Today I awoke to the news that some Sixty Six Year Old nut job from Illinois decided he was going to make a point of embarrassing himself and his causes by killing or at least wounding a bunch of Republican Congressmen and Senators who get together at 7am to play baseball in Va.
It turns out that this guy was a Bernie Sanders supporter. Hence with a Congressman (Scalice-R-La.) who is the Majority Whip in the House (and thus in the Presidential line of Succession), in surgery for a gunshot wound and 3 other aides and Capital Police Officers shot, everybody decided now was not the time to come together as a nation and pray for the wounded, but instead it is time to blame each other for this idiot going off the main beam.
Frankly there are a number of things that could be going on here with the shooter, one James Hodgskins III of Illinois. He could have decided he wanted to go out in a blaze of "glory" or that he wanted suicide by cop. He could have been a troubled soul that finally lost his last marble. He could be a nut that wanted his shot for 15 minutes of fame and for everybody in the country to hear about his causes. The list of reasons this guy might have engaged this way could number in the millions, but one of those reasons is NOT because of anything any pundit, politician, or publicity seeking provocateur said.
Let's get this straight. Hodgskins didn't act because of something Bernie said or Trump said or because he didn't like the way they voted on an issue or even because in his twisted little mind he thought he was going to lose his healthcare, Viagra or library card.
He was not caused to do this because of Rush Limbaugh or Jeff Sessions or James Comey. Brexit and the Mexican wall had NOTHING to do with this. He wasn't channelling Al Franken or Elizabeth Warren. The acts this morning were the acts of a psychopath and could just as easily been caused by his bad hair day as by anything else. DO NOT SUBSCRIBE REASON TO A MENTALLY ILL PERSON.
Unless one can show a conspiracy to do this, or a contract to kill (think "button man" from the Mob) then this was a random act of crazy and looking to place blame on anybody's word is just a self interested attempt to cast dispersions on people you do not like. Fact is nothing anyone said would have caused him to do this or stopped him. That is because his reason for doing this is personal to him. The idea that something someone said "drove" him to act is nothing more than an excuse and minimizes both the danger he was to others and it gives into him, because it gives him power he never had in life, to try to get others to change their behaviors and opinions through his actions.
Seeking to shame Tim Kaine for saying we have to fight Trump "in the streets" is not why this happened. Showing a picture of a bull's eye on Gabby Gifford's face in a campaign piece, while in extremely poor taste, did not cause her sick twist of a would be assassin to act the way he did. No, they do this for reasons if exposed we would find in the darkest corners of their twisted brains. Now is not the time (actually it is never the time) to blame the free speech of others for the actions someone takes unless they are duty bound to follow an order. (Think Army Capt. following commander's orders.)
When I see people blaming others for this tragedy because they may have "radicalized" or suggested it was okay, or made it easy for him or any of the myriad of other stupid things people have said or are going to say about this, I realize, they are not leaders. They do not understand what happened, but they are scared little people trying to convince others of their own importance to compensate for their own inadequacy to shut down their actual opposition. I am not reading them, I am not listening to them and I cannot be persuaded by their ranting. I am looking for leaders. Let's see if there are any in my Twitter Stream, or among my Facebook friends or on the news tonight. I am not planning on finding too many but I can always hope someone out there is smart enough to realize what stuff like this does to our Bill of Rights and are willing to speak out against it.
Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1st Amendment. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Multiculturalism is not achieved by denying religion, but by honoring all of them.
Today's Guardian has an article about an Italian headmaster who has banned Christmas carols from the schools winter concert.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/30/christmas-is-cancelled-italians-outraged-over-school-decision-to-ban-festivities
Last year evidentially, during the concert, a bunch of Muslim students were ordered by their parents not to sing the carols. They stood there silently while the other kids sang. Some of the Muslim parents went onto stage and pulled their kids out of the chorus. The Headmaster Marco Parma decided that it was not a good sight and decided to cancel the carols.
Mr. Parma is wrong. He wants a school that is multicultural. That is not what he is promoting, he is promoting segregation and a heckler's veto (Where a legitimate voice is stifled by a dissenter who creates a scene causing the former to be quieted by authorities to "Keep the Peace". )
In a multicultural world, every religion and every culture is celebrated by everyone. Music is an international language. The notes are the same if you are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or a Sub Genius.
They tell a history, music can cause revolution (See VERDI and the Italian Unification) it soothes a child, it honors heroes. It can expose villains.
Stifling Religious music, teaches nothing but distrust. It causes dislike and hate. What's more, is in Italy, there is an official state religion, it is Roman Catholicism and that makes this kind of decision even more dangerous. It teaches majorities to dislike minorities, to fear that the acceptance of others means that the majority's culture no longer matters.
Now this isn't about making fun of another religion, It doesn't mean that participating in the music of another culture is accepting the ideals of the other culture. It means that one respects the culture of all people. That is what music does. It breeds acceptance. If you don't want to accept the views of others, then go off and be among your own. You may not learn anything, you may be disliked for your parochial attitudes but at least within your bubble you can be what you want to be.
What Parma fails to see, is that he has missed a teaching and a learning opportunity. He is a failure as an educator. He needs to stand down or be fired and let someone who gets it, teach it. Multiculturalism is inclusive, not exclusive. It adds it does not take away. If you do not want to participate, don't, but if you do, you may learn a thing or two about people you do not understand and they may learn about you.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/30/christmas-is-cancelled-italians-outraged-over-school-decision-to-ban-festivities
Last year evidentially, during the concert, a bunch of Muslim students were ordered by their parents not to sing the carols. They stood there silently while the other kids sang. Some of the Muslim parents went onto stage and pulled their kids out of the chorus. The Headmaster Marco Parma decided that it was not a good sight and decided to cancel the carols.
Mr. Parma is wrong. He wants a school that is multicultural. That is not what he is promoting, he is promoting segregation and a heckler's veto (Where a legitimate voice is stifled by a dissenter who creates a scene causing the former to be quieted by authorities to "Keep the Peace". )
In a multicultural world, every religion and every culture is celebrated by everyone. Music is an international language. The notes are the same if you are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or a Sub Genius.
They tell a history, music can cause revolution (See VERDI and the Italian Unification) it soothes a child, it honors heroes. It can expose villains.
Stifling Religious music, teaches nothing but distrust. It causes dislike and hate. What's more, is in Italy, there is an official state religion, it is Roman Catholicism and that makes this kind of decision even more dangerous. It teaches majorities to dislike minorities, to fear that the acceptance of others means that the majority's culture no longer matters.
Now this isn't about making fun of another religion, It doesn't mean that participating in the music of another culture is accepting the ideals of the other culture. It means that one respects the culture of all people. That is what music does. It breeds acceptance. If you don't want to accept the views of others, then go off and be among your own. You may not learn anything, you may be disliked for your parochial attitudes but at least within your bubble you can be what you want to be.
What Parma fails to see, is that he has missed a teaching and a learning opportunity. He is a failure as an educator. He needs to stand down or be fired and let someone who gets it, teach it. Multiculturalism is inclusive, not exclusive. It adds it does not take away. If you do not want to participate, don't, but if you do, you may learn a thing or two about people you do not understand and they may learn about you.
Monday, April 27, 2015
To Have and To Hold: SCOTUS Takes on Gay Marriage
On Tuesday April 28th the United States Supreme Court will be asked to decide if homosexuals have the right to marry each other (same sex marriage) and/or if a couple is married in a state which practices marriage equality has a right to have that marriage recognized in a state that does not have permit gay-marriage.
If I were a member of SCOTUS (and fortunately there is little chance of that) I believe I would decide the matter that 1. Government needs to get out of the marriage business. We do not have an interest in marriage we have an interest in contracts. All contracts should be honored across state lines due to the theory of comity (legally it means reciprocity among sovereigns). I do not believe the federal government should be sanctioning what is really a religious ceremony. As a contract, I should have the right to contract with any one I choose who is of age and who is not otherwise coerced by me or others to enter into a contract. In other words if a contract is voluntarily and knowingly entered into, it should be enforced everywhere. 2. I would let each state decide if the wanted to issue contracts for marriage but if they did, they would have to allow everyone to have one equally. I would not set a national standard because in the end, it just is not part of the business of the United State's Government. It is a local issue to be decided on a state to state basis.
The issue also presents a divide in the very middle of America's heart and heartland, but it is an important issue. The hypocrisy on both sides of the issue is as ironic as it is unspoken. The anti-marriage equality group do not want to give people the right to contract with whomever they choose but they want to allow the right not to contract to be observed. The pro-marriage equality group wants to allow the right to contract but not the right to not contract. Stupid is as stupid does.
On this issue I have just one more thing to say. To all you "Christians" who do not "support" marriage equality: Do you serve divorced couples? Do you have baby showers for out of wedlock moms? Do you allow people who have committed adultery to later marry in your establishment? Do you serve people who do not make their child support payments? Do you serve people who have stolen from others or even killed others? Is that not supporting that lifestyle which is directly DIRECTLY forbidden by the TEN COMMANDMENTS?? God did not tell Moses that marriage was between a man and a woman but he did say don't kill, don't commit adultery or fornication, don't steal. How is it your "religion" forbids you from servicing homosexual couples but not those committing acts specifically forbidden in the Ten Commandments??
Got news for those types (Mr. Huckabee, Santorum, any number of shop owners and others who want to do away with homosexuals) of politicians and business people: YOU ARE BIGOTS. YOU ARE PREJUDICED, and no amount of joining together to present that view will absolve you of YOUR sin of hypocrisy.
If I were a member of SCOTUS (and fortunately there is little chance of that) I believe I would decide the matter that 1. Government needs to get out of the marriage business. We do not have an interest in marriage we have an interest in contracts. All contracts should be honored across state lines due to the theory of comity (legally it means reciprocity among sovereigns). I do not believe the federal government should be sanctioning what is really a religious ceremony. As a contract, I should have the right to contract with any one I choose who is of age and who is not otherwise coerced by me or others to enter into a contract. In other words if a contract is voluntarily and knowingly entered into, it should be enforced everywhere. 2. I would let each state decide if the wanted to issue contracts for marriage but if they did, they would have to allow everyone to have one equally. I would not set a national standard because in the end, it just is not part of the business of the United State's Government. It is a local issue to be decided on a state to state basis.
