Remember To Thank the Republicans

The U.S. economy continues to struggle and unemployment remains right around 10%. The job market really hasn't begun to improve yet. Despite this more than a million Americans are about to lose their unemployment insurance benefits. The House passed the bill to extend unemployment but a combination of all the Republicans and a handful of moderate or conservative Democrats have stalled things in the Senate.

So, come Wednesday, if you've been unemployed for a while you may have real problems paying the rent or buying groceries. Others may not be able to make mortgage payments and run the risk of losing their homes. If you are one of those people please remember who is responsible for this and give those Republicans and conservative Democrats the thanks they deserve come November.

Oh, remember that stimulus bill to boost the economy? You know, the one that the Republicans claim did nothing at all. Well... it may have paid for teachers in your local school system. It turns out states would have had to layoff huge numbers of teachers last year but didn't have to thanks to the stimulus bill. Of course, Republicans tell us this was terrible for the budget deficit and no matter how bad the economy still is, well.... no more stimulus for you. The net result is that close to 100,000 teachers are expected to or already have received pink slips as stimulus funds run out. Of course, this is fine with right-wing Republicans who have been trying to undermine the public school system for decades. If you can't afford private schools for your kids that's your problem.

So, if come the fall some excellent teachers are no longer at your child's school, class sizes are simply huge and the quality of instruction declines please be sure to thank the Republicans the way they deserve to be thanked in November. If you or your spouse or a member of your family is now going to join the ranks of the unemployed be sure to thank the Republicans for it as well.

I listened to both news stories on NPR this afternoon with absolute disgust. Right now there is an insane "throw the rascals out" mentality in this country, with the far right and the Tea Party crazies leading the call to defeat all incumbents. By all means, throw out those incumbents who ignore the needs of ordinary citizens. Those would be the conservatives. Let's keep the ones who have actually looked out for the American people, particularly those who are hurting in this economy.

The Hypocrisy Behind Religious Justifications of Prejudice and Discrimination

Following up on my post about The Rising Tide of Intolerance In America I'm going to pick on one of the most popular targets of bigotry and discrimination in our society today. When people from the Christian right and also some in the Orthodox Jewish community argue against equal protection under the law for the gay community they often seek to justify their prejudices with the Bible. In order to do so they have to pick and choose selected texts to believe in and follow and others, the ones which are inconvenient, are often ignored.

This was amply demonstrated some years ago in an open letter to radio personality Dr. Laura Schlesinger, an observant Jew, who railed against homosexuality and used "G-d's word" as her justification. Fortunately some people have actually read the Bible, and the link I provided above annotates the letter with the actual scripture. Here is the well-known letter once again:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

So... when I see the religious right protesting outside of Red Lobster against the abomination of eating shellfish I'll start believing they are truly sincere about "G-d's word" and not just hypocritically justifying their own bigotry. After all, they once used the Bible to justify institutionalized racism in America as well.

The Rising Tide of Intolerance in America

This past week we've had Rand Paul, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky and a Tea Party favorite, call for businesses to have the right to discminate against, well, anyone they want. Yesterday John Stossel on Fox News was defending Paul's call for repealing part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the "right to discriminate." To me that is defending the absolutely indefensible. I'm watching the rising tide of racism and all sorts of intolerance with disgust. In the wake of current right wing efforts to justify and legalize discrimination of all sorts I thought it was time for me to take a stand.

I believe in equal rights and equal protection under the law for all Americans. I really don't care where you or your family or ancestors are from. It doesn't matter what religion you believe in or if you believe at all. I don't care what color your skin is. I don't care if you are male or female. I certainly don't care about your private life or who you are attracted to. When it comes to the law we should all be equal.

Politicians like Rand Paul or Tom Tancredo, who called for a return to Jim Crow era literacy tests at the Tea Party Convention earlier this year, strike me as more than a bit phony when they claim they aren't racists. When you defend racism or call for undoing the laws that ended institutionalized de jure racism in this country then what are you if not a racist? Tolerance of and defense of racism is, in and of itself, a form of racism.

