Palin lacks faith in democracy and quits when going gets tough…

Sarah Palin claims she is quitting her governorship of Alaska in part because she wants to effect change by working outside of government. I’m not exactly sure what that is supposed to mean. In this nation public policy is supposed to be made by the democratically (small d) elected government.

There is such a thing as lobbying – private interests who work to influence government. So maybe that is what she means.

Apparently she would rather help pressure government to do things from the outside, hoping to avoid public scrutiny – raise money, work behind the scenes, whip up the base with demogoguery by spouting off narrow-minded hot button issues that appeal more to emotion than rational public policy or accuse anyone who does not agree with her message of lacking patriotism. She could drum up money with her fanatical appeal to further her policy aims — whatever they might be — or to buy fancy clothes for herself and her family as she did with Republican Party funds when she ran with John McCain. Last I heard SarahPac or whatever it is called was still accepting donations.

Maybe she just means she is going to work on behalf of other candidates, but those candidates would be working directly in government.

And maybe she thinks there ought to be some power out there beyond government because she does not agree with the majority of voters at this time.

She claims to have been mistreated by the press. Well join the ranks of all those in public life. That is the ugly price that is paid for freedom of speech. We can’t just arrest people who may say things we don’t like, such as might be done in Iran. And it is true that freedom of the press, guaranteed in the First (the very first mind you) Amendment to the Constitution carries with it the annoying aspect of sometimes protecting those who distort the truth or tell outright lies (including Sarah Palin). Unfortunately, it’s the only way to guarantee an actual free press (and press these days means all types of public dissemination of thoughts and information – there are fewer and fewer newspapers).

Palin through a lawyer has reportedly threatened a blogger with a lawsuit over defamation of character. I think even Palin is aware of the First Amendment but thinks anything unfavorable to her is not covered.

Thanks to a Supreme Court decision called New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964), public figures have a higher standard to meet when trying to prove defamation and libel. It could be done if it is shown a person acted with reckless disregard for the truth and actual malice. But in the blogger’s case, as I understand it, it involved repeating a rumor or rumors that have been circulating about Palin for years, something about awarding construction contracts and personally benefitting when she was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. True? Have no idea. Rumors can be a troubling thing and are often unfair. But if in public life rumors were illegal we’d never find out anything and real corruption would never be investigated. Word from rumors is often how investigations get started and/or how those in power are forced to look into things.

What Palin must be trying to do is intimidate opponents or anyone who might hold her up to public scrutiny. As evidenced by her VP campaign, her mode is to be able to say a lot of things but be questioned very little (and no wonder, have you ever heard her respond to questions?).

Palin also made a weird comment about quitting the governorship (half way through her term) because she did not want to waste the taxpayers’ money by being a lame duck. If she ran again, she would not be a lame duck. And does she mean that anyone who is voted into office should simply quit at the point he or she may not get his or her way? And does she not have an obligation to those who voted for her? I’m not understanding all of this.

(Add 1: An Anchorage Daily News editorial lauded Palin’s accomplishments as governor but said her explanation about not wanting to be a lame duck was “more lame than duck”.)

And I personally detest the political strategy that allows candidates (or potential candidates) to make a lot of noise, make accusations, distort the truth, but then allows them to hide from questions under the guise that questioners are only trying to discredit them – that is sometimes true, but what other way is there? Have FOX news lob leading softball questions to you? Or for that matter have CNN ask leading softball questions? No if you run for political office you should be able to stand up to penetrating questions from all and let the public at large judge. The public is smarter than you think Sarah. Is that what you are afraid of?

A serious question over religion vs. medicine…

Sleepy Eye, Minnesota I think was mentioned in Little House on The Prairie as being a trading post some distance from Walnut Grove, but whatever, this is not about a family that had a problem, consulted a higher authority, and they all lived happily ever after, and there’s no Laura Ingalls, as in the book or TV story.

