A collection of my thoughts on politics, society, technology, life...whatever...read and enjoy...and think!
Monday, June 27, 2005
Priorities
Governmental Protection for Flag Burners
In spite of all you have seen and heard, there is no Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. We have freedom of speech and freedom of the press - in other words, of the spoken and written word. While our rights to freedom of assembly, freedom to petition and freedom of religion give us a great deal of latitude toward the afore mentioned freedom of expression, the framers did not, in my opinion, ever intend to completely open the door to all forms of expression.
In our time, as in years past, actions speak louder than words. Ideas, however forceful, can suffer greatly in the face of deeds. Some forms of expression are dangerous, like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. Some are hypocritical (as well as immoral and illegal), like killing an abortion doctor. And some are outright treasonous, like burning the flag and spitting on soldiers. The founding fathers were nothing if not insightful. They new the dangers of opening some doors too far.
Guaranteeing Citizen's Rights to Enemy Combatants
Civil rights guaranteed by the American Constitution apply to American citizens first, legal residents second, legally visiting aliens next. Nowhere were the rights guaranteed by the Constitution meant to apply to foreign citizens and soldiers intent on doing us harm. I fully agree that as a nation, we need to take the high road when dealing with military prisoners. The isolated abuses at Abu Gharaib and (if any) at Guantanamo were/are wrong. But what is more wrong is to place the lives and rights of those prisoners above the lives and rights of American soldiers and citizens. Let's not forget, however, that it was the military that blew the whistle on itself in Iraq...not the ACLU.
Rights of a Murderer vs Rights of the Unborn
It never fails to amaze me that ACLU places the right to life of a convicted, even confessed murderer over the right to life of an innocent unborn child. I recognize that there are extenuating situations in both cases, but the ACLU's stance on these two issues are hypocritical, immoral and indefensible. I do not completely agree with the Catholic church's stand on capital punishment, but I do understand it, and respect it because it is consistent with their stand on abortion. I can even understand supporting capital punishment and limited abortion ( as I do). The ACLU, however, has it all backwards.
Connected with these are the ACLU's opinion that children should not be required to notify their parents when seeking an abortion. There is also protecting the ability for twelve-year-olds to get condoms from their school nurse whether their parents approve, or not. The ACLU puts these under the overall category of reproductive freedom. What freedom is there, however, for the aborted fetus? In most cases, the life of the murderer is beyond repair, whether the fault of society or parents. The unborn, however, is a clean sheet of paper, full of promise and potential. Whatever your position on abortion and capital punishment, you can't deny that the ACLU values the life of the guilty over the innocent.
Conclusions
I didn't even mention the ACLU's work on selective religious freedom, legalizing drugs, protecting illegal immigrants, etc. And still, not a word in defense of the citizens of New London about to be evicted from their homes. According to the ACLU, it isn't a violation of civil rights if person B wants person A's land and only has to promise the city more taxes in order to get it. Clearly, the ACLU's priorities are all screwed up. Dad would have a field day with them. Instead of supporting and defending civil rights, they support and defend excess, irresponsibility, indiscretion and treason. Yeah, that makes sense.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
How the news SHOULD have read on June 23, 2005...
Washington DC, June 23, 2005
Today, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the actions of the city of New London, CT in the case of Kelo v New London, violated the 5th amendment property rights of the homeowners in the Fort Trumbull section of that city. Chief Justice Rehnquist issued the following statement: "We find it deplorable that any municipality would consider the potential tax revenues of a new development to outweigh the right to be secure in their homes that citizens ought to expect. Closing factories and laying-off or relocating people from one facility to another in order to increase revenue may be acceptable corporate practice. Governments, however, are not businesses concerned with the bottom line to the exclusion of all else."
The Chief Justice continued, "The neighborhood in question was not a blight on the city, but rather, a thriving working class community. Some residents can trace back generations in the same houses. But, regardless of the state of the neighborhood, ownership under such actions may not be transferred to another private party. Public use means city owned and operated for the free use of all citizens, or for their direct measurable benefit. If this court consented to this action, no one's property would be safe. All that would be required is for someone with enough means or influence who is envious enough of another's property and greedy enough to try, to say they want that land for their use and will buy it by promising huge pay-offs to the city - some of which, no doubt, would end up in the pockets of city officials. This smacks ofnothing short of totalitarianism, and this court will have no part of it."
Acting on this ruling, the District Attorney for the city of New London issued arrest warrants for the Mayor, Planning Commissioner, and several other city officials. Those arrested are being charged with violating the residents civil rights. Meanwhile, in the city's Fort Trumbull section, the party started shortly after the decision was announced, and has continued into the evening. The fireworks over the Thames River can be seen for miles in all directions. Every face bears a broad smile andevery porch bears at least one American flag...
Oh, if only......
Friday, June 24, 2005
An Eerie Silence
Not a peep.
Can you believe it?
It's been a day and a half and since the Supreme Court declared all home and property owner's rights null and void. A day and a half...and yet not a word from the ACLU. NOTHING! No posts on their website. No public statements. Nothing in the press. The silence is, in fact, quite deafening.
Um, excuse me? Isn't it their job to defend the Bill of Rights? Isn't it them we are supposed to call when government tramples our liberties? Oh yeah, that's right, they only challenge decisions made by conservatives. They only oppose laws that have the support of two thirds or more of the population. Heaven forbid they disagree with their embedded mole on the federal bench (aka Justice Ginsburg). It wouldn't do to bite the hand that feeds them. Politics as usual...one hand washes the other, and freedom suffers in the process.
I called the CT ACLU yesterday on my lunch hour. I got no answer so I left a message. Since I occasionally get an editorial published, I identified myself as a journalist, and asked about the ACLU's opinion on the New London decision. I figured they would most definitely have a reaction, or at least a prepared statement and I could use it in an article. I made sure I was courteous, and not baiting. I sincerely wanted to know what they felt.
Seriously, I expected the ACLU to be upset, since this was a clear violation of constitutionally protected rights. I thought, finally, here's a chance to bring conservatives together with the ACLU on a cause both sides would feel is worth fighting for. But nothing. Almost thirty-six hours and no reply. It seems like they are too busy making sure the MILITARY PRISONERS at Guantanamo Bay are getting three squares a day while they curse and throw excrement at the guards.
Well, we had nice weather the last two days, they might have been on vacation. I suppose I can give them until Monday afternoon.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
The Crime of the Century
I wonder if this means I don't have to pay property taxes anymore since apparently I don't really own my house, but rather the town does. Oh, what's the use, they'll just call it rent, instead.