New Conservatives.)

For many Americans these days, it doesn’t seem that it does matter how it’s done. Just silence the bastards. You want to talk about why you think Bush’s stand on medical malpractice is wrong? Shut up! Tolerance concerning gays? Shut up! Criticize the President? Shut up! Criticize the war? We told you once already: Shut up!

Unfortunately, this paradigm is contributing to the downfall of the United States; one of the greatest experiments in human freedom on earth is coming to an end. A big part of freedom of speech is the freedom to hear. If we don’t listen to others once in awhile — even others with whom we disagree — we block off a significant avenue of learning. The scientific, political and social progression of our country depends upon learning from one another.

If the only thing anyone ever talked about was the bogus idea that the Earth was flat and the Universe revolved around us (sorry, Flat Earthers!), modern science might never have developed. The discoveries of multitudinous scientists, including such greats as Newton and Einstein, would never have been possible. As most intelligent people now understand, without science, you get George Bush.

Without healthy and vigorous political discussions, we cannot avoid error. Do we, as a nation, think the revival of imperialism being driven by large corporations today is a Good Thing™? Shouldn’t we talk about it?

Ultimately, our scholars should be judged on the quality of their work and should not be reprimanded merely for the content of what they say. If Churchill’s work is in the same category as that of the Flat Earthers and the Holocaust deniers, then perhaps he should be reprimanded, fired, or should resign. But if the only reason for wanting to punish him is that he says something others don’t like, that’s not only wrong, but hurts us all.

It’s time to toss this ignorance-inducing “Shut Up!” Paradigm.

And on that note, feel free to use the form below to chime in with your own arguments.

Furthermore, I have forcefully argued against anyone else — liberal or conservative — who would silence criticism, even if it simply involved name-calling, cursing and other non-intellectual forms of “argument.”

So hopefully, you will be curious to understand why I point out in this article that the First Amendment guarantees do not extend and, more importantly, voters cannot afford to allow them to extend to false defamatory statements when those statements are made with knowledge that they are false or with reckless disregard of whether they are false or not.

Perhaps the most famous line relating to the limitations on freedom of speech was written by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Schenck had been convicted of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by participating in the mailing of postcards to men subject to the draft. The postcards said,

If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain. Schenck, supra, 249 U.S. 47 at p. 51.

It further noted, “You must do your share to maintain, support and uphold the rights of the people of this country.” (Schenck, supra, 249 U.S. 47 at p. 51.)

In affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court opinion written by Holmes, citing Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439 (1911), said,

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Schenck, supra, 249 U.S. 47 at p. 52.

The principle that not all speech is protected under the First Amendment has long been held to cover other types of speech, as well, including most notably obscene speech. This is why, although America’s appetite for hardcore pornography is unquenchable, you will not find hardcore pornographic publications at your local grocer. It’s also why in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), the United States Supreme Court upheld the explusion of a student who gave a lewd speech at a school assembly.

Some speech, therefore, is unprotected because of the type of speech; some speech that might otherwise be protected loses its protection because of the location or venue of the speech. The lewd speech of Fraser, for example, was interdicted because it occurred during a high school assembly, where the school had adequately warned the student against such speech. Shouting “fire” in the middle of a street where there is no danger that crowds may crush themselves to death trying to escape, as in a theater, might not bring the full weight of the law down upon one’s head. But shouting “fire” in a crowded theater transforms the type of speech such that it creates a “clear and present danger,” which the government is entirely justified in preventing.

As noted the other day, in my article “New York Times re Kerry,” another type of speech that is not protected by the Constitution is speech which is defamatory.

So when Adam Sparks, writing on SFGate.com, pens a section entitled “Kerry vs. the First Amendment,” he misunderstands the law. And it does not matter that the speech offered by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth may be deemed “political” speech, or speech critical of a political and public figure. Nor does it matter even if you think the publication of comments by the inaptly-named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is protected under freedom of the press, as well as freedom of speech.

