Free Press?

[MacAllister]

Amendment I (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html) - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In 2002, the US was ranked 17th (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116) in the world, with regard to Freedom of the Press. By 2006, that ranking has fallen drastically--the US is now ranked well below (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639) countries like El Salvador. (Rankings taken from the Worldwide Press Freedom Index (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19391).)

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.


Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year.


Bilal Hussein is a Pulitzer-prize winning photo-journalist, btw.

My question for discussion is this: As a writer, how important is free speech to you? How do we best defend and exercise that right?

Glen Greenwald (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-bilal-hussein-detention-reveals.html) writes:Bilal Hussein is the Pulitzer Prize-winning Associated Press photographer who was detained (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/18/america/NA_GEN_US_Iraq_Photographer_Detained.php) by the U.S. military in Iraq back in April -- almost six months ago. Along with 14,000 other people (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216818,00.html) around the world (at least) (http://www.correntewire.com/35_000_in_secret_prisons), he continues to remain in U.S. custody without being charged with any crime. The U.S. military has vaguely claimed that he has close ties with Iraqi insurgents but refuses to specify (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17542) what it is specifically that he is alleged to have done, refuses to provide any hearing or process of any kind for him to learn of the charges or contest them, and refuses to respond to AP's requests for information about why he is being held.

As writers, are we honestly going to just swallow that a free press needs to be curtailed, that it poses some threat? Because, so far, we seem to be doing precisely that.

Thoughts?

[SpookyWriter]

The terms Free Press (speech) and America do not agree with each other. Our press is manipulated and controlled by special interest. The Iraq (war) illegal invasion of a sovereign country was another example of the press sleeping with the government and not providing independent reporting.

The press in Iraq were orchestrated much like a marching band. They didn't report objectively because they were the guest of the American military and subject to their rules of what is news worthy.

If you live or travel outside of America then you can actually see what's happening in the world today. But you will not get the facts, truth, or straight talk from the American press.

I wondered what happened. Just when did the press become a mouth piece for special interest?

I admire any journalist who stands up to the obstacles of government and war to report the truth. I think we should demand to know what's really going on in the world.

But we don't. We are complaisant to get our sound bites of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are docile to the truth. We don't want to know what's really going on with secret prisons. We just want the bad guys to go away and let us enjoy the NBA playoffs.

ETA: Free speech is losing ground in this country. Dare say something offensive about the (fill in the blanks) and become watched. Don't dare confront the leaders in this country about how poorly they're doing for fear of being arrested or detained. The wicked truth is that freedom of speech is important and becoming a mockery by our elected leaders. They don't want us to speak out against the injustice of their agenda.

[wordmonkey]

I wondered what happened. Just when did the press become a mouth piece for special interest?

Actually if you look back, just a little over a hundred years and look at the country Theodore Roosevelt stepped into as President, you will see that this country has slide back to the way things were then.

However, with specific reference to the press, for the longest time the press has had a bias. What is different now is that the bias is predominantly one way (connected to the robber barons.... er.... I mean corporations that own them) now.

On face value, I have no problem with that. As long as you know the bias you can filter accordingly. It's when they claim to be free of bias but aren't that I think is wrong. The idea of the crusading free press was a post WWII thing that pretty much died in the seventies and was savaged by the equal time rules that were killed Reagan. (I know that's specific to broadcast, but it stands as a time marker and event.)

Of course, some of our colleagues here might disagree. Some might well respond, "Non-issue. Left-wing agenda. Nothing to see here. Move along and stop thinking."

The grand experiment has been hijacked by people who see no value in experimentation.

WOW! Well thanks for that depressing little start to the day!

[SC Harrison]

My question for discussion is this: As a writer, how important is free speech to you? How do we best defend and exercise that right?



Aside from personal efforts such as blogging, any other efforts to exercise this right will be screened by editors and/or publishers before reaching print. If they are being unduly influenced by some outside source, your only choice is to a) allow the filtering, or b) hope some other entity will publish you.

[Tracy]

I found this very interesting, thanks for posting it Mac. Freedom of speech is such an inherent right, it must be fought for and claimed. I imagine that there's a danger of its erosion arriving at a critical mass whereby there isn't even enough freedom of speech to talk about the fact that there isn't any freedom of speech (!) so then how will anybody know?

[Bravo]

US border has been confiscating laptops and searching them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/business/24road.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Bravo]

The US government is developing a massive computer system that can collect huge amounts of data and, by linking far-flung information from blogs and e-mail to government records and intelligence reports, search for patterns of terrorist activity.

