On Protests and Free Speech

I was slightly amused today when, on my way between court and lunch, I see a batch of about 15 protesters. Judging by the signs, they appeared to be protesting Communism. I found this amusing. So much so, that I could not stop myself from driving past again in an effort to figure out exactly what message they wished passers-by to receive. Given the totality of the signage, I guessed they were protesting the recently enacted health care legislation.

Now, I am all in favor of the right that we have to peaceably assemble and speak our beliefs. I don't have a problem with these people announcing their views to Main Street, in spite of the fact that my views differ significantly from theirs; and I even commend people for taking advantage of this right, when so few people are active in politics these days.

However, I have a large problem when such a protest is not a debate or commentary on ideas, but rather an excuse for name-calling and racial slurs. Many of the signs I saw had pictures of what I can only describe as Vaudeville-era "black-face." That is, a dark-skinned face, enormous white eyes, and a ridiculous red grinning mouth. This is offensive to me. If you don't like President Obama, I totally respect that. So say, "Down with Obama!" or "Impeach the President!" or whatever you want. I have no respect whatsoever for people who hold up signs with the clear meaning that because the President is black, we should not trust him. Many of these signs also called President Obama a liar. Now, I don't know if he is or not. But he didn't lie about his intention to reform healthcare. In fact, the reforms that were passed were significantly less than those proposed during the debates. e.g., no "public option" or government insurance plan. If you don't like the healthcare legislation, say so! On none of these signs was there the word "healthcare."

If these protesters desired to protest the healthcare legislation, it would make much more sense to hold the rally prior to the time it's actually law. If their desire was to simply Obama-bash, this is fine, too. But they should actually state what their problems with him are, or they won't convince anyone who doesn't already share their beliefs. From what I could tell, they don't like President Obama because he's a Communist, a liar, and/or because he's black. He's clearly not a member of the Communist party, or he couldn't have run on the Democratic ticket. And since it's unclear exactly what they're saying he lied about, this isn't likely to get them very far. And if their dislike of him is based on his skin color, they should take another look at all those American flags they were waving around, and possibly the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well.

On Liberalism and Knitting

No, there is nothing connecting these topics together, other than I happen to have been thinking about them both a lot lately. Perhaps if I were an English professor, I would be able to come up with something that links these two ideas together. But since I'm not, I won't try.

I've been wondering for a while now, when did the word "liberal" become "bad"? I mean the word "liberal" means open-handed and generous, not literal or strict, according to Merriam-Webster. But all I seem to be hearing about for the past election cycle is how horrible it is to be liberal: how liberals are pro-abortion and even pro-death. Now I've known many, many people in my lifetime who identify themselves as "liberal," politically. But, I know of not one person who thinks abortion is a "good" thing to do. No one recommends everyone have one. And as for "pro-death," isn't it those horrible liberals who oppose the death penalty? Oppose the war in Iraq? Even try to save such things as tree-frogs and spotted owls? All as a result of their dislike of death. It is my opinion that it is myopic, and even mean-spirited to say that anyone is "pro-death," regardless of your opinion of another's view of the death penalty, abortion, or the tree-frog.

Personally, I am opposed to abortion: I believe it to be a sin, immoral, and I believe life begins at conception. However, as I do not run the world (and I have no wish to), I recognize that not everyone will agree with me. Scientists and doctors cannot agree on when life begins! And, as my belief regarding this comes from the Bible, I do not feel that I am in a position to impose my views regarding this upon others. I certainly do not believe it is the place of the government of this country to impose its views on this either, especially not when based primarily on religious philosophy. So, yes, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. Both.

This country needs liberals. Without liberals, schools could still legally be segregated, the Voting Rights Act would not have been passed, it would be perfectly legal to discriminate against a person because of their race in private establishments, and none but the first ten amendments to the Constitution would be in existence. All were the results of "activism," and flew in the face of strict adherence to the letter of the law, then in existence. However, change for the sake of it is not good in government, either. You can't be changing the Constitution every ten minutes on a whim, and the Court cannot decide to depart from the current law, "just because." It would create the most unstable government in the world!