The issue also presents a divide in the very middle of America's heart and heartland, but it is an important issue. The hypocrisy on both sides of the issue is as ironic as it is unspoken. The anti-marriage equality group do not want to give people the right to contract with whomever they choose but they want to allow the right not to contract to be observed. The pro-marriage equality group wants to allow the right to contract but not the right to not contract. Stupid is as stupid does.
On this issue I have just one more thing to say. To all you "Christians" who do not "support" marriage equality: Do you serve divorced couples? Do you have baby showers for out of wedlock moms? Do you allow people who have committed adultery to later marry in your establishment? Do you serve people who do not make their child support payments? Do you serve people who have stolen from others or even killed others? Is that not supporting that lifestyle which is directly DIRECTLY forbidden by the TEN COMMANDMENTS?? God did not tell Moses that marriage was between a man and a woman but he did say don't kill, don't commit adultery or fornication, don't steal. How is it your "religion" forbids you from servicing homosexual couples but not those committing acts specifically forbidden in the Ten Commandments??
Got news for those types (Mr. Huckabee, Santorum, any number of shop owners and others who want to do away with homosexuals) of politicians and business people: YOU ARE BIGOTS. YOU ARE PREJUDICED, and no amount of joining together to present that view will absolve you of YOUR sin of hypocrisy.
Friday, December 27, 2013
"You Know Who Else Spoke Arabic? Osama Bin Laden"*: Sh*t the TSA Gets Away With When They Violate Your Freedom!
I was just about to give up on finding anything to blog about when I came across this little decision out of the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. In George v. Rehiel et.al. Dkt.:11-4292 (3rd Cir. 2013)( a Civil Rights case brought under 42USC1983) an American college student of Middle Eastern Culture at a University in California was boarding a plane in Philadelphia (heading back to school) and under went an "administrative search" (which is a recognized "exception" to the 4th Amendment) at the boarding area. It is an everyday bother for airline passengers but it does keep us safer and it is usually minimally intrusive, that is until the Third Circuit decided to throw America's new obsession with paranoia into it.
During the search, the TSA employees (who seemingly have absolutely no training in law) found handwritten flash cards that included the Arabic/English words for everyday language as well as for some words that if SAID ALOUD, would trigger an arrest in an airport (words like Bomb, Terrorist, Explosion, Attack, Kill, Battle, To Wound, to Kidnap). Now the fact that he was a student and one might want to know these words if involved in Mid Eastern current events did not matter. That he wasn't speaking the words but that the cards were in his carry-on so he could study didn't matter either. That after finding the flashcards and swabbing everything around for explosives and finding zilch well that still did not matter. As far as the TSA was concerned these flashcards (and a treatise a college kid might read on the failures of American Interventionist Foreign Policy) required he be detained for a supervisor to question him AND for TSA to call the police.
The supervisor came and for 15 minutes more she stalled Mr. George in a TSA security room (which by the way he was not free to leave) asking inane questions such as:
Q: Do you know who is responsible for 9-11?
A: Osama Bin Laden
Q: Do you know what language he spoke?
A: Arabic
Q: Do you see why these (flash)Cards are suspicious????????????
WTF????? Really???? Needless to say Mr. George was arrested, cuffed, detained for 5 hours, and missed his flight. Yes, if you were wondering, Philadelphia is part of the United States of America...
Mr. George and his attorneys sued the TSA agents, the cops, and FBI agents (who after five hours arrived, questioned the kid another 30 minutes and determined that he was not a terror threat) for violating his civil rights: His rights under the Fourth Amendment, Free speech and further sued for false arrest false imprisonment etc.
The question before the court was: did the TSA agents act outside of their employment authority by detaining young Mr. George, and if so did they have a reason to know that acting that way was against an established rule supporting the rights to privacy and speech.
The court never reached the knowledge element because it ruled that given the "totality of circumstances here could cause a reasonable person to believe that the items George was carrying raised the possibility that he might pose a threat to airline security".
Re-read the quote from the decision that I highlighted above. Have you ever seen a more tepid comment?
"...could cause...to believe...possibility...might pose." Gee he could have been carrying a New York Times and all those words would be in it. It is indisputable he had the right to have those cards and that he had a right to have and read the book on the failure of American intervention in the Middle East. Does it really raise a right to detain someone for 30 minutes or even 5 minutes once they found he had no explosives or contraband on him? Do you know what it feels like to be detained at an airport in an tiny room that you cannot leave. They have your phone? You can't call out check email tell others what's up? WTF??? Then they called the cops who arrested him and held him handcuffed in a cell for up to five more hours!! The court held the cops arrested him on their own. In other words a cop came up and not on the say of the TSA he just decided to bust the kid for five hours without being asked because presumably he found probable cause to make an arrest!! Based on flashcards and a book? (In fairness to the court they did rule that you cannot arrest someone because of the books they read. Evidentially flashcards are far more dangerous...) The court held it was speculative that the TSA ordered the arrest. I am sorry but I don't see that at all, of course that is one of the myriad of reasons I will never be a judge. I cannot suspend my disbelief for a long enough period to excuse people when they act like idiots in the name of the USA.
I am accustomed to government paranoia. Look we are all gonna die someday but really can't we go as men and women and not as frightened sheep? Are these judges for real? Are they going to hide behind 9-11 to support clearly illegal conduct by federal agents for the rest of our lives?? Liberty does hang in the stakes. If the Courts will not rein in the government when it clearly goes beyond our ever more liberal rules for destroying our Constitution, then we are lost.
That the lead judge was a Clinton appointee not some Neo-con Bush appointee. So if you are learning Arabic, and studying Middle Eastern culture, you better watch out...you just gave your government the right to detain you based on what they unreasonably fear might be a possible preparation for an attack or maybe just a learning thing but they are really unsure but they don't need to be any more sure because that could cause them to not detain Osama bin Laden or the ENGLISHMAN who was the shoe bomber or THE LATINO that was an underwear bomber. If you understand any of that, you MAY qualify to be a Federal Judge...
Sad.
H/t: Justia (US Third Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.) and Rueters.
*The title of this post paraphrased the questions but the quotes here are from the decision and are culled from plaintiff's complaint.)
During the search, the TSA employees (who seemingly have absolutely no training in law) found handwritten flash cards that included the Arabic/English words for everyday language as well as for some words that if SAID ALOUD, would trigger an arrest in an airport (words like Bomb, Terrorist, Explosion, Attack, Kill, Battle, To Wound, to Kidnap). Now the fact that he was a student and one might want to know these words if involved in Mid Eastern current events did not matter. That he wasn't speaking the words but that the cards were in his carry-on so he could study didn't matter either. That after finding the flashcards and swabbing everything around for explosives and finding zilch well that still did not matter. As far as the TSA was concerned these flashcards (and a treatise a college kid might read on the failures of American Interventionist Foreign Policy) required he be detained for a supervisor to question him AND for TSA to call the police.
The supervisor came and for 15 minutes more she stalled Mr. George in a TSA security room (which by the way he was not free to leave) asking inane questions such as:
Q: Do you know who is responsible for 9-11?
A: Osama Bin Laden
Q: Do you know what language he spoke?
A: Arabic
Q: Do you see why these (flash)Cards are suspicious????????????
WTF????? Really???? Needless to say Mr. George was arrested, cuffed, detained for 5 hours, and missed his flight. Yes, if you were wondering, Philadelphia is part of the United States of America...
Mr. George and his attorneys sued the TSA agents, the cops, and FBI agents (who after five hours arrived, questioned the kid another 30 minutes and determined that he was not a terror threat) for violating his civil rights: His rights under the Fourth Amendment, Free speech and further sued for false arrest false imprisonment etc.
The question before the court was: did the TSA agents act outside of their employment authority by detaining young Mr. George, and if so did they have a reason to know that acting that way was against an established rule supporting the rights to privacy and speech.
The court never reached the knowledge element because it ruled that given the "totality of circumstances here could cause a reasonable person to believe that the items George was carrying raised the possibility that he might pose a threat to airline security".
Re-read the quote from the decision that I highlighted above. Have you ever seen a more tepid comment?
"...could cause...to believe...possibility...might pose." Gee he could have been carrying a New York Times and all those words would be in it. It is indisputable he had the right to have those cards and that he had a right to have and read the book on the failure of American intervention in the Middle East. Does it really raise a right to detain someone for 30 minutes or even 5 minutes once they found he had no explosives or contraband on him? Do you know what it feels like to be detained at an airport in an tiny room that you cannot leave. They have your phone? You can't call out check email tell others what's up? WTF??? Then they called the cops who arrested him and held him handcuffed in a cell for up to five more hours!! The court held the cops arrested him on their own. In other words a cop came up and not on the say of the TSA he just decided to bust the kid for five hours without being asked because presumably he found probable cause to make an arrest!! Based on flashcards and a book? (In fairness to the court they did rule that you cannot arrest someone because of the books they read. Evidentially flashcards are far more dangerous...) The court held it was speculative that the TSA ordered the arrest. I am sorry but I don't see that at all, of course that is one of the myriad of reasons I will never be a judge. I cannot suspend my disbelief for a long enough period to excuse people when they act like idiots in the name of the USA.
I am accustomed to government paranoia. Look we are all gonna die someday but really can't we go as men and women and not as frightened sheep? Are these judges for real? Are they going to hide behind 9-11 to support clearly illegal conduct by federal agents for the rest of our lives?? Liberty does hang in the stakes. If the Courts will not rein in the government when it clearly goes beyond our ever more liberal rules for destroying our Constitution, then we are lost.
That the lead judge was a Clinton appointee not some Neo-con Bush appointee. So if you are learning Arabic, and studying Middle Eastern culture, you better watch out...you just gave your government the right to detain you based on what they unreasonably fear might be a possible preparation for an attack or maybe just a learning thing but they are really unsure but they don't need to be any more sure because that could cause them to not detain Osama bin Laden or the ENGLISHMAN who was the shoe bomber or THE LATINO that was an underwear bomber. If you understand any of that, you MAY qualify to be a Federal Judge...
Sad.
H/t: Justia (US Third Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.) and Rueters.
*The title of this post paraphrased the questions but the quotes here are from the decision and are culled from plaintiff's complaint.)
Monday, June 25, 2012
Legislating Civility and Freedom of Speech: The Free F***ing Speech Demonstration in Middleborough MA.