The system - parts of which are operational, parts of which are still under development - is already credited with helping to foil some plots. It is the federal government's latest attempt to use broad data-collection and powerful analysis in the fight against terrorism. But by delving deeply into the digital minutiae of American life, the program is also raising concerns that the government is intruding too deeply into citizens' privacy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.html

[robeiae]

In 2002, the US was ranked 17th (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116) in the world, with regard to Freedom of the Press. By 2006, that ranking has fallen drastically--the US is now ranked well below (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639) countries like El Salvador.
The rankings are arbitrary and largely meaningless.

From "How the index was drawn up":
Reporters Without Borders sent out a questionnaire based on the main criteria for such freedom and asking for details of directs attacks on journalists (such as murders, imprisonment, physical assaults and threats) and on the media (censorship, confiscation, searches and pressure). It also asked about the degree of impunity enjoyed by those responsible for such violations.So by defintion, the index is based on nothing but random opinions.

Here are some things to chew on:

1) What's the relationship between size, with regard to the nations, and the numbers of "violations" against journalists? In other words, were the numbers figured on a per capita basis, or just taken as raw data? And did someone bother to see whether or not population increases correlate to increses in "violations" directly? Is the correlation even, or does it have an exponential component (I suspect the latter)?

2) What's the relationship between population demographics and the number of "violations"? Do more homogenous populations, in any category, exhibit more or less violations, or is this not a factor?

3) What about the size of the media/press, relative to the population? Is this consistent for all nations considered or does it change wildly? How might that effect the conclusions?

4) And then there is the average age of the members of the media/press. Do those with younger averages typically show more or less violations?

I could go on...and on...and on...

I also noted that the initial rankings in 2002 had the the U.S. ranked lower than European countries because of legal problems for reporters refusing to reveal their sources. I know media types like to hang their hats on this 'right,' but I can't seem to find it in the First Amendment, above and beyond the general right of Freedom of Speech...
Bilal Hussein is a Pulitzer-prize winning photo-journalist, btw.So he's beyond reproach and could not possibly have done anything wrong? A poor bit of reasoning, Mac. I know nothing about him, but a Pulitzer doesn't automatically make someone perfect.
My question for discussion is this: As a writer, how important is free speech to you? How do we best defend and exercise that right?

Glen Greenwald (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-bilal-hussein-detention-reveals.html) writes:

As writers, are we honestly going to just swallow that a free press needs to be curtailed, that it poses some threat? Because, so far, we seem to be doing precisely that.

Thoughts?Considering the current volume of "the press" (which is so far above anything in the past, what with 24 hour cable news and the internet), I'm having a hard time finding any significant curtailments that cause me to worry. And as I've noted before, I don't do slippery slopes.

[aghast]

one only needs to go outside of this country, say europe, to realize how much curtailing is in america press media - we are running a propaganda machine (on both red and blue sides) here - theres no secret that editors at major papers and news orgs stifle or discourage material out of many reasons - political leanings, fear, risk of prosecution, etc, e.g. americans are only hearing a small part of the truths in iraq

[Sheryl Nantus]

I can't wait until the Democrats take back the country and fix the world.

really.

[SC Harrison]

The rankings are arbitrary and largely meaningless.

I could go on...and on...and on...



Regardless of the methods used in developing the rankings, if the same methods were used from year to year (which is the question you should have posited), the decline (or perception of) in journalistic freedom is apparent.

I understand your disinclination for slippery slopes, so you may want to ignore the rest of this. Opinions and perceptions, especially amongst those who bring us information, are critical in detecting whether our duly elected government is operating within its constitutional limitations. Sometimes smoke just happens, but you need to look anyway to make sure there isn't a fire.

[robeiae]

Regardless of the methods used in developing the rankings, if the same methods were used from year to year (which is the question you should have posited), the decline (or perception of) in journalistic freedom is apparent.Incorrect, as the comparison of the U.S. ranking does not actually indicate a "decline," per se. It indicates a change in the arbitrary rank that the U.S. has been assigned. This change could just as easily be a product of perceived "increases" in other nations; the rankings are not based on empirical quantitative differences in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the rankings are necassarily based on qualitative differences. which are established through random opinion of a tiny portion of the overall population. Like I said: arbitrary.

You can, of course, make the judgement of whether or not journalistic freedom has declined or increased in a given nation or the world at large, based on your own experiences and knowledge. And that judgement is clearly an opinion. These rankings are no more meaningful than that opinion.

[DeniseK]

It gets worse

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/

[dclary]

My question for discussion is this: As a writer, how important is free speech to you? How do we best defend and exercise that right?

As a writer, I take the freedom of speech very seriously. I understand that I have a responsibility to choose my words carefully, because they may hurt others (this board is rife with sensitive-types who care not for freedom of speech, only that their noses don't smell the stink of offensive material, for instance).

However, I will never lay down my right to say whatever I want, specifically how I want. No word is verboten to me, to use as I feel warranted.

