Political Irony

Today, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church, protecting their right of free speech. This is a case where you can easily read the official court opinion — or at least the summary, rather than believing what some media pundit says about it.

The ruling was almost unanimous, with only Justice Alito dissenting. And you know what, despite what I think of WBC, I think it was the proper decision. The First Amendment to the Constitution applies even when we don’t like the speech being protected. Or as the Washington Post puts it, the right to be ugly. Really ugly.

On the other hand, there are plenty of other ways to go after WBC. The court decision mentions some postings to the WBC website that specifically denounced the plaintiff and which might be grounds for libel, but which they did not consider in this ruling. I would be more than happy if such a libel suit was successful, since the First Amendment does not protect against libel.

In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is acceptable to place restrictions on the WBC protests — for example, requiring them to be a certain distance from a funeral. Or they may be in violation of hate speech laws.

As far as I can tell, the WBC does attempt to stay within the law, although they do occasionally slip up. There was an interesting post last month that claims that WBC is not even actually a real church, but is instead a moneymaking scam. After all, the founder of this “church” is a (now disbarred) lawyer, as is virtually every member of his family, and a large percentage of the church members (especially the ones who travel around the country picketing funerals) are lawyers. The scam is that they purposely use language as incendiary as possible, while staying within the law. Then, when someone fights back, they sue them for money for violating their rights. If this is true, it is one massively screwed up business model.

At the very least, I would love for the IRS to find a reason take away their tax exempt status. Hate does not a religion make.

© Jan Sorensen

If you think this is just a joke, see the post after this one (above).

[reprinted from Anonymous]

We stand at a unique time in our history, the rise of the internet and computer technology have contributed to an unparalleled rate of prosperity for the First World.

We have created for ourselves and empire unlike any other, a global network of constant trade and communication, a new age of technological advancement. We have come a long way from our humble roots in the Industrial Revolution and the days of Manifest Destiny. We are now pioneers on new digital frontiers expanding our domain from the quantum world to the far reaches of space.

And yet, the empire faces a crisis, a global recession, growing poverty, rampant violence, corruption in politics, and threats to personal freedom. As it was before in other times of crisis, the old stories have begun to repeat themselves. The half truths, this time repeated nightly on cable news and echoed through a series of tubes onto the internet: the empire is strong, change is unwise, business as usual is the answer. In times of uncertainty there are those who seek to add to the confusion, to prey on our insecurities and fears. Those who would seek to keep us divided for their own gain. The pervasive strategy takes many very convincing forms: Liberals and Conservatives, Christians and Muslims, Black and White, Saved and sinner.

But something unexpected is happening. We have begun telling each other our own stories. Sharing our lives, our hopes, our dreams, our demons. Every second, day in day out, into all hours of the night the gritty details of life on this earth are streaming around the world. As we see the lives of others played out in our living rooms we are beginning to understand the consequences of our actions and the error of the old ways. We are questioning the old assumptions that we are made to consume not to create, that the world was made for our taking, that wars are inevitable, that poverty is unavoidable. As we learn more about our global community a fundamental truth has been rediscovered: We are not so different as we may seem. Every human has strengths, weaknesses, and deep emotions. We crave love, love laughter, fear being alone and dream for a better life.

You must create a better life.

You cannot sit on the couch watching television or playing video games, waiting for a revolution. You are the revolution. Every time you decide not to exercise your rights, every time you refuse to hear another view point, every time you ignore the world around you, every time you spend a dollar at a business that doesn’t pay a fair wage you are contributing to the oppression of the human body and the repression of the human mind. You have a choice, a choice to take the easy path, the familiar path, to walk willingly into your own submission. Or a choice get up, to go outside and talk to your neighbor, to come together in new forums to create lasting, meaningful change for the human race.

This is our challenge:

A peaceful revolution, a revolution of ideas, a revolution of creation. The twenty-first century enlightenment. A global movement to create a new age of tolerance and understanding, empathy and respect. An age of unfettered technological development. An age of sharing ideas and cooperation. An age of artistic and personal expression. We can choose to use new technology for radical positive change or let it be used against us. We can choose to keep the internet free, keep channels of communication open and dig new tunnels into those places where information is still guarded. Or we can let it all close in around us. As we move in to new digital worlds, we must acknowledge the need for honest information and free expression. We must fight to keep the internet open as a marketplace of ideas where all are seated as equals. We must defend our freedoms from those who would seek to control us. We must fight for those who do not yet have a voice. Keep telling your story. All must be heard.

When you hear a conservative say that we have to “secure our border” before we can have immigration reform, you should ask them a few questions.

What does “secure our border” even mean? Is it even possible? Has it ever been done, anywhere? What would it take to completely secure a land border? What problems are we trying to solve, and how are we going to solve them?

If they can answer those questions (and I doubt they can), and if they are really interested in reducing our deficit, you should point out a federal report that shows that billions of dollars have been wasted on trying to secure the border. Indeed, if politicians would actually enact real immigration reform, that would have a far greater effect on securing our borders against real threats, not imaginary ones.

After all, to solve the problem of illegal immigrants, we need solutions, not meaningless sound bites like “secure our borders”.

© Matt Wuerker

This cartoon makes the point that we don’t learn from history, but I think it might even be worse than that. At least in some cases, we have encouraged these people to become dictators. Democracy can be such a messy thing.

The Republicans will tell you it is about balancing the budget, but the real reasons the GOP is launching a full attack on unions is more about politics than it is about policy.

As Howard Fineman points out:

Last fall, GOP operatives hoped and expected to take away as many as 20 governorships from the Democrats. They ended up nabbing 12.

What happened? Well, according to postgame analysis by GOP strategists and Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi — who chaired the Republican Governors Association in 2010 — the power and money of public-employee unions was the reason.

The Republicans realized that the easiest way to gain more political power would be to find some way to neutralize the power of the unions.

The GOP strategic aim is simple enough. If they can abolish union collective-bargaining rights, they can undermine the automatic payment of dues to the public-employee union treasuries. Shrinking those treasuries and reducing the union structure and membership will make it harder for Democrats and their allies to communicate directly with workers.

And under the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, unions — like corporations — are free to spend as much as they want directly advocating for a candidate. That makes the math even more urgent as the 2012 election season approaches.

Personally, I’d rather see the Citizens United decision reversed, and take away the ability for both corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.