I begin this by saying that I strongly believe in the First Amendment and believe you cannot legislate civility. The City Counsel or Board of Selectmen or whatever they have in Middleborough MA. disagrees with me. (No kidding, there is something new. People disagreeing with That Lawyer Dude, unheard of.)They passed a law outlawing certain words (we usually refer to them as "Dirty Words") and if you violate it, they fine you Twenty ($20.00)Dollars. This so obviously violates the Constitution of both Massachusetts and the USA that I cannot wait to see the first challenge to the law.
The Free F***ing Demonstration at the Middleborough Town Hall is supposed to gather tens of people to stand there and well in the words of organizer Adam Koresh:"... a large civil disobedience protest on Monday, June 25th from 12:30-1:00pm. Bring your bullhorn and foulest vocabulary to the Town Hall at 10 Nickerson Avenue, Middleborough MA 02346 and engage in the most profane conversation possible with your fellow liberty lovers. Let's show these uptight a**holes what freedom of f***ing speech is all about! Here is a NSFW Video announcing the action.
Now I am sure that the bullhorn is probably just as bad an idea as the actual legislation is but putting that aside, I think there is more to this.
Middleborough's officials are in the firestorm of what happens when civility clashes with the law. Sure I don't like hearing "F*** You!" screamed at the top of someone's lungs while I am walking outside of church. I don't like to hear it when I go into the visiting area of the jail. Why? Well because even though I don't believe in the concept of dirty words, I was raised to keep a civil tongue and although I can be profane, I still flinch when I hear the words spoken.
The Issue is one of who is going to decide what constitutes "dirty words" and who gets to make the rules. It can't be done. No matter what derogatory words are used, someone is going to be angry about them. Curse words depending on their use can mean a lot of things. They can mean the speaker doesn't like something strongly, they can mean the speaker is trying to show disdain for the concept of Dirty Words, it can mean the speaker doesn't even know the words are "forbidden." I could keep going but I think you all get my point.
On the other hand, I think the better protest would be a silent one. One where hundreds stood in the square with a copy of the State or US Constitution being held in each of their hands and say nothing NOTHING for a half hour, then at 1 PM BURN THOSE CONSTITUTIONS and maybe an American flag too. Now that is a more appropriate demonstration. It is respectful, memorable and should send a much stronger message than a bunch of children acting out against authority.
Either way, this ought to get coverage, but It is far better I think to send a strong reserved message than to shout from the rooftops at people who are not listening.
The Free F***ing Demonstration at the Middleborough Town Hall is supposed to gather tens of people to stand there and well in the words of organizer Adam Koresh:"... a large civil disobedience protest on Monday, June 25th from 12:30-1:00pm. Bring your bullhorn and foulest vocabulary to the Town Hall at 10 Nickerson Avenue, Middleborough MA 02346 and engage in the most profane conversation possible with your fellow liberty lovers. Let's show these uptight a**holes what freedom of f***ing speech is all about! Here is a NSFW Video announcing the action.
Now I am sure that the bullhorn is probably just as bad an idea as the actual legislation is but putting that aside, I think there is more to this.
Middleborough's officials are in the firestorm of what happens when civility clashes with the law. Sure I don't like hearing "F*** You!" screamed at the top of someone's lungs while I am walking outside of church. I don't like to hear it when I go into the visiting area of the jail. Why? Well because even though I don't believe in the concept of dirty words, I was raised to keep a civil tongue and although I can be profane, I still flinch when I hear the words spoken.
The Issue is one of who is going to decide what constitutes "dirty words" and who gets to make the rules. It can't be done. No matter what derogatory words are used, someone is going to be angry about them. Curse words depending on their use can mean a lot of things. They can mean the speaker doesn't like something strongly, they can mean the speaker is trying to show disdain for the concept of Dirty Words, it can mean the speaker doesn't even know the words are "forbidden." I could keep going but I think you all get my point.
On the other hand, I think the better protest would be a silent one. One where hundreds stood in the square with a copy of the State or US Constitution being held in each of their hands and say nothing NOTHING for a half hour, then at 1 PM BURN THOSE CONSTITUTIONS and maybe an American flag too. Now that is a more appropriate demonstration. It is respectful, memorable and should send a much stronger message than a bunch of children acting out against authority.
Either way, this ought to get coverage, but It is far better I think to send a strong reserved message than to shout from the rooftops at people who are not listening.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Judge Scalia: The Constitution Permits Sexual Discrimination
In an interview with the California Lawyer Magazine US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declares that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on one's sex or sexual orientation.
Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.
A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here
As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.
I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.
Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.
I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (ANY. PERSON)of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.
I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.
Hattip: Huffington Post
Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.
A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here
As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.
I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.
Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.
I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (ANY. PERSON)of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.
I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.
Hattip: Huffington Post
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Understanding Islamic Discrimination: Wearing the Hijab or Islamic Headscarf Is Not Grounds For Firing Someone (or arresting them either)
ABA Headline : Jailed for Wearing Headscarf to Court caught my attention for a few reasons: 1. It offends me that someone could be arrested for wearing religious gear to court; 2. I am interested in seeing how next month's House Of Representative hearings on the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism in America go (as in will we learn something about the reasons approximately fifteen percent of American Muslims between 18-30 believe suicide bombing can be justified.) or is it going to be the witch hunt some groups claim it will be?: and 3. Because I am seeing more and more valid complaints of discrimination coming into our NY and Long Island offices from members of the Islamic community as well as from Sheiks who are often confused for Muslims due to their headdress.
In the Georgia case cited by the ABA Journal it seems a woman who went to court to support a family member wore a Hijab to court. She was told to remove it. This is in my mind akin to asking a Jewish person to remove a Yarmulke. I am sure that the court staff will suggest that there were security reasons for their demand and when it wasn't followed they arrested. What I find curious is that it seems to be agreed that after the woman said she would leave they arrested her anyway. I thought the idea was to NOT have her in the courthouse. Either way, I think they will be hard pressed to show that they could not have found a way to allow her to attend the court date without removing the headdress. (For instance they could have asked her to walk through a scanning device or have "wanded" her to see if she were carrying a weapon. I understand that such a process would not negate her from carrying the parts of a bomb or other items of a deadly nature on her person but I don't see how the headdress alone rises to that issue. Further if she were wearing a full Burkha I doubt that she would be required to remove it any more than a Catholic Nun would be asked to remove her Holy Habit (the tunic part which is part of the uniform if you will). You cannot arrest this person solely because she dresses in a religious.
On the Issue of the proposed hearings, Peter King is the incoming chair or the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security. Congressman King has announced his plan to hold hearings into why American grown Muslims are becoming more "Radicalized." The issue is, will Congressman King use the meeting to call members of the Clergy before Congress to name names of those in their congregation who are Radicals? That seems somewhat McCartyesqe. I hope Congressman King (who was a pretty fair lawyer prior to entering politics) focuses on why there seems to be an affinity for Radical faction of Islam among our younger members (those polled tween 18-30 years old.) I think you can start looking at the reason being that young Muslims are being discriminated against in larger and larger numbers. The Pew poll sited above notes that and I can say that I see it in our practice in both Nassau Suffolk as well as in NYC and it's outer boroughs.
Here is a quick primer on religious discrimination in employment/labor situations.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act codified under 42 USC 2000 e-2(a)states that (1). "Religion" is defined to include "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's . . . religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).
At first blush it is up to the person who claims to be discriminated against to prove that (1) she had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty; (2) she informed her employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer threatened her or subjected her to discriminatory treatment, including discharge, because of her inability to fulfill the job requirements." I suggest that if one is called in about one of these issues, that she take a small digital recorder with her and (at least in NYS) record the conversation. In New York only one party to a conversation need know it is being recorded (check your state rules here.) That should make the whole thing a lot easier to prove.
Thereafter, assuming the plaintiff (or victim of religious discrimination) has made her case the employer must then show
(1) "that it initiated good faith efforts to accommodate reasonably the employee's religious practices"; or (2) "that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship." Id. If negotiations between employee and employer "do not produce a proposal by the employer that would eliminate the religious conflict, the employer must either accept the employee's proposal or demonstrate that it would cause undue hardship were it to do so."
Now public employees in security positions have less rights to dress outside of the uniform than do other sectors of Public or private Sector employees. Nevertheless, short of showing that there was an economic loss or the potential for a morale disaster, the undue hardship will be hard for the private sector employer to prove. As for the first part again you can see how it is in your favor to record the conversation or negotiation. Rarely do I hear an employee say that they were listened to or negotiated with.
In our case, our client wore her hijab to work. She was ordered to give it up or go home. She worked that day without it over her objection. The next week when she went back to work, the same manager had the same complaint and further he basically told her to quit or be fired. She did leave but she was de Facto fired which saved her for unemployment benefits. We have just received a right to sue letter from the EEOC so you will be hearing more about this as the next year progresses.
If you should be incurring problems with employment religious racial or sexual discrimination or retaliation, why not give me a call to discuss it? You can still reach me through 516-741-3400.
In the Georgia case cited by the ABA Journal it seems a woman who went to court to support a family member wore a Hijab to court. She was told to remove it. This is in my mind akin to asking a Jewish person to remove a Yarmulke. I am sure that the court staff will suggest that there were security reasons for their demand and when it wasn't followed they arrested. What I find curious is that it seems to be agreed that after the woman said she would leave they arrested her anyway. I thought the idea was to NOT have her in the courthouse. Either way, I think they will be hard pressed to show that they could not have found a way to allow her to attend the court date without removing the headdress. (For instance they could have asked her to walk through a scanning device or have "wanded" her to see if she were carrying a weapon. I understand that such a process would not negate her from carrying the parts of a bomb or other items of a deadly nature on her person but I don't see how the headdress alone rises to that issue. Further if she were wearing a full Burkha I doubt that she would be required to remove it any more than a Catholic Nun would be asked to remove her Holy Habit (the tunic part which is part of the uniform if you will). You cannot arrest this person solely because she dresses in a religious.
On the Issue of the proposed hearings, Peter King is the incoming chair or the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security. Congressman King has announced his plan to hold hearings into why American grown Muslims are becoming more "Radicalized." The issue is, will Congressman King use the meeting to call members of the Clergy before Congress to name names of those in their congregation who are Radicals? That seems somewhat McCartyesqe. I hope Congressman King (who was a pretty fair lawyer prior to entering politics) focuses on why there seems to be an affinity for Radical faction of Islam among our younger members (those polled tween 18-30 years old.) I think you can start looking at the reason being that young Muslims are being discriminated against in larger and larger numbers. The Pew poll sited above notes that and I can say that I see it in our practice in both Nassau Suffolk as well as in NYC and it's outer boroughs.