Besides the legal principles discussed in “New York Times re Kerry,” the case of Near v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) makes it clear that politically-motivated speech may, under certain circumstances, not be protected under the First Amendment.

In Near, the County Attorney of Hennepin County, Minnesota, attempted to shut down a newspaper that had published editions,

. . . on September 24, 1927, and on eight subsequent dates in October and November, 1927 . . . which were “largely devoted to malicious, scandalous and defamatory articles” concerning Charles G. Davis, Frank W. Brunskill, the Minneapolis Tribune, the Minneapolis Journal, Melvin C. Passolt, George E. Leach, the Jewish Race, the members of the Grand Jury of Hennepin County impaneled in November, 1927, and then holding office, and other persons. . .. Near, supra, 283 U.S. 697 at p. 703.

The District Court found that The Saturday Press did, indeed, “engage in the business of regularly and customarily producing, publishing and circulating a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper.” (Near, supra, 283 U.S. 697 at p. 706.) The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s judgment against the newspaper.

In overturning that judgment — and upholding the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in this case — the United States Supreme Court noted,

Liberty of speech, and of the press, is also not an absolute right, and the State may punish its abuse. Near, supra, 283 U.S. 697 at p. 708.

Specifically, the Court stated, “Remedies for libel remain available and unaffected.” (Near, supra, 283 U.S. 697 at p. 709.) The problem with Near, then, was not that freedom of speech permits the unfettered publication of any type of statement one might wish to make. The problem was with the “operation and effect” of the statute upon which Minnesota relied.

If we cut through mere details of procedure, the operation and effect of the statute in substance is that public authorities may bring the owner or publisher of a newspaper or periodical before a judge upon a charge of conducting a business of publishing scandalous and defamatory matter — in particular that the matter consists of charges against public officers of official dereliction — and unless the owner or publisher is able and disposed to bring competent evidence to satisfy the judge that the charges are true and are published with good motives and for justifiable ends, his newspaper or periodical is suppressed and further publication is made punishable as a contempt. This is of the essence of censorship. Near, supra, 283 U.S. 697 at p. 713.

The holding of Near, which is still good law, though circumscribed by New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny, thus makes it clear that libel is not constitutionally-protected.

If all I was trying to do here was to say that the Swift Boat Veterans could not libel Kerry — that is, if my sole purpose were to support Kerry — there would be little point to this article. Frankly, for other reasons cited in Sparks’ article mentioned above, I have so far failed to make a definite statement of support for Kerry. Although I confess that I will not be voting for Bush, I have not yet decided if that translates into a vote for Kerry. Again frankly, I’m inclined to vote for the neophyte Edwards more than for Kerry, whom I see almost as a Bush-like “mini-me,” though perhaps without the blatant sell-out of America to large corporate interests. Kerry may benefit from my appreciation of Edwards.

The problem presented by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is much more significant, much bigger than, the problems they present for Kerry. The damage done by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to the political process is paramount. Were Democrats to make false defamatory statements about Bush with knowledge that they are false or with reckless disregard of whether they are false or not I would be equally vocal in calling for the President to sue them for libel.

Americans as a whole seldom elect anyone, including arguably the most powerful person in our country, based upon what he or she says, or even, usually, based on what he or she may do. The majority of the voting population places its bet — and that’s pretty much what it amounts to these days — based upon more emotive considerations. Just like the prettiest lotto card — or perhaps the one promising the bigger pay-out — gets the dollar in the supermarket impulse buy, so, too, is our President elected for reasons that have nothing to do with reality. (To fully appreciate the simile, keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of lottery tickets are empty promises; you’re virtually guaranteed to lose.)

Nevertheless, if there’s to be any hope of an election of the best candidate to the position, there must be some trust that the information brought out in the campaign is, in large part, true. When a slick ad campaign comes along, the voters who might actually be trying to use some other method than “eeny-meeny-miny” have to be able to count on the fact that what they’re hearing and seeing is not flat-out false, a knowing blatant lie aimed only at tarnishing its target. For while the Swift Boat Veterans may know that they are not, in fact, for Truth, a goodly portion of voters will not know that, even when other already-distrusted “news” organizations attempt to present the real story.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected by “freedom of speech,” because of the potential destruction to the hearers. So, too, should the laws against libel be enforced because of the potential destruction to the process of electing our leaders.