The mother of a 13-year-old boy, one Daniel Hauser, has fled with her son from their hometown in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota to avoid a court order that he be given chemotherapy treatments. He has been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of cancer.

The boy’s parents supposedly belong to a faith called Nemanhah (never heard of it) and do not believe in conventional medical practices. Their faith, reportedly based on American Indian beliefs, calls for using natural herbal remedies, as I understand it. Freedom of Religion is guaranteed by our First Amendment.

Reportedly, they may be on their way to Mexico, of all places, to get some type of alternative treatment. That seems like a strange place to go to me if the mother is truly concerned for her son. I mean Mexico right now is not a safe place to go in my estimation. Not only is there a swine flu epidemic still going on there (it has of course spread from there worldwide), but more importantly there is major drug cartel violence there that has threatened the safety of that whole nation.

But I do sympathize and empathize with anyone who fears chemo, whether it be for themselves or for their loved ones. A couple of years ago I was in an oncologist’s office and was told I needed to begin chemo immediately, preferably that day, as soon as I left the examining room. I did. I did not know what else to do. In my case it most probably was the right decision. But to be honest I was ignorant of what chemo was all about. Even though I was probably warned, only later did it really sink in that I had let them inject extremely toxic poisons into my system. Those poisons went after my cancer, but, as is unavoidable in virtually all cases, they also did damage to my body, specifically in my case to my immune system. At one point I was led to believe they may have done irreversible damage. I’m not so sure about that now, but the point is, chemo is a bit terrifying and it is a bit of a risk, to say the least.

But as I understand it, in general, current law (as settled by various cases over the years) holds that the religious beliefs of parents cannot stand in the way of giving medical treatment to their minor children in situations deemed life and death and where the treatment is deemed a medically-accepted procedure, not just some experiment. I know that is not an uptown interpretation of the law, but I think it’s close (and I would suppose there may be exceptions in various jurisdictions, and as is always the case, laws are subject to change with new court decisions).

There is a serious conflict here. On the one hand we go to great lengths in the USA to protect the right of individuals to hold and practice their religious beliefs. And I hate to bring abortion into this discussion, but the Roe vs. Wade decision, which makes abortion legal in this country, I also think says a lot about the law’s attitude that where possible people ought to have control over their own bodies.

In this case there is an argument over whether Daniel, who reportedly does not want chemo himself, is capable of making that decision. Strictly under the law, apparently he is not.

The father has reportedly had second thoughts about the whole thing (actually I don’t know for sure what his original thoughts were) and is begging his wife and son to come back from wherever they are and saying it can all be rethought and worked out. At last word, the Sheriff of Minnesota’s Brown County, the jurisdiction of this incident, has said that if Mrs. Hauser brings her son back now and cooperates he will not seek charges, which include child endangerment.

It’s quite a compelling story. The photos I have seen depict a family living on what appears to be a dairy farm in rural Minnesota. They appear simple folks with their faith. They have a German surname, but they are not Pennsylvania Dutch or Amish or Mennonites, or even Christian Scientists, as far as I know.

But folks should be able to live and believe as they please. And Chemo is a risky thing. But so is alternative medicine. And probably society should have a duty to look out for minors, especially on life and death matters where there is no guarantee that their guardians are following a societal-accepted practice for their care and safety. It is not a matter to be taken lightly, no matter whether you say it is society’s call or a family’s or a mother’s.

In reference to war: we need to see the truth and we need to feel the pain…

The news today that the news media will now be able to show images (photos and videos) of flagged-draped coffins coming back from the war zones reminds me that the collective we have tried to hide from the fact that war has its terrible cost in human lives (the dead as well as whom they leave behind) and in monetary terms.

No, I have not tried to hide it and maybe you personally have not, but our government and the public in general has put it out of mind, and I think that is disgraceful and reprehensible.

Collectively we as a nation are quite willing to let someone else do our dirty and dangerous work and the most we can do is put bumper stickers on cars saying “I support the troops”.

