The Times: Endangering the First Amendment

2006-06-28T19:27:00.000-07:00

Here in the USA, if things continue as they are, we may soon be facing a constitutional crisis, where our first amendment rights may be in danger. I place the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the New York Times.

Last week, they disclosed a secret program designed to trace money transfers to and from terrorist organizations. A program that was classified, effective, and now useless. Now the enemy knows what to look for, and will find it easier to circumvent our efforts to stop them.

The Times’ justification: they thought it would interest their readers.

Now there is a lot of talk, both on and off the net, about taking action against the Times, including using the 1917 Espionage Act against it’s editors. I’m confident, though saddened, that these efforts are going to be wasted. Right now, the Press has enough protections in the law to keep the Justice Department from mounting any credible case against them.

First the wiretapping story, because “it might not be legal”. That’s valid reporting, despite the fact that breaking the story probably did help the enemies of the state. Disclosing a second classified program, one with a proven track record of successes, because they thought it would be interesting? That’s just dumb. Maybe not illegal dumb, but dumb nonetheless. If the New York Times continues their quest to “push the envelope” of common sense and legality, sooner or later the government will have no choice but to step in and take action. If we’re lucky, they’ll cross the line so that the government can step in and use existing laws.

If not, sooner or later the government WILL have to take action. They will take actions that will probably severely curtail the rights of the press. The Times will force the government to become the overbearing watchdog that it already believes it to be. Everyone talks about rights of the press, but few talk about responsibilities. The editorial staff of the Times needs to take a long hard look in the mirror, and think about what the responsibilities are, not only to themselves and their readers, but to their country as well.

California slaves

2006-06-19T21:22:00.000-07:00

I had originally writting this shortly after the fiasco that was the California Special Election of '05. Mostly to get it out of my system. It seemed a good way to start the blog....

----------------------

Imagine an alternate history, at the end of the Civil War. The Union has been victorious over the confederates. But instead of a proclamation to set the slaves free, Lincoln decides to introduce to them the joys of democracy, and sets up a special election to allow the slaves to choose to be free or not. It seems like a straightforward issue, vote for a change in the system, and gain freedom, or vote to keep the old system, and remain slaves. After all, who in his right mind would vote to keep the old system of oppression on top of them?

What Lincoln doesn’t count on is the propaganda of the slaveholders. People are told that Lincoln doesn’t really want to help the slaves, so this can't be a good measure. Some are told this is simply a power grab by those who do not own slaves, who want slaves for their own. Others go among the masses and say, "Sure, it's a good change, but is it the BEST change? Perhaps we should keep the old system until we find a better solution".

Election day comes. And lo and behold, rather than freedom, by a two to one margin, the slaves vote to keep the current oppressors in power.

So what does a story like that have to do with our current history? Here in California, with legislative approval in the low 20's, not a single office in the legislature changed parties. Think about that. Even at his lowest point, President Bush had TWICE the rate of approval of the California Legislature. Not one Democrat was unseated. Not one Republican was thrown out.
How can this be one may ask? It's because each member of the legislature hand picks it's own voters. When it's time to redistrict, they do their best to consolidate their power bases. They draw districts that would make a jigsaw puzzle expert cringe in fear. At this point rather than a democracy, we have a feudal system where we can complain to our lords and masters, but they have no responsibility to actually listen to us, because no matter what we do, they are there until they decide to leave.

Then in November 05, Californians had the chance to change this. Proposition 77 would have provided a new means to provide redistricting. They way it would have worked was a large body of former judges were to be picked into a pool. From there Republican and Democratic legislative groups would independently choose six each from this pool, with the limitations that one party could ONLY pick judges from the OTHER party. From this group, three would be chosen to redraw the districts. There were very strict guidelines for them to use to help make the changes. Then when they had new boundaries to recommend, the people would have to vote to accept or reject the changes.

Then the propaganda machines went into overdrive. Liberal groups and unions said it was bad because Arnold supported it (for unions, that was the whole of their argument). Republicans cried out that it was just a power grab by Democrats. Democrats cried out that it was just a power grab by the Republicans. A few random voters groups said, "well, we could do better. Maybe next year we'll have a better proposal". Many ads said this was too much power to put into "Three Partisan Judges With No Oversight". The truth was not just stretched; it was shattered by the attitude of the elected officials that no lie was too outrageous if we can just stop this measure.

And stop it they did. By a two to one majority, Measure 77 was defeated. The slaves have spoken, they'd rather stay with the masters they know than take a chance with freedom. The legislature with an approval rating less than half of George Bush can breathe easy.

Paranoid Penguin

The Times: Endangering the First Amendment

California slaves