The Tea Party movement isn't "beautiful" as Sarah Palin would have us believe. The radical libertarianism of Ron and Rand Paul would turn back the clock on civil rights 50 years or more. I have studied history and know full well that during times of economic difficulty there is a growth of fringe political movements, especially those on the far right. That phenomenon isn't unique to the United States. What is unique to our country is the fear raised among the ignorant and small minded on the far right by the election of an African-American President. It has magnified and multiplied the growth of the far right to something far beyond the fringe into something truly dangerous to American freedoms as we have known and enjoyed them.

Am I accusing all Tea Party supporters of racism? Consider the enthusiastic applause former Congressman Tancredo received in Nashville for a speech that David Duke would have been proud of. Consider the defense of Rand Paul. If Tea Party supporters aren't racist they are at least tolerant of the racism in their midst. Once again, tolerance of and defense of racism is, in and of itself, a form of racism. So, yes, I am most certainly making that accusation. I will repeat it often between now and the November elections as well. Sometimes the truth hurts. Sometimes it isn't popular at all. There is a truly ugly undercurrent of racism and intolerance in the Tea Party movement that keeps rising to the surface.

Some friends have suggested I shouldn't speak out. Doing so, they say, might hurt my business or my chances of going back into a corporate job rather than working freelance. I shouldn't "limit" my opportunities. Frankly, if someone would discriminate against me because I believe in equality and tolerance then I really don't need their business and don't want to work to promote theirs.

Hag Sameach! Happy Passover! A Zissen Pesach!

I hope everyone reading this has a great Pesach. For those of you who aren’t Jewish and don’t know much about the holiday, Pesach (Passover) is the celebration of the deliverance of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt as told in the biblical book of Exodus. It’s all about freedom, something which is always worth celebrating wherever we find it. My greeting says Happy Holiday in transliterated Hebrew, Happy Passover in a funny little language called English, and A Sweet Passover in transliterated Yiddish.

Pesach is also about the food! Really good homemade matzo ball soup is to die for. I’ve also have some Israeli chocolate this year and some triple dipped bittersweet chocolate covered matzoh.

Oh, and for my Christian friends out there, a Happy Easter as well.

The S Word

I almost have to chuckle when conservatives use the word socialism as if it's a curse. They accuse Democrats in general and President Obama in particular of being socialists. Either they have no idea what socialism is or else they really do know but assume their audience is ignorant.

Here are a few questions for those conservatives: You are opposed to socialism? Hmmm... do you want to get rid of Medicare? It's a government run, socialist program that most Americans, including many who consider themselves conservatives, support. How about public libraries? Public safety, as in police and fire protection, that are government run? Public schools? Social security? All those things are examples of socialism, good common sense socialism. All are socialism which most Americans would not want to do away with.

Every successful western democracy has a blend of capitalism and socialism for its economic system, including the United States. The only differences are how much of each. Frankly, we need a bit more socialism in this country. I originally wrote much of this as a response to a conservative in a political discussion online. He accused me of advocating "moving to a failed system of socialism". Socialism has nothing to do with failed systems in eastern Europe or elsewhere. It certainly has nothing to do with Communism or Marxism or the old Soviet Union.

I've often said most Americans don't know what socialism is but the more I think about it the more I realize I've probably been wrong to say that. After all, the good people of Vermont elected Bernie Sanders, an avowed small s socialist, to the U.S. Senate. Oh, and yes, I consider myself a socialist, in a decidedly small d democratic sort of way, much like Senator Sanders.

Happy Hanukkah

To all my Jewish readers (and anyone else who celebrates the holiday), I'd like to wish you a Happy Hanukkah. Hag Sameach!

Oh, and don't eat too many latkes :)

Legitimate Limitations On Freedom Of Speech

Based on some of the comments I've received in response to last week's post about what defines freedom of speech, both ones I've posted and and the handful I rejected, I've decided a follow-up is in order. Many talk about freedom of speech as if it is an absolute right (it isn't) and as if it is always good and desirable (it's not). Let me explain.