But do we support them by having policies that limit the need for them to go to war in the first place? Do we support them by giving them all the equipment they need to fight a modern war? Do we support them when they are gravely injured (not always, see all the news stories about wounded soldiers getting billed for treatment)? Do we support them by sacrificing here at home until it’s over over there? Actually with the recession (and isn’t it really a depression?) many have been forced to sacrifice, and ironically much of it is due to the costs of the war.

No, for the last eight years the nation as a whole has not sacrificed (until now) and has gone on its merry way of spending and borrowing and spending and borrowing (both government and private), while many simply ignore the wars and others give token tribute with bumper stickers.

Meanwhile, the poor and those who perhaps by family tradition or their own volition (the rhyme unintentional) who have made the military their career do the dirty work and their loved ones, along with them, handle the sacrifices.

And this is all directly related to the silliness of not allowing the news media to show images of flag-draped coffins. If we don’t see it, it’s not happening and we don’t have to worry our pretty little heads.

It’s not that we should be required to watch videos of flag-draped coffins or that they must be shown every day in the newspaper (what newspapers?) and on the internet, but it is helpful to be reminded of what is really going on from time to time. And it should be the journalist’s call on what to publish, not the government’s and not that of those who would hide or soft sell the hardships in order to push their own agendas of conquest or politics or oil deals or whatever.

And even though we are in a terrible economic crisis, isn’t it about time we started paying for t he war up-front instead of financing it through China?

We should be selling the heck out of war bonds to American investors (individual citizens) on a patriotic basis and our government should levy a special “war tax”. In that way we could know and feel the real cost and make our own decisions on whether to support continued war on a more informed basis than non-thinking jingoism. I use that last word a lot – you know slogans and fake patriotism or claims of patriotism used to push one’s agenda and squelch opposition (patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel).

We have seen by recent natural disasters that we need our National Guard troops here at home and we face security threats on our southern border and all over the world, so if we need more troops we need to re-insate the military draft. We need to feel the pain. No pain, no gain.

There. I’ve said it.

Ignorant lawmaker proposes newspapers without opinions…

ANOTHER ONE OF MY MINIBLOGS:

How to not save newspapers or the politicians’ dream.

Some lawmaker has proposed what he calls a way to save newspapers, allow them to run as non-profits. They would not have to pay taxes but as non profits they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

The man must be quite ignorant. If he knew his history he would know that much of the impetus for the First Amendment (free speech, free press, not to mention freedom of religion) came out of the fact that Colonial newspapers, at that time basically essays written by editors with political opinions, were often shut down by the forces of the King of England.

But then again an ignorance of our own history, as I have blogged previously and as has been noted by so many, is what leads us to many of our problems today.

Nice try, though.

P.s.

Maybe what has me worked up is that while a lot of guys grab the sports page, I have always gone right for the Opinion Page.

(Copyright 2009)

Fairness Doctrine counter to First Amendment…

(Copyright 2009)

There has been some talk, to include comments from former President Bill Clinton, that the federal government’s Fairness Doctrine should perhaps be reinstated.

The Fairness Doctrine regulations were formerly under the purview of the Federal Communications Commission and called for broadcast stations to present programs on public issues and do so with a balanced presentation.

A good idea, but not if under the thumb of government.

On its face it seems contrary to the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

For one thing, the First Amendment calls for free speech, not forced speech.

The rationale for the Fairness Doctrine, upheld by the courts, was that there were only a limited number of broadcast frequencies available and since they were allotted and controlled by the FCC, that agency had a right to protect the public interest. And of course it is important that the public has  access to information on public issues which hopefully would be presented in an objective way in which all sides of an issue are voiced.

Sounds good, kind of.

But while at one time the protection might have had a place, with all the access to information, news, opinion, gossip and so on that is available today (most of it by way of the internet) the doctrine is an anachronism. And I still don’t think it was ever a good or workable policy.