The Slim-Fast diet drink company has dumped Whoopi Goldberg from its advertising because its executives are unhappy with remarks the entertainer made last week at a Radio City, New York, fundraiser that mocked President Bush. — “Slim Fast Trims Whoopi From Ads” (July 15, 2004) CBS News.

On the news last night? CNN reported about a group that sits in a room with 15 televisions. The TVs are tuned to follow different stations that might be covering the travels of Kerry and Edwards. Whenever something is said by or about Kerry/Edwards that they don’t like, someone immediately hops on the phone to that news station and gives them a different spin. So far, of course, “spin” to the Republican party is things like “there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq meant to be used against the United States unless we attack immediately — forget Afghanistan and al Qaeda, this is important!” and “well, maybe there aren’t weapons of mass destruction, but we suddenly remembered al Qaeda! They were working closely with that guy who they hated, Saddam Hussein!” and, of course, “Kerry is, you know, honored by the Viet Cong because he provided them succor. In fact, he never would have gotten three Purple Hearts without their help.” The group, CNN reports, isn’t just reactive in getting out their anti-Kerry/anti-Edwards message; they’re proactively contacting the press. I didn’t record the program, so this is a paraphrase, but CNN said, “They intend that Kerry/Edwards can’t go anywhere to spread their message where it can be heard without the group being involved.” (I tried to find more on this story online, but couldn’t in the time I allotted.)

Also this week, both BBC (Great Britain) and CBS News reported that microfilm containing Bush’s military records have somehow been “damaged” and cannot be retrieved. Coincidence? No doubt.

The part I like the best, though, is when you watch TV and a liberal speaker interrupts a conservative, who rather sanctimoniously says, “I allowed you to speak, Ma’am. Please give me the courtesy of allowing the same.” Then that same conservative, when he is done speaking and the “moderator” turns to the liberal begins interrupting because he doesn’t like that she’s actually able to rebut what he just said — and he talks louder and won’t stop. (I felt like a sports fan. I sat in front of the TV saying, over and over, “Now would be a good time, Ms. Liberal, to repeat the exact same words he spoke to you when you once interrupted him.” The liberal speaker, by the way, did stop the minute he castigated her for interrupting. He did not stop even when both she and the moderator tried to regain control as he was interrupting her.)

What’s screwing the Democrats right now is that many of them — and the rest of us liberals — are trying to continue laboring under the idea that the issues are important. Democrats aren’t fighting dirty enough in that respect, because they allow themselves to be beaten back with comments like, “You must allow me to speak.” All the while, the Republicans have learned that issues have to be avoided. Quips and other attempts to either silence the other side, drown out their message, or send out tons of disinformation — like the decoys and flak put out by submarines or jets in science fiction movies to confuse guided missiles — to ensure that people cannot really talk about and think about the issues.

I don’t advocate that Democrats respond in kind. But somehow, there has to be a way — it would be nice if the wisdom of the crowds could kick in here — to stop such tactics, which only harm our ability to think and make good choices.

“Free speech exercised both individually and through a free press, is
a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.”
                                                                        — Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

“The truth is found when men are free to pursue it.”
                                                                        — Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people
what they do not want to hear.”
                                                                        — George Orwell, 1945

“Any time we deny any citizen the full exercise of his constitutional
rights, we are weakening our own claim to them.”
                                                                        — Dwight David Eisenhower, 1963

“What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that
they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.”
                                                                        — Robert F. Kennedy, 1964

“Go fuck yourself.”
                                                                        — Dick Cheney, 2004

But sometimes I wonder…“am I missing something?”

We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)

Are these people so filled with zeal for their faith that they feel the need to advertise it on the back of their motor vehicle? Does Christ need this kind of PR? I mean, would you jump in the car if this stranger offered you a ride?