So, yes, this country needs conservatives, as well, to hold back and say, "Look! This is the Constitution, and this is why these things were put in there in the first place! This is what our country was founded upon." But keeping things the way they always have been, just because "this is the way it's always been" is a danger as well. Nothing makes me more angry about office procedure than the following conversation: "Why do we do this in this way?" "Because it's the way we've always done it." "But wouldn't it be more efficient to do it this other way?" "Sure." "Then, why can't we do it that way, instead?" "Because we've always done it this way." We need both parties in government. Liberal and conservative. We need the liberals trying to move forward and change things all the time, and conservatives trying to hold things the way they are. This way, we never get too far ahead too fast, but yet when change is needed, it can be done.

End of sermon: Now the knitting! These are my July and September socks!

Here's a better view of the green ones, so you can see the pattern, hopefully.

Now, I'm all excited about my winter project: a fisherman's sweater. Cozy and cabley. I got a really light caramel color brown for it. (I only paid around $25 for the yarn!) And, it's the kind of pattern that lets you figure out measurements and shaping and stuff for yourself! I'm thrilled.

Democracy

As much as I complain about the state of our country: about how the "justice system" seems so rarely to dispense actual justice, and how politicians can be corrupt and petty and can seem to only care about furthering their political careers instead of serving the public; I am reminded today of how great it is to be a citizen of this country. We have a voice. We have a say in how we are taxed, who makes our laws, and who enforces them. Even though it often seems that my voice is swallowed up in the sea of those who view the world differently than I, I can still make my voice count. Because I can make known through the ballot box that I desire change; that I am not swayed by fancy, high-priced advertisements on t.v. I know who I want to represent me in the legislative bodies of this country. I know who I want to lead this country and this state. I know who I want to sit on the bench and make rulings that affect the lives of those who come into our courts. I can express this.

The ballot box is more effective in expressing this than if I were to stand on the street corner with a sign and a mega-phone announcing my views to all who would listen. Because the people who would listen to me on my street corner are not necessarily in a position to do anything about what I want. Through voting I, along with every other citizen of this country, can make this country into what we want it to be. My vote does not have more weight because I am somewhat educated. It does not have less weight because I cannot trace my ancestry to a king. We are all equal when we cast our ballots. This is what a Democracy is meant to be.

Even if a majority of people do not agree with my views and none of the people I voted for win tonight, I am still proud to be an American: A citizen of this great country. Because I know that an armed militia will not storm the capitol. I know that the people who are voted out will leave and go on with their lives, and that the people who are voted in will not be assassinated before they can assume their duties. I know that the Rule of Law will continue to be enforced. As long as the Rule of Law is enforced, the people will have a voice. This is Democracy. This is why this country, and the principles behind it, will endure.

Election Time

I dislike election time for more reasons than just the annoying commercials. In our state, judges are elected. Here, magistrates handle misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings, and set bail for all cases. They are not required to be lawyers (or have any more education than a high-school diploma or GED). They run in open elections every 4 years. As a result, as the election gets closer, there is no longer any point to actually having the probable cause hearing, or arguing to lower a client's bail, which usually is set sky-high to begin with or denied altogether.

The district court judges (the courts of general jurisdiction) are a little better. They, at least, are required to have law licenses. They are determined by an odd mixture of appointment and election. They are initially appointed by a selection committee, which gives a list to the governor's office, and the governor appoints who he wants. The first election cycle thereafter, the judge runs in open elections, and for "retention" (a yes or no vote) every 4 years afterwards. I guess this system was set up in the hopes of getting the best of both worlds in terms of election vs. appointment. However, it's still extremely political. The reporters tend to show up more in court as Election Day approaches, and no judge wants to see his name in the paper next to a story about releasing criminals or rampant crime.

I so dislike politics! I would think there would be some way judges could just look at case and the law, and make his decisions only based on those things, without thinking about what the paper would say, or what the public thinks. When has the public ever understood the law? It's arcane and picky, with all kinds of nuances that escape the understanding of anyone not trained in it. This is why one must be licensed before practicing.

But, alas, if judges were not elected, they would have to be appointed. This would mean we could never get rid of a bad judge, and they would never be answerable to anyone except their political cronies. So, I will wait out this storm, and, come November 8, many judges will find Motions to Review Conditions of Release on their desks.

The Fence

Would you like to know why this latest development in the "immigration problem" bugs me so much? One reason is that for the past six or seven months, those in Washington have behaved as though this immigration dilemma is some newly discovered crisis! It is as though the fact that people from all over the world are desperately trying to get into this country is something they personally discovered and that this had never occurred before September 11, 2001.