Those calling for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine are generally Democrats (but certainly not all Democrats) and primarily of what for lack of a better label we call the “left wing” or perhaps “progressives”.

And the reason they want it is that for about the past one to two decades the right wing or so-called conservative element has ruled the airwaves, thanks in large part to one entity: Clear Channel Communications. This outfit owns some 1,200 radio stations across the U.S. and every one of them play right wing talk shows nearly 24 hours per day.

There has been some attempt to counter it in the past several years with something called Air America, but to my knowledge it has pretty much fallen flat, even though one of its stars, Al Franken, did get elected to the U.S. Senate. And I understand Air America after going bankrupt changed hands and is now called Air Media.

A lot of this is a problem of monopoly and of demographics. The monopoly, Clear Channel, inundates the airwaves with right wing talk. And for some reason, the audience is primarily made up of what I would label as “reactionaries”, listeners who resent objective or analytical reasoning and often feel those on the left are perhaps too educated for their own good. These are also typically people who have a lot of time on their hands or in their minds to listen to radio. I used to be a truck driver; and as I drove along for hundreds of miles per day, I had a lot of time and I listened. I was often entertained. I seldom agreed. And I was often outraged at the opinions presented, but again it did seem to have some kind of draw. I also listened to what liberal talk there was. There is little to no middle-of-the-road talk (being objective and reasonable is dull, I suppose).

But all that said, the last thing we need is the government policing our speech, especially when it comes to the discussion of public issues.

Ironically, Public Broadcasting is the closest thing we have to government broadcasting aimed at the general public. I say ironically, because even though in the past many years (not now) our politics was tilted to the right, Public Broadcasting to me seems tilted way left (don’t get me wrong, I like it, I can sort things out).

But anything that would be regulated or in any way or in any amount funded in its presentation by the government would be exactly opposite of what our democracy and the free flow of ideas it depends upon for survival call for.

I need to explain something here too. My quick Wikipedia research tells me that the defunct Fairness Doctrine is not the same as the Equal Time rule, which covers political candidates, which is still applicable (but there are exceptions to it).

Here’s another obstacle in enforcing a Fairness Doctrine. It is supposed to cover only public issue discussion, not news reports (I think). But sometimes news and opinion are intermingled – actually make that nearly all the time on most broadcast shows (and we will not dicuss the internet here). Partly it is the nature of how broadcast has to be presented, with its time constraints, that meld facts and opinion together, especially when speakers are summarizing.

For years many complained that the three major networks tilted toward left-wing or Democratic politics in their news coverage. I recall that David Brinkley was said to display his opinion with the mere raise of an eyebrow and ironic or sardonic expression when he read the news on NBC (and I used to watch him a lot – he did – although I don’t recall if he always leaned in one ideological direction).

Today we have Fox News. This network is blatantly and unapologetically right wing in its presentation of news and opinion, even though its tag line is ironically “fair and balanced”. But by doing so they reach that reactionary demographic I mentioned earlier. And I find myself checking Fox News out to make sure I’m not be snowballed by the accepted storyline that the traditional media has tacitly agreed upon, even if in the end I do not agree with Fox.

Restrictions on free speech are not what we want. If the monopoly of Clear Channel and Fox was as powerful as even I once thought it to be, Barack Obama would not be president of the United States today.

P.s. Like our new president said in response to a question as to whether he’s too nice: “I’m leaving on Air Force One in a few minutes”.

P.s. P.s. How about this for a Saturday Night Live routine: Barack Obama reintroduces himself to John McCain: “Hi, I’m the President and you’re not”.

P.s. P.s. P.s. And the proof about the Fairness Doctrine question is that, as we all know, if most talk shows leaned the other way (left), former President Clinton would not call for the Fairness Doctrine. He also in public remarks allowed as how Rush Limburger (not his real name, but the one I use) is entertaining. I thought so too at one time. But I got tired of him.

Is religious freedom provision understood???