In the United States courts have long upheld limitations on free speech that most of us find to be quite reasonable. The most famous example is that falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected free speech. The reason is obvious. Such speech could cause people to be trampled, resulting in injury or death. The United States Declaration of Independence only enumerated three rights as "inalienable": "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Notice that life comes first and since being trampled to death denies someone their life it is perfect reasonable for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule the way it did in 1919. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. laid out the reason why speech can be limited:

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Other examples of where free speech is limited in free societies falls into the category of where allowing an absolute right of free speech would deny others of rights which take precedence. In the United States there are laws against incitement to riot and incitement to violence. Defamation of character, including libel and slander, is also not protected speech precisely because of the harm done to the target of such speech.

Laws against sedition are certainly more controversial but the principle is the same: the harm done to citizens of the country could conceivable deny them of their life or liberty. In the United States the Smith Act is still the law of the land. The same justification is used for laws against treason and espionage, as well as prohibitions against some news reporting in war zones. Many Americans will remember that Geraldo Rivera of Fox News was expelled from Iraq for revealing the location of U.S. troops, an act which could put those troops in danger.

OK, up until now I am talking about broad principles and governments. The reason I went off in that direction is to make the point that most reasonable people in free countries do understand, accept and support reasonable limitations on free speech. By the strictest definition of the word these examples are all forms of censorship. Censorship, in and of itself, is not evil. What is evil, or at the very least damaging to a free society, is the indiscriminate or unjustified use of censorship. This brings us back to last week's post. What about individuals, blogs and websites?

Let me reiterate the basic premise of what I wrote last week. You have a right to your ideas and opinions about pretty much anything at all. You have a right to express them. That is the essence of freedom of speech and expression. You do not have the right to publish your ideas wherever you want without the approval of the owner of the media where you want to publish. You do not have the right to order a website or a blogger to publish your comments whether they want to or not. That isn't freedom of speech. That's dictating what speech will be published. It is the antithesis of free speech which is being misrepresented as free speech.

Let's go back to the example of LXer.com and their Terms Of Service (TOS). There was a period some months back where it seemed to a number of the regulars in the LXer.com forum, including myself, that a few individuals were effectively hijacking the site, turning the forum into a soapbox for a particular political agenda. They would dominate threads and post long diatribes anytime someone would disagree with their views. I visit LXer.com to read news about Linux and FOSS (Free and Open Source Software), not to debate politics. Yes, the agenda in question was one with which I disagree but that really is irrelevant. I don't go to Linux news sites to read about politics of any stripe. A number of us complained to the editors and the Terms Of Service are now being enforced. I was sharply criticized and personal attacks were leveled at myself and others because we wanted a Linux site to be a Linux site.

I made the point last week that many websites and blogs are designed to express a particular viewpoint or opinion. That is no different from other forms of media. Fox News is known for expressing a conservative Republican political agenda in the United States. As I pointed out last week I cannot demand they air my decidedly more liberal views. In the case of a blog or website, particularly one that expresses unpopular minority opinions as I often do, without comment moderation it is entirely possible for the message to be lost in all the noise. Another possibility, particularly when a site has a an agenda, is that the other side of the debate tries to effectively take over and weaken the message. Moderation, even though some define it as "arbitrary" or "capricious" is an absolute necessity in these cases. Why? Without moderation the ability to express the viewpoint the author or editor wants to express can be diluted or lost. In effect, those who insist on their "freedom of speech" in the form of unlimited, unmoderated comments are denying those same freedoms to those they disagree with.

I received a perfect example in a comment I rejected today which concluded with the commenter telling me he want me to "shut up and get lost." I will do neither. It's funny how those who cry "censorship!" and claim a denial of "free speech" the most vociferously are willing to deny that speech to someone they disagree with. They demand the right to dictate what I or anyone else will or will not publish but would deny me the right to say something they don't like. As I said last week: some people have very strange ideas about freedom of speech.