The first amendment was written *specifically* so that common people could insult politicians and heads of state without fear of reprisal. I do not believe it was written to protect writers from being forced to turn over sources or archives. I don't believe it protects writers in the event they perform criminal acts.

America remains one of the few nations in the world where you can say anything you want about whoever you want, without fear of anything more than social stigmatizing and popular repercussions -- not jail time and a hatchet on your neck.

[dclary]

It gets worse

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/

Apparently you forget how our justice system works. Someone will take this to the supreme court, the supreme court will go "nope, unconstitutional" and the law will be thrown out.

You guys panic like a bunch of 3-year-olds who don't realize our country actually works pretty good when you let it.

[blacbird]

Apparently you forget how our justice system works. Someone will take this to the supreme court, the supreme court will go "nope, unconstitutional" and the law will be thrown out.

This Supreme Court?

caw.

[SC Harrison]

Apparently you forget how our justice system works. Someone will take this to the supreme court, the supreme court will go "nope, unconstitutional" and the law will be thrown out.

You guys panic like a bunch of 3-year-olds who don't realize our country actually works pretty good when you let it.

It works pretty good because some people don't just "let it". :)

We're a work in progress, and nobody is perfect, which means we gotta keep our eyes on stuff.

[dclary]

It works pretty good because some people don't just "let it". :)

We're a work in progress, and nobody is perfect, which means we gotta keep our eyes on stuff.

Exactly. But it requires faith in the system, not fear of it.

[Zisel]

What worries me more than the curtailment of freedom of the press is what
seems to be the average person’s (not picking on any one nationality)
lack of interest in the facts and the desire to filter information through
an emotion-based “what should be” screen (blind patriotism or partisanism). Like what SpookyWriter mentioned. So many people in the US seem
to assume or want to believe what’s on CNN is the whole truth. There are alternative news
sources, but to get a truly in-depth understanding of, say, what’s going
on in Iraq, would take more digging than your average full-time-working
parent of 2.5 kids has time for. I don't know if people are complacent or
just burned out.

I agree with what wordmonkey said about press bias. Biased news sources
aren’t as big a problem if it’s obvious whose side they’re biased toward
and there are other easily available news sources with different biases.
The country where I live now is in the top ten of that
Reporters Sans Frontieres list, but certainly not because journalists
are free from police harassment. I think the only reason is because most
papers and TV stations proudly define themselves as leftist or rightist
(at a variety of points on that continuum) and take steps to protect
“their” reporters. Also, these news sources tend to balance each other
out and even among the major newspapers, you’re unlikely to find ubiquitous support for a given issue.

I think (hope) there will always be people willing to risk their lives, if need be, to
get at the truth, whether that means investigating under cover, running an
illicit newspaper, or just owning a short-wave radio and telling the neighbors
what they heard on it. If no one cares to hear the news, though, what
good does finding it do?

Anyway, I don't have any answers, just musing.

Z

And sorry for the wierd formatting. Don't know why it's doing that.

[Sheryl Nantus]

yay!

Canada's number 5!

[billythrilly7th]

It must be really easy to have amazing freedom of the press when you're Finland and have like three newspapers, two magazines, one TV station and like a grand total of 12 reporters covering snow and cheese 365 a year.

"No violations in Finland!!! They're #1."

"America, sorry...despite only 8 of what we'd call 'violations' out of 1344 newspapers, 10 channels, 87 magazines, 12,987 active reporters and covering about 346,329 total stories, we're gonna have to drop you below Venezeuala this year. Yes, Hugo Chaves allows more freedom of speech than you. I know it's hard to believe. But we did a study!!!!!!!"

lol...

the whole thing ....laughable.

But, I enjoy freedom of speech.

Especially when it doesn't violate laws.

If it does, sorry.

If you don't like that, then call your senators and congressmen and tell them to pease heed the call to have the United States and our intellience services and our military to no longer have classified info.

Every day, every thing, every plan, every weapon should be broadcast on the "Classified Info Station."

And then we won't have any more freedom of speech issues.

Thank you.

[robeiae]

yay!

Canada's number 5!That was in '02. Now you're 16.

[Sheryl Nantus]

yay!

we're number 16!

*rolls eyes*

[billythrilly7th]

"Congrats, Finland!! Our exhaustive check has shown that out of the 187 Finland Gazette Front Page Stories entited 'We love Hockey!' not a single one was squashed by the government. You guys are so free with your press!"
Wik Werner
Freedom of Press Insititute Chairman

[dclary]

That Wik. He's so funny.