(Copyright 2009)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think when someone laments that “they won’t let children pray in public schools,” or “they’ve taken God out of the schools”, that is a false notion.

It is my understanding that no one is prohibited from praying in school, but public school authorities are prohibited from leading that prayer. I think there also is a caveat to prevent prayer activity that might be disruptive. But certainly a personal silent prayer done at a time and place that does not interfere with anyone else would not likely fall into that category.

I think that some people just don’t want to accept that the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights provides for freedom of religion by denying the government the power to establish an official religion or the power to prevent the free exercise of religion, as well as providing for free speech (and some folks have problem with free speech, as well).

The First Amendment reads:

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

As I understand it, for instance, a school child could pray by his or her self in a way that would not be disruptive to others, and there is no authority to stop that. On the other hand, if a teacher or other school official were to lead in prayer that would amount to the sanctioning of religion or a type of religion, as in establishing an official religion. And certainly anyone could see that with all the different religions (and even atheism) and the various denominations in those religions, it would not be wise for school authorities to put their mark of approval on any one single form of practice. You can hardly have freedom of religion if official authority is leading you in the practice of a religion.

And then there is the ongoing question of whether religious groups can meet at public schools. I don’t know the precise status on all the legal rulings on this and I don’t want to get into all the legal research.

But the idea of religious clubs forming at public schools is what brought this topic to my mind. I read in my morning newspaper some man (and woman)-on-the street responses to the question:

“A California court this year will decide whether students can form a Bible club at a public school. What do you think?”

I’ll give the responses and then my response to the responses:

A student: “I think they should have the option to form one if they want, but I don’t think it should be mandatory.” That’s probably closest to what I think, but not so much in a legal sense. Certainly they could not be mandatory, otherwise we’re back to state-sponsored religion, and as we know, some nations have that – Iran anyone? Iraq anyone? for that matter.

An equipment mechanic: “I think they should have one. I think it’s very important that they have that in schools.” So this man, as I would imagine a lot of folks are, is in favor of Bible clubs for students. He does not address the fact that what he thinks might not be what others think, and he does not address what the First Amendment says (but, then again, no one else did either).

A retired teacher’s aide: “I believe they should have the same access as any other group that wants to form a club. I don’t think they should be denied access.” I kind of feel that way too. And the U.S. Supreme Court majority did hold in 2001 (Good News Club vs Milford) that a school could have a religious club because to not allow such would be counter to the First Amendment’s free speech clause. And to me it seems it might be argued that it ran counter to the clause against the government “prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)…” But that’s just me.

An apartment manager: “I think it’s great. They should be able to form any club they want to. There should be teacher coordination with that too.” I’m not at all sure what he means by “teacher coordination”, but certainly that sounds wrong, because then we are mixing government and religion, contrary to the First Amendment.

A student: “I am not against it. I think students should form clubs as they see fit as long as they don’t break any school rules.” Well that seems reasonable.

A food service worker: “Yes, absolutely. I think you should be able to.” Thanks for your input.

So there you have it. No atheists, heretics, or antichrists in the bunch.

Irrespective of the constitutional aspects, I tend to agree with the prevailing mood here. Let them form Bible clubs.

But the one thing I always have to ask myself is why do religious folks want to meet at public schools? Why not at their own churches. I suppose convenience is one factor.

On the other hand, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a right-wing fundamentalist religious movement that wants to make inroads into all public activities, be it the public schools or politics, and who wants to force its doctrine on all.

I also think the assumption among many of these groups is that a Bible club would of course be a Christian group using the King James version of the Holy Bible. Would they be comfortable with a turban-wearing group carrying copies of the Koran? Would they want teachers leading everyone in a prayer to Allah?

No so much.

P.s. One thing that causes problems in all of this is that often First Amendment religious issues pit atheists on one side and unyielding and intolerant religious fundamentalists on the other, while most of the public falls in between. Nonetheless, we all live with the ultimate court decisions that are framed from arguments made by the polar extremes.