Here is a quick primer on religious discrimination in employment/labor situations.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act codified under 42 USC 2000 e-2(a)states that (1). "Religion" is defined to include "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's . . . religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).
At first blush it is up to the person who claims to be discriminated against to prove that (1) she had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty; (2) she informed her employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer threatened her or subjected her to discriminatory treatment, including discharge, because of her inability to fulfill the job requirements." I suggest that if one is called in about one of these issues, that she take a small digital recorder with her and (at least in NYS) record the conversation. In New York only one party to a conversation need know it is being recorded (check your state rules here.) That should make the whole thing a lot easier to prove.
Thereafter, assuming the plaintiff (or victim of religious discrimination) has made her case the employer must then show
(1) "that it initiated good faith efforts to accommodate reasonably the employee's religious practices"; or (2) "that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship." Id. If negotiations between employee and employer "do not produce a proposal by the employer that would eliminate the religious conflict, the employer must either accept the employee's proposal or demonstrate that it would cause undue hardship were it to do so."
Now public employees in security positions have less rights to dress outside of the uniform than do other sectors of Public or private Sector employees. Nevertheless, short of showing that there was an economic loss or the potential for a morale disaster, the undue hardship will be hard for the private sector employer to prove. As for the first part again you can see how it is in your favor to record the conversation or negotiation. Rarely do I hear an employee say that they were listened to or negotiated with.
In our case, our client wore her hijab to work. She was ordered to give it up or go home. She worked that day without it over her objection. The next week when she went back to work, the same manager had the same complaint and further he basically told her to quit or be fired. She did leave but she was de Facto fired which saved her for unemployment benefits. We have just received a right to sue letter from the EEOC so you will be hearing more about this as the next year progresses.
If you should be incurring problems with employment religious racial or sexual discrimination or retaliation, why not give me a call to discuss it? You can still reach me through 516-741-3400.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Firing of Juan Williams: Liberals & Neo-Cons Two Peas in a Pod. They Only Favor Free Speech of Those With Whom They Agree.
Juan Williams is a reporter and commentator for NPR (National Public Radio). He also tries to provided the "balance" on Fox News Network presenting the so called "Liberal" side of the Fox equation.
The other night, Bill O'Reilly was discussing whether or not America had a "Muslim Problem." (If we do it is in great part O'Reilly's fault. He went on "The View" last week and announced that "Muslim's killed us on 9-11." In reality it was 21 Muslim fanatics and their murderous handlers abroad) Williams was his guest. Williams said the following:
Of course all the usual suspects (NAIR, Andrew Sullivan, and NPR brass) all started hand-ringing and accusing Williams of being prejudiced. Then in the expected second act, the NPR Brass fired him. Why? Because he had the temerity to express in words that he feels fear when he is placed in a situation where people of a certain background have in the past created havoc.
Sorry guys you are wrong.
I sent the following letter to the NPR Obudsman. I reprint it in full below.
To whom this may concern:
You and your organization have seen the last dollar you ever will from me. Are you all a bunch of crazy people? I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and a Civil rights lawyer.I have news for you. I represent thugs, gangsters, and the seriously deranged individuals. I walk the streets of ghetto neighborhoods and I am often in dangerous places around people who do not look like me.
I represent Muslims and Sheiks and all types of religious, ethnic and sexual orientations. I also represent gang members from Bikers, to Russians to Spanish (el Salvadorian and Mexican) to Italian and Albanian. I do not consider myself to be prejudice.
That said, I also see people who dress in a certain way or are in certain places and I feel nervous. It isn't prejudice, ITS SMART. Being aware of your surroundings is important. Being on guard when you are the odd person out is wise. Neither Juan nor I am advocating doing something stupid like not getting on a plane or leaving a restaurant. It was a true and natural reaction to what is going on.
If I walk into a Mosque I am not afraid. I am not unwilling to speak to a Muslim or anyone else. I am aware and a bit anxious when I see people wearing gang colors. I watch what they are up to. I observe more. I see a bunch of kids in the mall and they are dressed like Gangstas I watch them more, I look for behaviors like their creating a scene while another steals something. It happens occasionally. I see a bunch of Muslims speaking in foreign tongues and I watch them. I worry that maybe this is the next shoe bomber. I don't report them to security but I watch. It is the right and smart thing to do. It doesn't uncover deep seated prejudice. This didn't happen before 9-11-01. It isn't a deep seated fear. It is not something that happens in restaurants but it happens on trains buses planes. Around synagogues too.
Firing Juan Williams was a terrible error in judgment. I agree with the commentator that describes liberals as all for freedom of speech as long as they agree with it. You are no better than tea party activists. I am a libertarian. When I have the money I have donated to Public Radio stations in NY and to Public TV. I want more than one opinion. I don't want dishonesty. Williams is NOT the only person of reasonable mind who feels this way. His expression on O'Reilly was how he felt. It gives permission to others to admit their fears and to address them.
Juan Williams is not the problem. He is a solution. Frank discussion and truth are the ways to address the issues and pretending that people who are intelligent do not harbor fear because of the situation is a good way to be sure the underlying issues are never addressed.
The other night, Bill O'Reilly was discussing whether or not America had a "Muslim Problem." (If we do it is in great part O'Reilly's fault. He went on "The View" last week and announced that "Muslim's killed us on 9-11." In reality it was 21 Muslim fanatics and their murderous handlers abroad) Williams was his guest. Williams said the following:
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot," Williams continued. "You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
Of course all the usual suspects (NAIR, Andrew Sullivan, and NPR brass) all started hand-ringing and accusing Williams of being prejudiced. Then in the expected second act, the NPR Brass fired him. Why? Because he had the temerity to express in words that he feels fear when he is placed in a situation where people of a certain background have in the past created havoc.
Sorry guys you are wrong.
I sent the following letter to the NPR Obudsman. I reprint it in full below.
To whom this may concern:
You and your organization have seen the last dollar you ever will from me. Are you all a bunch of crazy people? I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and a Civil rights lawyer.I have news for you. I represent thugs, gangsters, and the seriously deranged individuals. I walk the streets of ghetto neighborhoods and I am often in dangerous places around people who do not look like me.
I represent Muslims and Sheiks and all types of religious, ethnic and sexual orientations. I also represent gang members from Bikers, to Russians to Spanish (el Salvadorian and Mexican) to Italian and Albanian. I do not consider myself to be prejudice.
That said, I also see people who dress in a certain way or are in certain places and I feel nervous. It isn't prejudice, ITS SMART. Being aware of your surroundings is important. Being on guard when you are the odd person out is wise. Neither Juan nor I am advocating doing something stupid like not getting on a plane or leaving a restaurant. It was a true and natural reaction to what is going on.
If I walk into a Mosque I am not afraid. I am not unwilling to speak to a Muslim or anyone else. I am aware and a bit anxious when I see people wearing gang colors. I watch what they are up to. I observe more. I see a bunch of kids in the mall and they are dressed like Gangstas I watch them more, I look for behaviors like their creating a scene while another steals something. It happens occasionally. I see a bunch of Muslims speaking in foreign tongues and I watch them. I worry that maybe this is the next shoe bomber. I don't report them to security but I watch. It is the right and smart thing to do. It doesn't uncover deep seated prejudice. This didn't happen before 9-11-01. It isn't a deep seated fear. It is not something that happens in restaurants but it happens on trains buses planes. Around synagogues too.
Firing Juan Williams was a terrible error in judgment. I agree with the commentator that describes liberals as all for freedom of speech as long as they agree with it. You are no better than tea party activists. I am a libertarian. When I have the money I have donated to Public Radio stations in NY and to Public TV. I want more than one opinion. I don't want dishonesty. Williams is NOT the only person of reasonable mind who feels this way. His expression on O'Reilly was how he felt. It gives permission to others to admit their fears and to address them.
Juan Williams is not the problem. He is a solution. Frank discussion and truth are the ways to address the issues and pretending that people who are intelligent do not harbor fear because of the situation is a good way to be sure the underlying issues are never addressed.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Why Are American's So Dumb?
This post is a rant, so if you don't want a rant, go elsewhere.
I am sick of seeing a bunch of lunatics try to run our nation on half lies and rumor. I am also sick of people trying to use half-wit reasoning and because they bellow the loudest they get treated like they actually know something. Let's have a nation where everyone's freedom of speech is appreciated and coveted and not just the people with whom we agree.
About a month ago, Helen Thomas went nuts in an impromptu interview with my old (like 40 years long)friend Rabbi David Nessenoff. Now David is one of my oldest and dearest friends. He is without a doubt one of the finest and bravest people I know. He was absolutely right to air his interview with the octogenarian Thomas and he was entitled to draw the opinion that Thomas was both biased against Israeli interests and that she maybe hit an age where she ought best to retire. The former opinion could be gleaned from her statements that Israeli's ought to get out of Palestine and go back to Germany and Russia. For this she shows a bias, but she is entitled to her opinion and no one, and I mean no one should have been asked to remove her from her job. She was a op-ed writer and to do that job she has to have an opinion. I am often moved to want to fire Rachel Maddow, Ariana Huffington, Anne Coulter, and a number of other people who think that debate is nothing more than a bunch of sarcastic comments strung together with a ridiculous idea to make one sound as ludicrous as possible. Then when she has insulted the other side enough she is crowned a spokeswoman for her side.
Not one of these people could hold a lamp to a William F. Buckley, Joan Didion, George Will, or John Galbrith. What passes as debate in today's hip-hop world is not the stiletto sharp barbed airing of ideas but the in your face name-calling that neither educates nor leads one to think. It is all pop and no corn. What's worse is that when we don't agree with them, we try to hound them off the air making them inconsequential.
The latest "High tech lynching" is over at CNN. I am speaking about the firing of 20ish year veteran Octavia Nasr.
She dare tweeted that she was sorry that Hezbollah leader Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah had died.
Now personally, I am not all that fond of this guy. He rooted for the destruction of Israel, and blessed the guys who later blew themselves and the US Embassy and a Marine Barracks (killing a number of Americans.) I think he is more terrorist and criminal sympathizer than hero, but I can understand Nasr's appreciation of his pro-women's stance in Islam (now that is something different) and that one may argue that as a Hezbollah leader he has a legitimately obtained dislike for Israel. (Legitimately in that he comes by it naturally having grown up Muslim in the mid-east and didn't come to his position by other choosing).