[SC Harrison]

Freedom of speech issues are being fought all across this nation. People want to say things that others don't want to hear, and when one individual is more powerful than another, sometimes that power is used to stifle:

http://www.aclu.org/newsroom/browsebyresults.php?issue_select=Free+Speech&aff_select=&month=&year=&section_name=Newsroom&content_type=9&Submit=Go

ACLU Files Lawsuit Charging Asheville, NC Violates Right to Stage Peaceful Demonstrations (10/04/2006)
ASHEVILLE, NC -- The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of an immigration reform group that was charged exorbitant, unnecessary fees for a permit to hold a peaceful march in Asheville on May 1, 2006.


NYCLU Sues Village of Bellport to End Requirement That Protestors Buy $2 Million in Insurance (09/27/2006)
NEW YORK -- The New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit to force the village of Bellport to drop an arbitrary and unconstitutional requirement that groups wishing to march in the street must purchase $2 million in insurance and indemnify the village from liability as a condition of receiving protest permits.


ACLU of Florida Sues Miami Officials for Blocking Human Rights Protest at Free Trade Meeting (06/27/2006)
MIAMI - The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida today filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Amnesty International USA, charging that city and police officials prevented members of the human rights organization from exercising their constitutional right to assemble and protest, despite having obtained proper permits.


Virginia Judge Allows Signs Critical of Local Officials (06/19/2006)
RICHMOND, VA - The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia today announced a victory for free speech after a Chesterfield County Circuit Court judge ruled that a homeowner who posted two large signs in his yard criticizing local government officials did not violate the county's sign ordinance.


In Landmark Florida Case, ACLU Preserves Right of Students Not to Recite Pledge (06/01/2006)
WEST PALM BEACH, FL -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida today applauded a district court ruling striking down a state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge will continue to be recited in public school classrooms, but the unconstitutional practice of forcing all students to stand and recite the pledge will be halted.


ACLU of New Mexico Defends VA Employee Accused of 'Sedition' Over Criticism of Bush Administration (01/31/2006)
ALBUQUERQUE --The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico today demanded an explanation from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for investigating a federal employee who published an editorial critical of the Bush administration in a local newspaper.


Following ACLU Action, Pasadena to Allow Residents to Hang Political Signs (09/27/2005)
LOS ANGELES - Following a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, a Pasadena couple who was forced to remove a sign questioning the war in Iraq from the exterior of their home will be allowed to hang it from their home once again, according to the city attorney.



Alright Mods. Don't even think about stifling me, 'cause I know where to go if you do. :) Heh heh.

[whistlelock]

Just when did the press become a mouth piece for special interest?. Lemme see, what was that quote? Oh, yeah..."You provide the pictures, I'll provide the war."

It happened when news became a business that needs to make money.

[dclary]

Lemme see, what was that quote? Oh, yeah..."You provide the pictures, I'll provide the war."

It happened when news became a business that needs to make money.

So... about day 2?

[robeiae]

So... about day 2?
More like 8:35 am on day 1...

[dclary]

Freedom of speech issues are being fought all across this nation. People want to say things that others don't want to hear, and when one individual is more powerful than another, sometimes that power is used to stifle:

Wow, you really want to use these Harrison?

ACLU suing Asheville because a city set a $1500 price on a permit for a demonstration of 3500 people? Less than .50 a person?

ACLU suing Miami for not allowing AI into downtown Miami during the FTAA? There was all sorts of violence and anarchists going crazy downtown, and the police were trying to stop that. But they're going to sue because extenuating circumstances (ie crazy a$$hole protestors) prevented the peaceful gathering of other protestors?

You're lauding the ACLU for FIGHTING the recital of the pledge of allegiance? Honestly, if you're not willing to make that pledge you need to get the hell out of the country.

The ACLU has never once had the best interests of America or Americans in its mind or plans. Its only purpose for existence is to promote sedition, flaunt any and all loopholes in good laws, and generally be an advocate for criminals, scum, and losers nationwide.

[Opty]

It gets worse

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/

My favorite quote from that article:

"Why does habeas corpus hate America?"


Heh.

[Opty]

Wow, you really want to use these Harrison?

ACLU suing Asheville because a city set a $1500 price on a permit for a demonstration of 3500 people? Less than .50 a person?

The cost of the permit isn't based on how many people show up, Dave (implying that it would be charged after the protestors "take attendance.").

Dave, your argument here is silly and more than a bit disingenuous. I don't know if you're making it because you are intentionally telling half-truths and deliberately distorting the facts (a tactic often used by your hero GW and his administration), because you didn't actually take the time to read, process, and understand the actual facts, or because you're unconsciously ignoring facts which present reality in a way that conflicts with your biases.

But, to edify you, here are the actual facts of that case:


According to the complaint, the police department charged the organization with arbitrary fees just days before the event, despite the group’s objections that they would not be able to pay. The group was charged $1,000 for police protection, $100 for rental of Pack Square, $150 for parking meter fees that the city claimed it could not collect due to the temporary street closures, and $250 for barricades. On Friday, April 28, the police department informed the group that the permit would be issued, allowing them to have their march, only if the fees were paid in full by 11:00 a.m. on Monday, May 1.