In my perfect world, you leave your back bumper alone. I don’t care if your kid is an honor student at a school of one, I just don’t care. I am stuck reading the back of your car, not you, therefore I get final say about what you put back there. Moses had the tablets, Jesus had the Gospels, no one, neither God nor Buddha nor Bart Simpson needs your bumper.

And while we’re on that topic, if you can’t change my religion from your bumper what makes you think you can change my vote? No, that beautiful red, white and blue re-election sticker covering the rusted dent will not be the sign from God that I was looking for — now please at least drive the speed limit.

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” – Karl Marx

So, do these people breath special air? Do they get silly at the mere mention of God? Do these people really feel like they’ve done the Lord’s work when they shout at intersections filled with cars, all coincidentally rolling up their windows? Which commandment is the “thou shalt interrupt traffic” one?

And let’s do the math. Just how many people are supposed to be so moved by this holy work that they say to themselves “I want to do THAT! I want to be just like them! This is what heaven must be like!”?

Just for the record, the spirit I was taught said not to let the left hand know what work of charity the right hand was doing. It’s supposed to be between you and God — not you and Main Street.

Since the whole affair had become one of religion, the vanquished were of course exterminated. — Voltaire (1694 – 1778)

And the scary thing is how quickly some of these folks will start a fight. Let me give you an example, lets say I’m meeting someone for the first time. After small talk my new-found friend drops into our conversation that he’s a specific Christian denomination or belongs to a certain church. I casually answer by saying I’m from a different Christian denomination.

It starts with “the Look,” that “you can’t be serious” look, that look that condemns and demeans and hurts. But the best is yet to come.

Next comes the “I’m exercising my Christian Patience” sigh followed by the “Problem.”

“You see,” my new friend/evaluator of my very worth as a person says, “I can’t believe that any religion calling itself Christian can (fill in the blank here). It’s not (pick one: biblical, scriptural, moral, Christian, American, all of the above). How can you explain (previous topic here) and still follow Christ’s calling?”

Now don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t only happen between people of different Christian denominations, it also happens between believers of the same denomination.

See, here’s where I need things explained to me. I thought that non-Christians would know you were a Christian by the love you showed for everyone, not just to the pre-qualified. Suddenly, in less time than it takes to baptize a baby, I have been challenged, tried and convicted in a court of Christian heresy. I am a heretic, my soul is lost, cast adrift from my one decision not to agree with them.

Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based. — Ambrose Bierce (1842 – 1914), The Devil’s Dictionary

Now combine that highly combustible personality trait with politics and you get not just stupid but a holy kind of stupid. Somehow the “Religious Right” now represents the “Moral Majority” of the country and any candidate that is not endorsed by them is somehow less moral than their candidate? Wait, aren’t these the same kids that can’t play in the same yard with each other because they can’t get along? What happened to the “Look” and the “Christian Patience Sigh”? How about the “Problem,” you guys all have “Problems” with each other but that doesn’t matter in an election year?

Let me get this right, the Word of “Our Savior” is not as much a unifying factor as the Word of “Our Candidate”?

And are these really my choices: Sacred Right Wing Candidate or Spawn of Satan? If I even tried to vote against the religiously-approved candidate would I be smitten upside the head (lovingly, of course) until I saw the error of my ways? In reality, isn’t there a middle ground?

And in reality, aren’t there people of alternate sexual preferences in the “Religious Right? Chances are, if you have to italicize your sexuality, you have no place in the “Majority.” But they’re there. Are you trying to tell me that EVERY delegate to the Republican National Convention is straight?

Or is that just an inconvenience in an election year? Or an inconvenience of reality?

In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point. — Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900)

Let’s see if I can keep up here: Science was created by the Church (capital C here because it was the only church in business in the 1400′s) to further explain God’s creation. Then suddenly, the findings of Science were not agreeing with the Teachings of the Church so it became necessary to push Science underground or face death. This cycle continued as the Church reformed itself and became the churches (small c because there were so many). In the meantime, Science kept going and eventually gained the trust of the People who turned to it to cure disease and improve life (just a few of the many things the church had been working on but never finished).