Of course that "serious" misjudgment that she may have an opinion other than those of her viewers caused CNN to shut her down. Now I get it. We here in the USA like Israel for a number of reasons both good and bad. However to act like a wounded dog and hound her out of a job she did pretty well shows the tolerance of a 3 year old. Freedom of speech with a large part of what makes debate possible. Intelligent debate requires that people who differ and have reasons. I am sure I could make a better case for Fedallah's death than can be made for him being a loving Human Rights figure. That is not the point. Nasr had a right to her views and I a right to disagree. I do not have the right to order her off the air to assuage my feelings.
I am just saying I guess that we aren't going to grow any more smarter just listening to those that agree with our position.
I am just saying...
I am sick of seeing a bunch of lunatics try to run our nation on half lies and rumor. I am also sick of people trying to use half-wit reasoning and because they bellow the loudest they get treated like they actually know something. Let's have a nation where everyone's freedom of speech is appreciated and coveted and not just the people with whom we agree.
About a month ago, Helen Thomas went nuts in an impromptu interview with my old (like 40 years long)friend Rabbi David Nessenoff. Now David is one of my oldest and dearest friends. He is without a doubt one of the finest and bravest people I know. He was absolutely right to air his interview with the octogenarian Thomas and he was entitled to draw the opinion that Thomas was both biased against Israeli interests and that she maybe hit an age where she ought best to retire. The former opinion could be gleaned from her statements that Israeli's ought to get out of Palestine and go back to Germany and Russia. For this she shows a bias, but she is entitled to her opinion and no one, and I mean no one should have been asked to remove her from her job. She was a op-ed writer and to do that job she has to have an opinion. I am often moved to want to fire Rachel Maddow, Ariana Huffington, Anne Coulter, and a number of other people who think that debate is nothing more than a bunch of sarcastic comments strung together with a ridiculous idea to make one sound as ludicrous as possible. Then when she has insulted the other side enough she is crowned a spokeswoman for her side.
Not one of these people could hold a lamp to a William F. Buckley, Joan Didion, George Will, or John Galbrith. What passes as debate in today's hip-hop world is not the stiletto sharp barbed airing of ideas but the in your face name-calling that neither educates nor leads one to think. It is all pop and no corn. What's worse is that when we don't agree with them, we try to hound them off the air making them inconsequential.
The latest "High tech lynching" is over at CNN. I am speaking about the firing of 20ish year veteran Octavia Nasr.
She dare tweeted that she was sorry that Hezbollah leader Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah had died.
Now personally, I am not all that fond of this guy. He rooted for the destruction of Israel, and blessed the guys who later blew themselves and the US Embassy and a Marine Barracks (killing a number of Americans.) I think he is more terrorist and criminal sympathizer than hero, but I can understand Nasr's appreciation of his pro-women's stance in Islam (now that is something different) and that one may argue that as a Hezbollah leader he has a legitimately obtained dislike for Israel. (Legitimately in that he comes by it naturally having grown up Muslim in the mid-east and didn't come to his position by other choosing).
Of course that "serious" misjudgment that she may have an opinion other than those of her viewers caused CNN to shut her down. Now I get it. We here in the USA like Israel for a number of reasons both good and bad. However to act like a wounded dog and hound her out of a job she did pretty well shows the tolerance of a 3 year old. Freedom of speech with a large part of what makes debate possible. Intelligent debate requires that people who differ and have reasons. I am sure I could make a better case for Fedallah's death than can be made for him being a loving Human Rights figure. That is not the point. Nasr had a right to her views and I a right to disagree. I do not have the right to order her off the air to assuage my feelings.
I am just saying I guess that we aren't going to grow any more smarter just listening to those that agree with our position.
I am just saying...
Monday, July 05, 2010
Of Regan, Kennedy, and Rockwell: TIme To Reflect On Being An American Not a Republicat or Demorican
A very interesting exhibit opened at the Smithsonian Art Museum In Washington DC. this Fourth of July weekend. It is a retrospective of the works of Norman Rockwell, as seen through the eyes of two of America's greatest living movie directors Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. Each has lent parts of their extensive Rockwell collections to the exhibit.
Rockwell is remembered as a artist who captured America and Americans at their best in worst times. Central to his work were the pieces that became known as the "Four Freedoms."
Rockwell told our story, the American story of the 1930's through the 1960's. His paintings captured the fear and strength of an emerging superpower. He captured our sense of wonder and our sense of determination. He was oft criticized for only capturing our "good times", but anyone who has ever really looked at his body of work, especially at "Southern Justice", and "The Problem We All Live With" knows that Rockwell understood both the American ability to do absolutely the right thing and the most horrible things. He just chose to most often show us, and remind us, of our best moments. His work reinforces that we proceed the farthest the fastest by working together.
In a like way, John F. Kennedy asked us to do the same thing. No one since Lincoln had been more divisive than the Boston Brahmin-like , Harvard educated yet Roman Catholic JFK. Our first WWII vet President and War Hero he was from an old line political machine yet like Theodore Roosevelt spoke like a populist.
He won a contested election. The nation was 50/50 for and against him, and yet Kennedy is revered by most Americans not only because he was killed by an assassin's bullet, but because he called on us to serve each other, to do not what was best or expedient for oneself but to do what was best for our nation. He ushered us in with a feeling that we could do ANYTHING. Land on the moon. Sure! Make the world safe for democracy. Absolutely! Equalize race relations. Without a doubt! We believed because he did. We believed because, our leaders, split as they were against each other, made it their job to do a job.
Ronald Regan. An Actor. A liberal labor leader turned Goldwater Republican. Was gonna lead us into war with the Soviets. Was going to destroy the poor and trample on the rights of everyone he didn't agree with.
Nope. He too saw the shining light on the hilltop as our nation. He engineered the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the rebirth of our nation as a superpower of import without firing a single shot. He stabilized our economy and made us proud of ourselves. Not by focusing on the things that kept us apart, but rather focusing on what brought us together. He fought with leaders of the left, and they with him, but the name calling we were now? The garbage that passes for political debate today? Non existent under his watch.
Regan Kennedy and Rockwell all understood the limits of America, but they called on us to remember not who we weren't but who we were and more importantly whom we could be.
To my Tea Party and Liberal friends, CUT IT OUT! Please don't send me another piece of E-mail that attacks President Obama or Senator McConnell. I don't care at this point where the hell Obama was born. I don't care that Michael Steele took some conservative yuppies to a burlesque show. Please never say "Rush Limbaugh" or "Rachel Maddow"to me, even in a joke.
I care that I want health care. I want my employees covered and I want to be covered. I know you want that too.
I want to be able to afford a vacation and still be able to retire some day. I know you want that too.
I want to give less money to the government and I want to make more money than I do. Who doesn't want this??
I want then poor to have shelter, and education. I want there to be no poverty in our nation. Republicans and Democrats want this too.
I want to live free. I don't want to have to be screened to get into my local library. Don't we all want this?
I want to save the environment and to know that our earth will feed my great great grandchildren someday. It isn't just my dream is it??
I would like you, as my elected officials to only tell me how you will do this. I do not want to hear your critique of the other guy's idea. (I am smart enough to do that critique myself, thank you.)
If I like your ideas better than the others that I hear, I will vote for you, donate to your campaigns and respect you.
If you shout down your opponent, call him or his ideas names mis-characterize his programs and act like a spoiled child if he wins the election, I will not vote for you, I will not support you and I WILL NOT RESPECT YOU!!
I ask, no I beg, the Sergeants at Arms of the United States House and Senate to post a print of Rockwell's "Freedom of Speech" at the door of each chamber. Maybe that will remind you those guys
Hattip: NY Times
Rockwell is remembered as a artist who captured America and Americans at their best in worst times. Central to his work were the pieces that became known as the "Four Freedoms."
Rockwell told our story, the American story of the 1930's through the 1960's. His paintings captured the fear and strength of an emerging superpower. He captured our sense of wonder and our sense of determination. He was oft criticized for only capturing our "good times", but anyone who has ever really looked at his body of work, especially at "Southern Justice", and "The Problem We All Live With" knows that Rockwell understood both the American ability to do absolutely the right thing and the most horrible things. He just chose to most often show us, and remind us, of our best moments. His work reinforces that we proceed the farthest the fastest by working together.
In a like way, John F. Kennedy asked us to do the same thing. No one since Lincoln had been more divisive than the Boston Brahmin-like , Harvard educated yet Roman Catholic JFK. Our first WWII vet President and War Hero he was from an old line political machine yet like Theodore Roosevelt spoke like a populist.
He won a contested election. The nation was 50/50 for and against him, and yet Kennedy is revered by most Americans not only because he was killed by an assassin's bullet, but because he called on us to serve each other, to do not what was best or expedient for oneself but to do what was best for our nation. He ushered us in with a feeling that we could do ANYTHING. Land on the moon. Sure! Make the world safe for democracy. Absolutely! Equalize race relations. Without a doubt! We believed because he did. We believed because, our leaders, split as they were against each other, made it their job to do a job.
Ronald Regan. An Actor. A liberal labor leader turned Goldwater Republican. Was gonna lead us into war with the Soviets. Was going to destroy the poor and trample on the rights of everyone he didn't agree with.
Nope. He too saw the shining light on the hilltop as our nation. He engineered the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the rebirth of our nation as a superpower of import without firing a single shot. He stabilized our economy and made us proud of ourselves. Not by focusing on the things that kept us apart, but rather focusing on what brought us together. He fought with leaders of the left, and they with him, but the name calling we were now? The garbage that passes for political debate today? Non existent under his watch.
Regan Kennedy and Rockwell all understood the limits of America, but they called on us to remember not who we weren't but who we were and more importantly whom we could be.
To my Tea Party and Liberal friends, CUT IT OUT! Please don't send me another piece of E-mail that attacks President Obama or Senator McConnell. I don't care at this point where the hell Obama was born. I don't care that Michael Steele took some conservative yuppies to a burlesque show. Please never say "Rush Limbaugh" or "Rachel Maddow"to me, even in a joke.
I care that I want health care. I want my employees covered and I want to be covered. I know you want that too.
I want to be able to afford a vacation and still be able to retire some day. I know you want that too.
I want to give less money to the government and I want to make more money than I do. Who doesn't want this??
I want then poor to have shelter, and education. I want there to be no poverty in our nation. Republicans and Democrats want this too.
I want to live free. I don't want to have to be screened to get into my local library. Don't we all want this?