The group was able to pull together the funds and held a peaceful march that drew an estimated 3,000 - 3,500 supporters. The march started at 4:00 p.m. at the Basilica of St. Lawrence in downtown Asheville, wound through downtown, and ended with the demonstrators crowding into Pack Square to hear speakers who echoed national calls for Congress to adopt comprehensive, fair immigration reform legislation. By all accounts, the event was peaceful and orderly.

“We don’t mind paying a reasonable permit fee for administrative expenses as required by city code, but the police department just kept tacking on more and more charges for services we never requested, never needed, and should not have had to pay for,” said Danielle Fernandez, one of the organizers of the May 1 event. “We scrambled to raise the money at the last minute and were lucky to be able to go forward with our event, but these burdensome costs were unfair and illegal, and we want to make sure that the city doesn’t do this again to any other groups or individuals seeking to exercise their free speech rights in Asheville.”

The ACLU charges that Asheville’s city code violates federal and state constitutional rights to free speech because it fails to provide narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards to determine permit fees and instead delegates unbridled discretion to the police chief. The ACLU noted that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar ordinance in 1992 in a case called Forsyth County, Georgia, v. The Nationalist Movement.

The bolded words are my own emphasis, to show just how ridiculous and borderline nefarious the police department's tactics were in this case.

The ACLU has never once had the best interests of America or Americans in its mind or plans. Its only purpose for existence is to promote sedition, flaunt any and all loopholes in good laws, and generally be an advocate for criminals, scum, and losers nationwide.

:roll:

I don't know what's more hilarious. That ridiculous statement or the fact that I know you actually believe it.

[SC Harrison]

You're lauding the ACLU for FIGHTING the recital of the pledge of allegiance? Honestly, if you're not willing to make that pledge you need to get the hell out of the country.



Dude, you're killing me here.

They fought against a law that required students to recite the Pledge Of Allegiance, or face disciplinary action. Come on, "Say these words, or else!" might be appropriate in Communist China or some other regime, but not in America.

The fact that you (and many others) believe this country has no need for an entity like the ACLU scares me more than anything they might try to pull off.

[dclary]

And it saddens me more than anything that you think America isn't about having a pledge of allegiance.

[veinglory]

I'm not willing to make that pledge. (Freedom of religion reasons, the very ideal this nation was founded on)

[clintl]

And it saddens me more than anything that you think America isn't about having a pledge of allegiance.

America got along just fine without a pledge of allegiance for well over a century.

[dclary]

No surprise there, Vein. And Clint, we didn't need one in our first century because we didn't have global political movements intent on the destruction of our nation and its way of life.

[veinglory]

Other than, say, the British Empire.

[SpookyWriter]

No surprise there, Vein. And Clint, we didn't need one in our first century because we didn't have global political movements intent on the destruction of our nation and its way of life.But we had a civil war that cost the lives of countless thousands for the right of all free men to equality. But blacks, Irish, Chinese, Jews and many others were stifled for another century.

Pledge allegiance to a country that has historically persecuted its own peoples? I'm sure no native American would pledge continued rape of their lands by oil companies that are the bulwark of political cronies.

No, we lost the right to express ourselves freely after Vietnam when the government decided we didn't need to see what they were doing outside the country. We continue to receive baby spoonfuls of news from Iraq that is a joke compared to what I and my parents saw on television during Vietnam.

Honestly, as it was said earlier, just go outside the country if you want to know the truth about Iraq and what's happening there because you won't get it on the nightly news.

[SC Harrison]

And it saddens me more than anything that you think America isn't about having a pledge of allegiance.

A pledge that is not voluntarily given means nothing. It's just words being spat out. Allegiance comes from the heart, not the mouth.

[clintl]

No surprise there, Vein. And Clint, we didn't need one in our first century because we didn't have global political movements intent on the destruction of our nation and its way of life.

And a pledge made a difference? Sorry, but no. The existence of the Pledge of Allegiance has had zero effect on our national security.

[billythrilly7th]

"I pledge my allegiance to William H. Thrilly..." would.

United we stand, divided we fall.

A united country would have already won in Iraq.

A united country would have already done a lot of great things.

I ask for your vote and your unwavering allegiance to the cause.

"Vote Thrilly/Clary in 2024"
Unity for You and Me
:)

[SpookyWriter]

I'm sure it's all just silly stuff, you know, freedom to speak out without fear of reprisals; like an unexpected IRS audit.