Eventually Science became a threat to the church and a group calling itself Fundamental said that if it wasn’t in the bible, it wasn’t true, even if they couldn’t agree as to what was in the bible. And to this day they hold great sway in American society. The same group that screamed when the USSR launched the first satellite, howled when Japan became an economic giant, and continues to make noise every time a job gets sent overseas.

Just checking.

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. — George Washington (1732 – 1799)

Perhaps this quote upsets a few people. I found this quote on the web and would have to do significant research to find if it’s even true, but let’s just pretend it is.

Let’s see, if Christianity wasn’t the unofficial “official” religion of the land we wouldn’t have to worry about a “state” religion at all. In fact, according to the founding documents of our nation, not only would there be no “official” religion but there would be tolerance for anyone’s religion (except where bumper stickers are involved). If there actually were that sacred separation of church and state, it would be up to the person to vote what their head and their heart said, not an entity that claimed to speak for us all. Social issues could be tackled without regard as to whether you could partake in all of the rituals of your church.

Justice might not be completely blind but it would be blinder. We wouldn’t have Justices in Alabama use religion as a tool to get headlines nor presidents standing in front of huge religious campaign fundraisers.

And we would stop saying that “God is on our side.” Let’s get very real here folks, God doesn’t care which candidate gets in. Do you really think it matters to the Author of Creation that we have a (fill in the blank) ticket in 2004? Is his/her/its power really limited in any way, shape or form by the number of chads miscounted in a senior citizen community?

Do you really believe that the Plan of Creation rides on either of these candidates getting in?

In my humble opinion, we need to seriously consider separating church and state because it’s not changing anything in the big picture and probably only annoying any higher being associated with our politics. Like we need that, too?

Religion is meant to be bread for daily use, not cake for special occasions. — Author Unknown

If, in fact, this state religion of tolerance came to pass we would have one less facet to our identity. We would still have the usual differences of our sex, our heritage, our upbringing but we would be a step closer to just being American. Just being American is when we’re at our best. Just being American is what unified us in the first place. Just being American led to a remarkable country and some remarkable ideals. Why does it take tragedy for us to just be American and see our strength in our differences?

Ours is an age of criticism, to which everything must be subjected. The sacredness of religion, and the authority of legislation, are by many regarded as grounds for exemption from the examination by this tribunal, But, if they are exempted, and cannot lay claim to sincere respect, which reason accords only to that which has stood the test of a free and public examination. — Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804)

So, to answer my original question from so long ago, “am I missing something?” Yes, yes I am.

As much as I think that religion and politics only make fools of each other, I am grateful that knuckleheads can stand on the street corner and warn me of impending spiritual doom. We have a First Amendment and Freedoms that some in the world envy, some hate.

I am most happy that I live someplace where I can question authority and seek my own answers. In this “Information Age” it’s amazing how many times the facts just don’t speak for themselves. In this time of talk radio and “spun” news, its more important than ever to be able to ask and judge on your own findings and values.

And I am still NOT happy that people outside of my faith think that all Christians are called to stand on the street and shriek at them. The Good News here is that Freedom of Speech goes two ways.

You can always tell them that G-d told you to turn up your radio.

The result is that those who make a living pushing the envelope of “decency” are now finding it harder to do and stay on the air.

Another result is that technology is coming to the aid of those that prefer their life squeaky clean of four-letter words, nudity and violence.

But first, we have to track down and punish the latest high profile offender of public decency. No, not Howard Stern….

Oprah Winfrey.

MAY 4 — In the wake of an Oprah Winfrey show that included explicit talk about teen sexuality (and addressed topics such as rainbows and getting one’s salad tossed), the Federal Communications Commission received more than 1600 letters complaining about the racy March 18 broadcast and demanding that the talk show host be cited for indecency. And since most FCC correspondents were prodded to write by the agency’s Public Enemy Number One, Howard Stern, and ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel, the Oprah complaints are particularly entertaining and vituperative in their decrying of a double standard employed by the fine-happy FCC brass.