Immigration was a large part of the political scene as early as the 1820's. It was thought that the United States would be overrun by those from other countries. It was feared that such an influx of people would destroy the economy by providing cheap labor (thereby taking jobs that those born citizens "deserve") and draining the food supply and that, as a result, the country would be unable to sustain itself. It was also feared that the influx of impoverished people would result in rampant crime. Sound familiar? This was 190 years ago! None of these doomsday scenarios have happened yet. I don't see any reason to believe that all of a sudden this country will collapse as a result of a growing immigrant population.

Here's another reason this fence idea bugs me. Even if a mass exodus from Mexico and other Central and South American countries to the United States were to occur, and even if the result would be a complete destruction of this country as we know it; what makes anyone think a fence will stop it? Would it have stopped the airplanes on 9/11? People now are so desperate to cross the border that they are willing to risk being shot by border guards, dying of starvation and thirst crossing the desert, and being robbed, raped, or killed by coyotes. If people are that desperate to come into this country now, they will find a way or die trying, fence or no fence.

My question is this: What is so wrong with the people who are trying to come to this country that the greatest country in the world cannot accommodate them? Are they not people, same as any citizen of this country? Don't they also have the same inalienable rights that we do? When that phrase was written into our Declaration of Independence, no one was a born citizen of this country. This country did not exist! All were citizens of a different country. Wasn't the point and purpose of this country to allow a place for everyone to try to find a better life? Including the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock, Irish trying to escape the potato famine, Southeast Asians trying to escape their war-torn countries, those from behind the Iron Curtain, and everyone else who comes to this country just looking for a better life.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!"

Of Politics and Prisoners

As November approaches, politics becomes unavoidable. Politicians want to help everyone: children, the elderly, and the poor. What's the one thing that everyone wants? It's not money or power. Everyone wants to feel safe. Safe from crime, safe from terrorism. Safe from anything that might hurt them. I want to be safe. I do not want to be the victim of crime or terrorism. So our elected officials answer the call. They propose "tough on crime" legislation and "homeland security" legislation. Our governor even ranted and railed against our state legislature a few months back for being too slow to pass some of his tough on crime legislation. I understand. I do not like crime. However, I'm not willing to give up the rights that we, as citizens of this country and state, have in exchange for being safe. We have the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. We have the right to confront and cross examine our accusers, and we have the right to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I value and cherish these rights, and I am not willing to give them up even if it means giving up a little security.

How is it we have these rights? Our forefathers believed that everyone had these rights. "All men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These rights are inherent in us, as human beings. Neither criminals nor terrorists are excluded.

Our governor's big "tough-on-crime" agenda focuses on DWI and sex crimes. Therefore, it is now common practice for police to pull you over in your car and conduct a DWI investigation when the only evidence they have is an anonymous tip that a "vehicle matching the description" is being driven by a drunk driver. The tipster does not need to testify in court, or have any basis for his belief that the driver is actually intoxicated. The police officer, however, may testify about the tip. What happened to the right to confront your accusers? What happened to the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?

An 18 year old kid was suspended from school last week because he is charged with a sex crime. He has not even had his first court appearance yet. So now there are noises about passing a law requiring schools to be informed when a student is charged with a sex crime. Not convicted. Charged. What happened to the right to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

This is not limited to the state level. Our President just signed off on a bill establishing military tribunals to try those detained in Guantanamo and elsewhere. Here's the law:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3930:

It provides for secret hearings on the guilt or innocence of detainees. It provides that such hearings are not bound by the Constitutional requirement of a speedy trial. (Nor any other Constitutional provision, apparently.) It permits the conviction of detainees based classified information, which they cannot see. It permits the use of evidence (including statements) against the person acquired through coercion. It allows for the use of hearsay. If found guilty, the person can be sentenced to any number of punishments, up to and including death.

For a country and a government that pride themselves on taking the "moral high ground," this is appalling. We are a country that prides itself on its fair and just court system. We would rather let ten guilty men go free, than condemn one innocent man. We accord criminal defendants more rights than any other nation in the world. Where are our Values now? Our belief in the inherent rights of all?

We are currently engaged in two wars in the name of Freedom and Democracy. Perhaps we could start here at home.