[robeiae]

No, we lost the right to express ourselves freely after Vietnam when the government decided we didn't need to see what they were doing outside the country. We continue to receive baby spoonfuls of news from Iraq that is a joke compared to what I and my parents saw on television during Vietnam.Damn straight. Before Vietnam, cable news and the internet were much more open. Every citizen knew everything there was to know about the rest of the world. We should bring back newsreels.

Honestly, as it was said earlier, just go outside the country if you want to know the truth about Iraq and what's happening there because you won't get it on the nightly news.Nonsense. Pure and simple nonsense. But I get why people want to think this. They're the same people that think European governments are more open, more honest, and less corrupt, as a matter of course. The truth is out there. Too bad...

[SC Harrison]

United we stand, divided we fall.

A united country would have already won in Iraq.

A united country would have already done a lot of great things.



I'm going to chalk this one up to alcohol, Billy. :)

It doesn't get much more united than having the House, Senate and Executive in the clutches of the same party. I don't know about great things, but we've done a lot of expensive things, including pumping hundreds of billions into Iraq to get gobbled up by foreign and domestic war profiteers.

Oh, that's right. I better stop complaining, lest I make things harder for the troops...

[Sheryl Nantus]

It doesn't get much more united than having the House, Senate and Executive in the clutches of the same party. I don't know about great things, but we've done a lot of expensive things, including pumping hundreds of billions into Iraq to get gobbled up by foreign and domestic war profiteers.

I'm curious - how often has this happened; having all three areas dominated by the same party? When, if ever, has it happened before and what were the circumstances?

[aghast]

And it saddens me more than anything that you think America isn't about having a pledge of allegiance.

freedom trumps the pledge of allegiance and that freedom includes religion and i for one am not comfortable of saying 'one nation under god' do you truly understand what being american means or do you like the idea of hardline policies - that made into laws - like in china - do this or else? the aclu tries to prevent a majority (say, christians) telling the minority what to do - even at naturalization hearings someone doesnt have to say the pledge if he doesnt want to, its not manditory and the court knows that so its ridiculous to 'require' anyone to do that especially in schools

[aghast]

I'm curious - how often has this happened; having all three areas dominated by the same party? When, if ever, has it happened before and what were the circumstances?

our forefathers have foreseen the problem of absolute power and have put in the three branch system and other stuff trying to prevent this from happening but of course sooner or later somone will want to beat it and achieve absolute power anyway and that to me is very unamerican

[veinglory]

Well, the post of the president was meant to provide non-partisan oversight--but something went wrong with that post here in the US.

[Sheryl Nantus]

Well, the post of the president was meant to provide non-partisan oversight--but something went wrong with that post here in the US.

my hubby tells me that it was proposed that the VP be the leader of the opposing party - basically, the one who lost the election.

so right now it'd be Bush/Kerry... before that, Bush/Gore.

wonder how that would have worked out and if anything would have gotten done?

;)

[SC Harrison]

my hubby tells me that it was proposed that the VP be the leader of the opposing party - basically, the one who lost the election.



That's how it was in the beginning. The winner became President, and the runner-up was VP. I'm not sure exactly when we decided this wasn't working well, but it could have something to do with assassinations...

[dclary]

But we had a civil war that cost the lives of countless thousands for the right of all free men to equality. But blacks, Irish, Chinese, Jews and many others were stifled for another century.

Pledge allegiance to a country that has historically persecuted its own peoples? I'm sure no native American would pledge continued rape of their lands by oil companies that are the bulwark of political cronies.

No, we lost the right to express ourselves freely after Vietnam when the government decided we didn't need to see what they were doing outside the country. We continue to receive baby spoonfuls of news from Iraq that is a joke compared to what I and my parents saw on television during Vietnam.

Honestly, as it was said earlier, just go outside the country if you want to know the truth about Iraq and what's happening there because you won't get it on the nightly news.

Uh, that's because the civil war was a fight over states' rights, not slavery. It was an ideological war, just like Iraq or Vietnam.

And you're right. The truth about Iraq doesn't show up in our nightly news. All they show is the bad.

[dclary]

A pledge that is not voluntarily given means nothing. It's just words being spat out. Allegiance comes from the heart, not the mouth.

Of course. Duh. You voluntarily give it. As a child, though, sometimes children don't want to do things because they're children. When this happens, you discipline them. That's called good parenting, and teaching a child. You mean to tell me that a child should be given rewards and consequences for everything he learns in school *except* patriotism?

[dclary]

freedom trumps the pledge of allegiance and that freedom includes religion and i for one am not comfortable of saying 'one nation under god' do you truly understand what being american means or do you like the idea of hardline policies - that made into laws - like in china - do this or else? the aclu tries to prevent a majority (say, christians) telling the minority what to do - even at naturalization hearings someone doesnt have to say the pledge if he doesnt want to, its not manditory and the court knows that so its ridiculous to 'require' anyone to do that especially in schools

I do understand what being American means. Believe it or not, it does not mean what the anarchists would have you believe. Because that's all freedom without responsibility or structure is. Anarchy.