I want to save the environment and to know that our earth will feed my great great grandchildren someday. It isn't just my dream is it??
I would like you, as my elected officials to only tell me how you will do this. I do not want to hear your critique of the other guy's idea. (I am smart enough to do that critique myself, thank you.)
If I like your ideas better than the others that I hear, I will vote for you, donate to your campaigns and respect you.
If you shout down your opponent, call him or his ideas names mis-characterize his programs and act like a spoiled child if he wins the election, I will not vote for you, I will not support you and I WILL NOT RESPECT YOU!!
I ask, no I beg, the Sergeants at Arms of the United States House and Senate to post a print of Rockwell's "Freedom of Speech" at the door of each chamber. Maybe that will remind you those guys
Hattip: NY Times
Monday, June 08, 2009
Freedom of Speech Does Not Permit You To Break The Law
Ian Barry is a Seventeen year old who knowingly broke the law to make a point. Ian gave a speech as to why Marijuana ought to be legal to a High School class. During the speech, he lit a joint and by the end of the speech, ingested the joint. Police arrested him. He has been charged locally. He says in this article that he accepts responsibility for his actions and that he is ready to pay a penalty for his actions.
Ian points out that he had to break the law to bring any real attention to his cause. There he may be right. Many are calling his act a act of civil disobedience and claim that it ought to be protected from prosecution as freedom of speech. I think the kid understands free speech better than many lawyers do.
His act was not an act of free speech though it was an act of civil disobedience. He broke the law to prove a point; that the law is wrong. He may get attention to his cause, he may even earn jury nullification, which would go far in getting his point even more attention, but he is not protected from arrest prosecution and conviction for his act.
It is oft said that one's rights come to an end at the tip of another's nose. In other words, you are free to do what you like until you interfere with someone else's right to do the same. In Ian's case, he is not free to break the law, only to criticize it. He moved on from that when he carried the joint to/or in school. Given the SCOTUS recent decision in the "Bong hits for Jesus" case, Ian is headed for a criminal record assuming he doesn't go to trial and convince a jury to nullify the law. He is also garnering a lot of attention for his cause.
I am not sure this is a call I'd like a teenager to make. He has no idea, despite his bravado, of the trouble he has caused himself in the future. He has however made the decision and will have to live with the consequences until the law catches up with the rest of the society's view of marijuana.
Ian points out that he had to break the law to bring any real attention to his cause. There he may be right. Many are calling his act a act of civil disobedience and claim that it ought to be protected from prosecution as freedom of speech. I think the kid understands free speech better than many lawyers do.
His act was not an act of free speech though it was an act of civil disobedience. He broke the law to prove a point; that the law is wrong. He may get attention to his cause, he may even earn jury nullification, which would go far in getting his point even more attention, but he is not protected from arrest prosecution and conviction for his act.
It is oft said that one's rights come to an end at the tip of another's nose. In other words, you are free to do what you like until you interfere with someone else's right to do the same. In Ian's case, he is not free to break the law, only to criticize it. He moved on from that when he carried the joint to/or in school. Given the SCOTUS recent decision in the "Bong hits for Jesus" case, Ian is headed for a criminal record assuming he doesn't go to trial and convince a jury to nullify the law. He is also garnering a lot of attention for his cause.
I am not sure this is a call I'd like a teenager to make. He has no idea, despite his bravado, of the trouble he has caused himself in the future. He has however made the decision and will have to live with the consequences until the law catches up with the rest of the society's view of marijuana.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Just Some Interesting Links
A court found a 91 year old man who hallucinates due to dementia legally able to stand trial on a murder. He killed a nursing home attendant who happened to come into his room. He thought the guy was an intruder. God Bless the Criminal Defense Lawyer in that one.
Hattip: ABA Journal News Now.
Haven't blogged about the sale of the Obama Senate seat. Why? Cause everyone else has. I did wonder why I hadn't seen a high profile NY Washington or Chicago White Collar lawyer on the matter. This post From the Online Wall Street Journal tells us. The Governor of Illinois can't pay his legal bills.
Finally I found this interesting piece on adult entertainment and law. It deals with how feminists can impove the Porn biz. What I find interesting in it is that here is another pro-sex Feminist. Like Camille Paglia, Tatiana Von Tauber is saying that feminists that rage against women in porn are not any more interested in women making decisions about their body than Phyllis Schlafly. They just want to control them in their own way. If Feminism is to mean anything, it means that women have the same rights to use their bodies any way they want the same way as men can. Take a look and tell me what you think.
Hattip: The Legal Satyricon.
Hattip: ABA Journal News Now.
Haven't blogged about the sale of the Obama Senate seat. Why? Cause everyone else has. I did wonder why I hadn't seen a high profile NY Washington or Chicago White Collar lawyer on the matter. This post From the Online Wall Street Journal tells us. The Governor of Illinois can't pay his legal bills.
Finally I found this interesting piece on adult entertainment and law. It deals with how feminists can impove the Porn biz. What I find interesting in it is that here is another pro-sex Feminist. Like Camille Paglia, Tatiana Von Tauber is saying that feminists that rage against women in porn are not any more interested in women making decisions about their body than Phyllis Schlafly. They just want to control them in their own way. If Feminism is to mean anything, it means that women have the same rights to use their bodies any way they want the same way as men can. Take a look and tell me what you think.
Hattip: The Legal Satyricon.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Porn Stars In the Classroom, Hookers Right Next Door, Here I Am Stuck In The Middle With You
This story and this blog post caught my attention. In their own way, each is about the same thing. Unlike the way sex workers are portrayed in the movies or on TV (especially during a "sweeps" month), most of the people in the trade are not really different than the person in the next apartment.
In the news story, a woman who earlier in her life was known to the world as Crystal Gunns, a porn star, was unwittingly hired by a local school to be an aide. She works part-time. She earns less than Six Thousand Dollars a year and works on the play ground and as a lunch aide.
Now though she is not shy about her past, she has also put it behind her. She is 32 now not 22. She may be a mom. I don't think I would have named her for others to deride her, as she has committed no crime but only sought to earn a living. I know had she been in another business the press would not have named her.
Parents want her fired. The Superintendent of her school district wants to fire her too (
Superintendent Charles Ottinger, who is of the same mindset as (Principal)Giordano, says they have been advised against firing the teachers aide, “Not that we don’t want to.”)
It is just that you see, Ms.Gunns would be able to sue the living daylights out of the school district. After all, what has she done wrong? Adult films (as opposed to Pornography) is legal. It is also a way that some men and women make money. Sly Stalone was in an adult film, as was Jackie Chan. There is no crime and thus there is no reason to fire her unless she is inappropriate with the kids. Interestingly, the kids would have not had any idea this is happening at their school but for someone publicizing it.
Now on The Debauched Domestic Diva's blog, Dee blogs about having lived a double life. She was a sexy women cheating on her husband and exploring her sexuality while leaving the chains of a dead marriage, and was his Mrs. Cleaver at home and work. (I'll leave out the Usher lyric). She talks about how she feels now that she can be more of herself. She had recently "come out" to some of her friends and now she feels she has a better relationship with her friends and is more close to them now she can be honest with them about her sexual affairs.
Now this immediately got me thinking about a blog post by Rebbeca Dios that dealt with how she would now handle being part of a community that would not accept her decisions nor recognize her needs. It comes as no shock to me that being outed has disturbed her income and negitively affect her family. She was threatened, and shunned in her small town. She fears for her husband and children. Rebecca is an enormously brave woman who faces illness in her home and her choices of how to deal with those choices straight on.
Then I remembered this post that really began me blogging occasionally of the people I represent that work in the sex trade.
It has been three years since I wrote those words and the fact of the matter is that I was right then and now. What makes me laugh is that these women are the same people who shop with us, and bowl with us, and eat at the table in the restaurant right next to us.
I am representing women now who work in the sex trade who also hold down full time jobs as teachers, nurses and secretaries in big Multi-national companies. These are not women who have left the adult business, but who are still "transitioning." I have represented women who serve on Congressional staffs.
I know one who is actually quiet religious and intends to join an "order" when she returns home (Latin America) but right now she sells herself (she is a stripper who offers "extras" because she is caring for a sick mother and father both of whom require serious surgeries at home.) She is well aware that she is sinning. So is her priest. She is honest with him. She fears being shunned at home, but more, she fears being arrested here and returned to home before she makes enough to pay the doctors and hospital and thus gets her folks thrown into the street. She is a beautiful young woman who is bright and earnest. She just cannot earn the money she earns here at home, and she cannot get a job here without being thrown out. So she "goes" to school and gets decent grades and strips at night and works for tips. She goes to Church on Saturdays and admits her sins, and on Sunday to pray for forgiveness. She is back at her "job" on Tuesday night.
I even represent a police women who has a very active though very exclusive escort life which she takes out of town.
There is a very competent lawyer I know who used to act in "B" movies with a lot of sexual tension and nudity. At first the men she worked around snickered. Maybe some still do, but that is likely before she beats their sorry butts in court.
Not one of the women I have represented or know, if others knew of their other job, would be able to work in their day jobs. (the exeption being the lawyer who interestingly works as a criminal defense attorney) On the other hand, not one of them is not outstanding in their work. I know, I have spoken or met co-workers, bosses and seen grades and met teachers. Sometimes these women come to me through those referral sources.
From all that I can see being somewhat of an outsider, sex work is neither easy nor is it "fun". It is work. Now I did not say it is drudgery. For most of these women it has its good times and bad. The one thing I have not seen is how it negatively affects their ability to be good teachers, nurses, or employees. I do not see why once they give it up, it should stygmatize them and make them unable to serve children food or watch them play.
For whatever reason a person enters the work of sex, their should also be a way to exit the world and join the ranks of those with less "interesting" jobs. When are we as a society going to look at people for who they are and not what they do. Yes I know that part of what we are is what we do, but just because someone doesn't view the world the way we do doesn't disqualify them to live next door.
It is funny but I know of people who have in my opinion done far worse things than agree to have sex with others. I know people who cheat their clients, who lie to the court, who are sworn to secrecy but can't keep a secret for all the tea in Boston. I know people whose ideas of right and wrong include telling their minions that stealing and obfucation are just part of the job. Yet many of these mostly men are lauded by colleagues and hired at quiet a good price. I know men who will beat or rob or rape a sex worker knowing that she cannot go to Police for fear of "outing" herself.