So what is the definition of decency?

Howard Stern has built his reputation on being as “indecent” as the FCC will allow. But Oprah Winfrey? What has she done to be lumped into this debate?

Her show of March 18th was supposed to “shock” America by talking about teen sexuality. It went so far as to describe a certain sex act in no uncertain terms called “tossing the salad”. [Editor's note: once you find out you what "tossing the salad" refers to you may be skipping the salad bars during lunch.] This was challenged by Stern and ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel. How is it she can get away with that and someone like Stern could not? Shouldn’t the FCC crack down even harder since the show aired during a time that children could see it?

An excerpt of emails received by the FCC:

My twin nine year old boys had returned from school and were putting on a DVD (Daddy Day Care). The channel was still set from the night before (WJAR-TV) . The[y] heard the word “anal sex” and forgot all about the DVD. They watched for almost twenty minutes before my wife, putting clothes away, walked by the living room and heard a graphic description of how to best please a man orally. She shut off the TV and asked exactly what they had heard. They told her a “Tossed Salad” is where you do “oral sex in the ass.” Then they said “we know what an ass is but whats oral sex?” They went on to ask about anal sex and a host of other graphic topics. What are you doing all day??? This was 4PM for g-d’s sake. The FCC should be fined for not doing their job. Get on the ball and fine Oprah. I DEMAND IT!!!! I hope you’re not holding back because she is black and a woman. This show was OBSCENE……

and my personal favorite ….

The Oprah show described with graphic detail a sexual term known as “tossing salad.” It was so offensive that my child’s head literally exploded. Please ban free speech so this never happens again

(Sorry, I just had to work that one in.)

Just for the record, Stern’s employer was hit with a $495,000 fine for Stern’s comic bit called “Sphincterine.” Stern’s bit was intended to be funny, Oprah’s was intended to be informational. Is that the difference?

The serious question here is this: Is decency defined by who delivers the indecency? Is Oprah’s “hard hitting” journalistic reputation enough to allow her to use of many of the same words and images as Howard Stern and not be fined?

Has her reputation changed the definition of “decency”? (Note: As of this writing, I cannot find any mention of Oprah being fined for indecency.)

It appears by the actions (and inactions) of the FCC that if you’re Howard Stern, you’re kept on a short leash. Oprah appears to have gotten away with it.

While you’re chewing that over, in case you’re overwhelmed by the amount of sex, violence and profanity in YOUR entertainment, technology has come to your rescue.

The ClearPlay DVD player comes equipped with 100 preloaded movie filters and a wide range of titles, from “As Good as It Gets” to “Zoolander.” If customers want more filters, they have to purchase a membership from ClearPlay.

Consumers can now change the content of a major motion picture by the use of this ClearPlay DVD player.

This does raise a few questions, namely … is it that bad? Are the movies being made today really that filled with offensive material?

And if they are, why would someone sensitive to all this want to watch it? Don’t they have the ultimate power of choosing NOT to see the movie entirely?

And does this create some kind of copyright issue?

Aho argues that the ClearPlay DVD player does not violate copyright laws. It provides users with the power over movies they have had for years: the ability to fast-forward or mute scenes they choose not to watch, he said.

I admit that this one confuses me. When a consumer can “wash” the parts of a movie that may offend them, are they watching the same movie as me?

I just don’t see “Saving Private Ryan” being the same film without the very graphic beach landing scene at the beginning. Would “Body Heat” be the same movie without Kathleen Turner and William Hurt spending so much time in bed? Wasn’t the movie predicated on her gaining control of “Ned” with all her womanly powers?

And for the record, even the good guys use profanity in movies. Writers use profanity for effect just like the cinematographer uses shadow and light.

Can you imagine… “Frankly Scarlet, I don’t give a darn”?

So the First Amendment protects all Americans, depending on your reputation. And consumers can now purchase an artistic end product and change it to match their comfort level of offensive content, just as the director envisioned.

Only in America ….