[dclary]

our forefathers have foreseen the problem of absolute power and have put in the three branch system and other stuff trying to prevent this from happening but of course sooner or later somone will want to beat it and achieve absolute power anyway and that to me is very unamerican

Not punctuating your sentence is unAmerican, imo.

[dclary]

That's how it was in the beginning. The winner became President, and the runner-up was VP. I'm not sure exactly when we decided this wasn't working well, but it could have something to do with assassinations...

Actually, they ended that at about presidency #3, if not mistaken. Didn't last that long.

[SC Harrison]

Of course. Duh. You voluntarily give it. As a child, though, sometimes children don't want to do things because they're children. When this happens, you discipline them. That's called good parenting, and teaching a child. You mean to tell me that a child should be given rewards and consequences for everything he learns in school *except* patriotism?

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but it appears you're saying to children, "You better volunteer, or you will be in trouble."

And we weren't talking about parenting, but how about this: familial love is more important than patriotism, so if your child refuses to say "I love you" back when you say it to them, do they need to be punished for this decision? How about if they're 17 years old?

[dclary]

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but it appears you're saying to children, "You better volunteer, or you will be in trouble."

And we weren't talking about parenting, but how about this: familial love is more important than patriotism, so if your child refuses to say "I love you" back when you say it to them, do they need to be punished for this decision? How about if they're 17 years old?

Clearly you're missing my point. I would only make it mandatory until such time as I expected them to have it memorized and responsible enough to realize its importance. After which, if the child were able to articulate a reasonable reason for why he would not perform it, I'd accept that. I'd socially ostracize him, but I'd no longer force the issue.

[SC Harrison]

Clearly you're missing my point. I would only make it mandatory until such time as I expected them to have it memorized and responsible enough to realize its importance. After which, if the child were able to articulate a reasonable reason for why he would not perform it, I'd accept that. I'd socially ostracize him, but I'd no longer force the issue.

I...kind of agree with this, up to the "reasonable" part, as this would inevitably be a subjective analysis. I'm also not sure what form this social ostricization would take; "tarring and feathering" would be okay, as long as there was no subsequent "riding out of town on a rail", which is inherently dangerous.

Seriously, I have no problem with requiring the pledge for grades K-4/5, but continuing to require it after a certain age begins to border on the ludicrous.

[blacbird]

Uh, that's because the civil war was a fight over states' rights, not slavery.

Disingenuous, a common bit of propaganda by apologists for the Confederacy. They'd like you to believe that the whole thing was an issue of property rights, and the rights of states to regulate the ownership of that property, without Federal interference.

What they always neglect to mention, of course, that the chief bit of "property" in question was human slaves.

If there had been no institution of slavery in the states that formed the Confederacy, there would have been no War Between the States (or "War of Northern Aggression", as they also like to call it). No other issue rose to the level of dispute that would have prompted Southern secession. Not even close.

caw.

[dclary]

I...kind of agree with this, up to the "reasonable" part, as this would inevitably be a subjective analysis. I'm also not sure what form this social ostricization would take; "tarring and feathering" would be okay, as long as there was no subsequent "riding out of town on a rail", which is inherently dangerous.

Seriously, I have no problem with requiring the pledge for grades K-4/5, but continuing to require it after a certain age begins to border on the ludicrous.

I think that with time and communication you and I could come to a compromise here, then. Why is this so hard for our elected officials?

[dclary]

Disingenuous, a common bit of propaganda by apologists for the Confederacy. They'd like you to believe that the whole thing was an issue of property rights, and the rights of states to regulate the ownership of that property, without Federal interference.

What they always neglect to mention, of course, that the chief bit of "property" in question was human slaves.

If there had been no institution of slavery in the states that formed the Confederacy, there would have been no War Between the States (or "War of Northern Aggression", as they also like to call it). No other issue rose to the level of dispute that would have prompted Southern secession. Not even close.

caw.

When Jefferson Davis announced his state's secession, he did it specifcally not to start a war, but to force the Supreme Court to hold hearings on a state's right to break away from the Union. While slavery was the public face of the underlying debate, the conflict was specifically federalism versus coalitionism.

There's enough history in written documents by the principal players in this drama to prove that slavery was merely a pawn in the war, like WMDs in Iraq.

[blacbird]

Slavery existed. WMDs, as we now know, did not. Why, exactly, did Jeff Davis want his state to secede, do you think? The major motivation of Northerners for their hostility toward the Southern states was pretty simple: Abolition of slavery. Davis (who was an apartheid-level white supremacist to the end of his life, by all accounts) wasn't about to let that happen. Hence, secession. Painting a veneer of politico-philosophical varnish over that doesn't change what lay beneath. Slavery wasn't a pawn in the war; it was the Queen.