That is the normal way I these clients find me. They are not usually arrested. They are victims of assaults. They come to me because they fear reprisals from authorities. I often tell them they shouldn't but I will admit there have been times when they should and I am glad I or a staff member was there to stop some SOB from refusing to listen to their story or from firing them for their job. Fear of lawsuits and crusading lawyers is a good way to keep certain types(like School Superintendent Ottinger and Principal Giordano above)in check. (I remember Professor Monroe Freedman on the first day of classes telling us that from the minute we entered the room that we were going to be feared by all the other professions in the world, that as lawyers we were the ones they most worried about. He taught me to use the strength of our profession to do good. I try every day.)
What is funny, is that I have had potential clients who have not hired me, because I will not abandon these sex worker clients and won't keep the fact that I take such cases a secret. They feel it makes me something less of a lawyer. If anything, it makes me far better a lawyer, but I am not upset. They can keep their fees and their lawyers who look down on these clients and maybe me too. Everynight I can look at myself and feel like I have really helped someone who if not for my effort would have had no one to fight for them, no one to protect them.
Frankly however, it shouldn't have to come down to the largesse of a few hearty souls like the men and women of NACDL or FALA. People even sex workers, have a right to be protected and to expect that the law will not punish them for seeking to be protected. They should have a right to re-enter "straight" society when the time comes and to be judged on who they are and what they know and not on how they earned a living.
There is a March in Washington on December 17, 2008. The National March for Sex Worker Rights . It is a day when those of us who believe that no one should live a life of fear of attack nor fear of reprisal for being a sex worker will lift our collective voices and call on our leaders to bring an end to this kind of hate.
If you are available, you might want to check this out. You never know, the person you fight for, may be someone you know, and love, but is afraid to tell you about her choices.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Around The Blogosphere The Week of November 11, 2008 Part III of III* : Of Women, Music and All That Jazz.
*I know I previously said four. I reserve the right to consolidate because I am tired.
Here is my last installment from the Week of November 11, 2008.
1.Two Sex-Workers Talk About the Sex Trade.(Links are NSFW).
I spend a lot of time representing men and women who are involved in the Business of Sex. Some of their pursuits are legal, some not legal, some straddle the boarder. Occasionally I write about the experience. I also however keep up with what some of the people in the provider and "hobbyist" side of the field are saying.
This week the New York City Sex Bloggers rolled out their 2009 "pinup"calendar to benefit the Sex Workers Awareness (an education and outreach program)which I am told is a non-profit organization I have seen the way people treat Sex workers. I have seen the way that police discount them and how they have been marginalized though many are smart and hard working mothers, caretakers, students, and just regular folk. I would not treat a dog the way our criminal justice system treats these people. Hence I am giving their calendar a shout out here. I would have been at the rollout party last night but for a pressing and late breaking personal issue.
Meanwhile I thought I would highlight two posts from Sex Workers blogs.
A. This one at "The Real Princess Diaries" is about the way most sex-workers view their clientele. It doesn't apply to all and it doesn't apply to the entire strata anymore than any opinion piece can sum up the position of all workers in any field. It is indicative of how most of the clients I have see the scene.
B. Renegade Evolution is a blog, and from what I can gather a person too. She is a sex blogger and worker. She is opinionated, blunt and usually succinct. In this post she talks about a fact in the sex field that makes it hard to help sex workers (providers) and stops them from uniting. It is the Sex Worker Caste System and I see it everyday.
Stop a topless dancer and tell her she is a sex worker, she will tell you she is involved in a legal business and she is a good girl but that escorts are whores. She will tell you all she does is expose her body and people give her money for the privilege of seeing the Hand of God in her beauty.
The High end Escort will tell you that the stripper is the real whore, selling her body and teasing her clients for a buck here or there. She on the other hand does not expose herself before countless others. She only "dates" nice wealthy men who she would likely sleep with anyway if they met under other circumstances. In addition unlike the Porn star or stripper, her work is done in private and is "confidential".
The Porn Star thinks they are both insane. She will tell you she sleeps with men she knows and many whom she loves, she makes a lot of money far more than the others and she is engaged in a safe and legal field where the women call a lot of the shots.
Renegade Evolution thinks they should put away the Bull and unite to help each other. I have to say I agree with her. It is about time workers in the field get out of each others way, acknowledge the business they are all in and try to improve conditions for all. The fight is like criminal lawyers not acknowledging the work of litigators or transactional lawyers. It is all law just different...
2..The Music Scene
A. Wynton Marsalis and Jazz at Lincoln Center (JALC) have been celebrating Louis Armstrong and Thelonious Monk. Two of my all time favs. Here is a link to the post about the Armstrong speech and this one on e nights of Thelonious Monk tribute concerts.
B. Probation in Plea Deal for Blogger Who Leaked Guns N’ Roses Songs. Blogger streamed 9 G'n R songs on his blog, busted for the Copyright Infringement. Getting Probation, hasn't told where he got the songs from... still may however. I wonder if he had streamed only snippets of each song if that would have been protected speech??? IP Genius' any ideas?
C. "Tuba Man" Murdered by Teens, Seattle Mourns
Every city has a person or two who are as big if not bigger than that city itself. He is half village idiot, half sage, but he is beloved and the city adopts him. In NY it is the "Naked Cowboy", In San Francisco it's Frank Chu, In Washington DC it is President Bush, but in Seattle Washington it was Edward Scott McMichael aka "Tuba Man". He was a "busker" a man who made his living making his music on the streets. He was a guy who seemed to pop up everywhere, asking "DO YOU WANT TO BE A PART OF IT?? Who didn't want to be a part of it. He could take your worst day and make you smile with the "Um pa pa" of the Tuba.
"Tuba Man" was murdered allegedly by a group of teens who didn't recognize him. He didn't have his Tuba with him that day.
Story from the NY Times
Money Quote: “Ed would ask in his unmistakable baritone, ‘John, do you want to be a part of it tonight?’ ” Mr. Tangeman recalled. “This statement was part of the genius of Ed, as if contributing to Ed’s efforts, one was not only being a part of Ed’s life but being a part of something much larger, something almost unobtainable.”
That's it for now. I may or may not post another part later. If I do, consider this III of IV. Otherwise, who knows.
Here is my last installment from the Week of November 11, 2008.
1.Two Sex-Workers Talk About the Sex Trade.(Links are NSFW).
I spend a lot of time representing men and women who are involved in the Business of Sex. Some of their pursuits are legal, some not legal, some straddle the boarder. Occasionally I write about the experience. I also however keep up with what some of the people in the provider and "hobbyist" side of the field are saying.
This week the New York City Sex Bloggers rolled out their 2009 "pinup"calendar to benefit the Sex Workers Awareness (an education and outreach program)which I am told is a non-profit organization I have seen the way people treat Sex workers. I have seen the way that police discount them and how they have been marginalized though many are smart and hard working mothers, caretakers, students, and just regular folk. I would not treat a dog the way our criminal justice system treats these people. Hence I am giving their calendar a shout out here. I would have been at the rollout party last night but for a pressing and late breaking personal issue.
Meanwhile I thought I would highlight two posts from Sex Workers blogs.
A. This one at "The Real Princess Diaries" is about the way most sex-workers view their clientele. It doesn't apply to all and it doesn't apply to the entire strata anymore than any opinion piece can sum up the position of all workers in any field. It is indicative of how most of the clients I have see the scene.
B. Renegade Evolution is a blog, and from what I can gather a person too. She is a sex blogger and worker. She is opinionated, blunt and usually succinct. In this post she talks about a fact in the sex field that makes it hard to help sex workers (providers) and stops them from uniting. It is the Sex Worker Caste System and I see it everyday.
Stop a topless dancer and tell her she is a sex worker, she will tell you she is involved in a legal business and she is a good girl but that escorts are whores. She will tell you all she does is expose her body and people give her money for the privilege of seeing the Hand of God in her beauty.
The High end Escort will tell you that the stripper is the real whore, selling her body and teasing her clients for a buck here or there. She on the other hand does not expose herself before countless others. She only "dates" nice wealthy men who she would likely sleep with anyway if they met under other circumstances. In addition unlike the Porn star or stripper, her work is done in private and is "confidential".
The Porn Star thinks they are both insane. She will tell you she sleeps with men she knows and many whom she loves, she makes a lot of money far more than the others and she is engaged in a safe and legal field where the women call a lot of the shots.
Renegade Evolution thinks they should put away the Bull and unite to help each other. I have to say I agree with her. It is about time workers in the field get out of each others way, acknowledge the business they are all in and try to improve conditions for all. The fight is like criminal lawyers not acknowledging the work of litigators or transactional lawyers. It is all law just different...
2..The Music Scene
A. Wynton Marsalis and Jazz at Lincoln Center (JALC) have been celebrating Louis Armstrong and Thelonious Monk. Two of my all time favs. Here is a link to the post about the Armstrong speech and this one on e nights of Thelonious Monk tribute concerts.
B. Probation in Plea Deal for Blogger Who Leaked Guns N’ Roses Songs. Blogger streamed 9 G'n R songs on his blog, busted for the Copyright Infringement. Getting Probation, hasn't told where he got the songs from... still may however. I wonder if he had streamed only snippets of each song if that would have been protected speech??? IP Genius' any ideas?
C. "Tuba Man" Murdered by Teens, Seattle Mourns
Every city has a person or two who are as big if not bigger than that city itself. He is half village idiot, half sage, but he is beloved and the city adopts him. In NY it is the "Naked Cowboy", In San Francisco it's Frank Chu, In Washington DC it is President Bush, but in Seattle Washington it was Edward Scott McMichael aka "Tuba Man". He was a "busker" a man who made his living making his music on the streets. He was a guy who seemed to pop up everywhere, asking "DO YOU WANT TO BE A PART OF IT?? Who didn't want to be a part of it. He could take your worst day and make you smile with the "Um pa pa" of the Tuba.
"Tuba Man" was murdered allegedly by a group of teens who didn't recognize him. He didn't have his Tuba with him that day.
Story from the NY Times
Money Quote: “Ed would ask in his unmistakable baritone, ‘John, do you want to be a part of it tonight?’ ” Mr. Tangeman recalled. “This statement was part of the genius of Ed, as if contributing to Ed’s efforts, one was not only being a part of Ed’s life but being a part of something much larger, something almost unobtainable.”