Check.

caw.

[dclary]

caw


One issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.

In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime

Before the war, Lincoln himself had pledged to leave slavery intact, to enforce the fugitive slaves laws, and to support an amendment that would forever guarantee slavery where it then existed. Neither did he lift a finger to repeal the anti-Negro laws that besotted all Northern states, Illinois in particular. Recall that the underground railroad ended, not in New York or Boston-since dropping off blacks in those states would have been restricted-but in Canada! The Confederate Constitution did, however, make possible the gradual elimination of slavery, a process that would have been made easier had the North not so severely restricted the movements of former slaves.

Now, you won’t read this version of events in any conventional history text, particularly not those approved for use in public high schools. You are not likely to hear about it in the college classroom either, where the single issue of slavery overwhelms any critical thinking. Again and again we are told what Polybius called "an idle, unprofitable tale" instead of the truth, and we are expected to swallow it uncritically. So where can you go to discover that the conventional story is sheer nonsense?[/FONT]

Consider this little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 edition:
"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop

What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled

This is not an isolated case. British newspapers, whether favoring the North or South, said the same thing: the feds invaded the South to collect revenue. Indeed, when Karl Marx said the following, he was merely stating what everyone who followed events closely knew: "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty

Excerpts humbly taken from http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html, whose article coincides mostly with my own (and the far more accurate) version of historical events

[aghast]

I do understand what being American means. Believe it or not, it does not mean what the anarchists would have you believe. Because that's all freedom without responsibility or structure is. Anarchy.

i dont disagree but we cant force people to claim responsibilty and like someone else says, if you dont mean it when you say it, its pointless. and if you force someone to do it then its not anarchy, its belligerant nationalism, thus fascism - and to tell you the truth i wouldnt mind saying the pledge if they would just take that darn one nation under god out of it but dont tell me i have freedom of religion and yet i have to say 'one nation under god'

[aghast]

I'd socially ostracize him, but I'd no longer force the issue.

thank goodness i am not your child

[SC Harrison]

I think that with time and communication you and I could come to a compromise here, then. Why is this so hard for our elected officials?

Money and patronage trump good sense 90% of the time, imo.

Also, I believe the perceived maturity levels of our youth have become so skewed that we force some decision-making on them far too early, yet we cannot accept their ability to make decisions well after they've achieved the ability to do so.

That doesn't appear to make much sense, but I went to the trouble to write it, so I'll let it be. :)

[Sheryl Nantus]

Also, I believe the perceived maturity levels of our youth have become so skewed that we force some decision-making on them far too early, yet we cannot accept their ability to make decisions well after they've achieved the ability to do so.


I find that interesting - what examples can you give of decisions given too early?

[SC Harrison]

I find that interesting - what examples can you give of decisions given too early?

The first thing that came to mind is the recent issues about exposing very young children to examples of same-sex couples. Hell, many adults can't even come to terms with this complex issue.

Another thing is our efforts to educate young children on the dangers of adult predators. I know it's for their own protection, but my God. What must be going through their minds when they're constantly warned to be on the lookout for "bad people"?

Both of these ideas come from an effort to help them become better adjusted adults, but how does processing this information effect them in the short term?

[dclary]

i dont disagree but we cant force people to claim responsibilty and like someone else says, if you dont mean it when you say it, its pointless. and if you force someone to do it then its not anarchy, its belligerant nationalism, thus fascism - and to tell you the truth i wouldnt mind saying the pledge if they would just take that darn one nation under god out of it but dont tell me i have freedom of religion and yet i have to say 'one nation under god'

So do this when you say the pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under par with liberty and justice for all."

Then, if anyone questions you, just say you're a big golf fan.

[dclary]

thank goodness i am not your child

Yes, quite.

;)

[dclary]

The first thing that came to mind is the recent issues about exposing very young children to examples of same-sex couples. Hell, many adults can't even come to terms with this complex issue.

Another thing is our efforts to educate young children on the dangers of adult predators. I know it's for their own protection, but my God. What must be going through their minds when they're constantly warned to be on the lookout for "bad people"?

Both of these ideas come from an effort to help them become better adjusted adults, but how does processing this information effect them in the short term?

I'm with Harrison here. There are fewer and fewer opportunities for kids to just freakin' play and have fun. Everything's a life-lesson shoved down their throat. We expect our 8-year-olds to make fully mature adult decisions.

[Gary]

The fact that such a blatantly ridiculous rating of press freedom is published in this country proves there is a free press.

That story is about as unbiased and accurate as the tobacco companies telling us there is no health issue with smoking.