That's it for now. I may or may not post another part later. If I do, consider this III of IV. Otherwise, who knows.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Libertarianism Defined: Not Safe for the Kids
Stripper blogger Renegade Evolution has a rather vulgar but very accurate description of why a younger generation is turning away from the Republican Party that chooses Sarah Palin as one of it's standard bearers. RenEv as she calls herself, is not kidding in her reasons or the strength of her belief in liberty. I am not sure the founders would have been able to dream her dream, but I think that any fair reading of the Constitution would agree with the reasons she is drawn to the concept of Liberty. I for one think that the days of the old Republican party are drawing to a close. I think you will soon see a viable third party that takes back the mantel of liberty from both the Democrats and the Republicans. It may not be called the Libertarian party, but it will have as main tenants of its platform a socially liberal fiscally conservative bent. While I have seen these sentiments put more eloquently, this a succinct and simple definition worth the read, for ADULTS ONLY.
Meanwhile, I am headed to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) Meeting in Tampa Florida. Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude. Hopefully I will get a full blog up before the end of the week. I still need to blog about big and little lies and how a good cross-examiner works with them.
Meanwhile, I am headed to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) Meeting in Tampa Florida. Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude. Hopefully I will get a full blog up before the end of the week. I still need to blog about big and little lies and how a good cross-examiner works with them.
Monday, October 06, 2008
The First Monday in October: SCOTUS OPENS ITS NEW TERM
I have mentioned this before, but I love the First Monday in October. I used to love going to the Supreme Court of the United States as a student at Tufts. Catch the train or drive at an un-Godly hour; sleep as much as possible; walk from Union Station in the October air; stand in line to get in, and watch the 9 most important men (it was all men then) in law take their seats and begin to work.
The day before the First Monday in October is the Red Mass. It is a Catholic Mass said for the judges and lawyers. It is solemn and filled with Pomp and Circumstance. Prayers are said for these men and women that they will find the knowledge, justice and mercy that makes for good lawyering and judging.
Tomorrow the term begins. The big issue on the calendar so far is "Preemption". Are the states preempted by federal law from entering into certain areas that the feds now say are theirs? It is not an easy concept to grasp but it is important in for conservatives who believe in state's rights and are fighting the ever growing intrusive role of the federal government into what had formerly been states province.
The Associated Press (AP) gives us a rundown of some of the issues coming in front of the judges this year in an article here
As previously noted Scotus Blog has a rundown of the criminal cases the court faces. These include what an enterprise consists of in a Civil or Criminal RICO suit; Speedy trial delay; and issues surrounding the taking and use of Confessions and admissions at trial when arraignments have been delayed; or when someone gives police a statement without waiving his right to counsel, and it is used against him when he later takes the stand in his own defense. (In other words, if the confession was taken in absence of the waiver, it cannot be used on the Government's case in chief. The question is should it come in if the defendant takes the stand and says something other than what he told the police when Police took his statement without getting the defendant to properly wave his rights).
In all it may be a quieter year, but it holds some really important decisions ahead.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Welcome to a Day in My Life
Radley Balko blogs at a Cato Institute inspired (?) blog called The Agitator. He has a very funny piece today on Strip Club legal etiquette. As a First Amendment/Civil Rights/Constitutional/Criminal Defense Lawyer in New York and on Long Island, I have to answer questions like these 100 times a week*
I also love my job Radley, but it can sometimes get tedious...
Enjoy the read.
I also love my job Radley, but it can sometimes get tedious...
Enjoy the read.
The "Mouse" in the House is a "Rat": Disney Flogs Cyrus and Lebowitz While Selling Sleaze Abroad
Disney jumped all over poor Miley Cyrus and celebrity photog Annie Leibowitz for taking pictures of Cyrus while her upper body was under a silk sheet and her back was exposed. Religious Righters who must make up a majority of Disney stockholders and allegedly the parents of Hannah Montana fans, completely forgetting their youth, freaked out over pictures that wouldn't steam up the windows of a hot house. All the while these Disney guys were selling underwear by laying a 12-13 year old model wearing nothing but a bra and panties on a BILLBOARD in China... Freaking hypocrites. As usual Disney was Shocked Shocked that a local distributor would do such a thing... but of course the Disney rep couldn't help but account for differences in cultures because China has a 14 year old age of consent as opposed to 16 here in the states... Check this out and read more in Slate. I think I smell a Rat...
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Hannah Montana NUDE??? What Is The Big Deal with the Miley Cyrus Vanity Fair Photos??
The Today program is trying to tell parents how to "Deal" with the Photos of Hannah Montana star Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair. GIVE ME A BREAK.
First off, give me a break. The photos do not rise to PG-13. If no one said anything about it most under the age of 15 would never have known she was in there.
Secondly, you gotta be kidding me. With the advent of Cellphones with cameras and webcams these photo's by one of America's top fashion photographers are both beautiful and benign. Seeing all the fuss about them, I was startled to find out that Miley, draped in a white sheet and showing her naked back would have any effect on a teen or pre-teen in Nassau or Suffolk County, much less New York City.
Then I was worried about my becoming too jaded. That was until my saint-like wife said that she too was amazed at the fuss and didn't see anything wrong with the pictures.
Now I am wondering if this wasn't a wonderful ploy by Cyrus or even Disney to bring some controversy to the show and to her career and prepare her for the next step in her becoming a star post her Hannah Montana gig.
After all with Spears, Aguillara, Lohan, and Hugedens among others, does anyone still believe the Disney ingenue is really all that chase?? In another 3 years, look for the new boyfriend to have cellphone pictures that will make people's hair stand on end. Maybe if we paid less attention to this stuff it would have no effect at all.
Am I that out of touch?
First off, give me a break. The photos do not rise to PG-13. If no one said anything about it most under the age of 15 would never have known she was in there.
Secondly, you gotta be kidding me. With the advent of Cellphones with cameras and webcams these photo's by one of America's top fashion photographers are both beautiful and benign. Seeing all the fuss about them, I was startled to find out that Miley, draped in a white sheet and showing her naked back would have any effect on a teen or pre-teen in Nassau or Suffolk County, much less New York City.
Then I was worried about my becoming too jaded. That was until my saint-like wife said that she too was amazed at the fuss and didn't see anything wrong with the pictures.
Now I am wondering if this wasn't a wonderful ploy by Cyrus or even Disney to bring some controversy to the show and to her career and prepare her for the next step in her becoming a star post her Hannah Montana gig.
After all with Spears, Aguillara, Lohan, and Hugedens among others, does anyone still believe the Disney ingenue is really all that chase?? In another 3 years, look for the new boyfriend to have cellphone pictures that will make people's hair stand on end. Maybe if we paid less attention to this stuff it would have no effect at all.
Am I that out of touch?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Scalia on 60 Minutes: The Rock Star Speaks
It was a great interview. Nino starred. His sense of humor and his actual humility came through. I am not going to go around and look for ways that he is either a hypocrite or even wrong. I think for the first time since Justice Douglas, we have an erudite well spoken and well read judicial hero. He may not be universally liked, but he stated his case for originalism well. I only wish Stahl had asked questions about federalism's reach and what if any limits there may be.
Originalism is not a dead constitution, it is for letting the constitution stand for what it says and for laws to stand for what they stand for. It is the reason that the constitution gets amended when the country believes there is a reason for it. It is the reason that it requires so many votes to amend it.
I like the way Scalia spoke about how he would do away with all abortion or have thrown the flag burner in jail if it were up to him. How his belief in the constitution does not allow for personal opinions to take the sway.
I did think he parsed words a bit too much when it came to using the cruel and unusual punishment language in the discussion about torture. I agreed with Stahl that the 8th amendment to the constitution would not allow for the use of torture and torture is just as easily a punishment for one's beliefs or race etc. as it can be viewed as an instrument of interrogation. The point is that I think Scalia asks the correct questions, in that the first question he must ask himself is, does the issue present a question that implicates the constitution as the forefather's wrote it. Where he and I may disagree comes down to understanding what is taken in by the meanings. He is broader than I in some places, and I broader than he in others. I also may take a more narrow view of how expansive a law is. In interpreting law, I am one who believes in looking at the actual words of a law and not giving meanings to them that either restricts or expands them beyond the words the legislature uses. I would also say that I would have to look hard at legislative history in interpreting many laws. I think he uses too little of that in his writings.
I also wish Stahl had asked him how he uses Presidential (or executive) signing statements and what if any effect he thinks they should be viewed by a judge when interpreting statutes.
Getting back to his originalist views, I am glad to hear him explain that if a case (like Roe) is found to be outside the constitution by the court, then go back to the public or their leaders and ask them to change it. Make a new law, or amend the constitution, either way, it is a republic and the majority's interests must often be upheld. Yes that view may hurt me a lot on a lot of cases, Yes it is the way a judge and a citizen should look at the Constitution.
Originalism is not a dead constitution, it is for letting the constitution stand for what it says and for laws to stand for what they stand for. It is the reason that the constitution gets amended when the country believes there is a reason for it. It is the reason that it requires so many votes to amend it.
I like the way Scalia spoke about how he would do away with all abortion or have thrown the flag burner in jail if it were up to him. How his belief in the constitution does not allow for personal opinions to take the sway.
I did think he parsed words a bit too much when it came to using the cruel and unusual punishment language in the discussion about torture. I agreed with Stahl that the 8th amendment to the constitution would not allow for the use of torture and torture is just as easily a punishment for one's beliefs or race etc. as it can be viewed as an instrument of interrogation. The point is that I think Scalia asks the correct questions, in that the first question he must ask himself is, does the issue present a question that implicates the constitution as the forefather's wrote it. Where he and I may disagree comes down to understanding what is taken in by the meanings. He is broader than I in some places, and I broader than he in others. I also may take a more narrow view of how expansive a law is. In interpreting law, I am one who believes in looking at the actual words of a law and not giving meanings to them that either restricts or expands them beyond the words the legislature uses. I would also say that I would have to look hard at legislative history in interpreting many laws. I think he uses too little of that in his writings.
I also wish Stahl had asked him how he uses Presidential (or executive) signing statements and what if any effect he thinks they should be viewed by a judge when interpreting statutes.
Getting back to his originalist views, I am glad to hear him explain that if a case (like Roe) is found to be outside the constitution by the court, then go back to the public or their leaders and ask them to change it. Make a new law, or amend the constitution, either way, it is a republic and the majority's interests must often be upheld. Yes that view may hurt me a lot on a lot of cases, Yes it is the way a judge and a citizen should look at the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)