The First Amendment Needs Defending

New York City has criminalized speech in a recent law, mandating a fine of up to $250,000.00 on anyone convicted of uttering the words "illegal alien" or "illegals" in conjunction with someone's employment or housing, deeming such use to be "discrimination".  I get it...they want to protect families from the fear of being suddenly rounded up and deported or losing their jobs for being here undocumented and to become more confident that their local government...including especially the police...will be there in times of emergency to help them.  Still, if it is a federal crime to be here unauthorized then that is a conflict already in place between different parts of our government, and also to make certain words illegal to me flies directly in the face of our Constitution's crucial First Amendment, which elevates free speech as a fundamental human right.  This does not mean that people should not be held accountable for what they say...it's just that the State...in this case New York City...has no business getting involved as a prosecutorial agent.  If their discrimination laws are being violated, then charge them for that, not for saying certain words. For me, I am for better border security, solving the problems in countries like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras through the good auspices of our government helping their economies, and normalizing the status of those already here over time. But the people who are here illegally...well, the criminalized terms are accurate even if they may offend some...

A manager for an NBA team a few days ago simply Tweeted on his own his support for the Hong Kong people and to keep fighting for freedom.  Keep in mind that he an American living in America, not China.  Yet China has responded by canceling within their own country any events or ties with the National Basketball Association, in spite of the fact that the manager had quickly apologized for his Tweet and removed it...and the league itself expressed regret over what I see as a perfectly legitimate original message.  In this situation our First Amendment was never in question of being threatened since it's another country's government, not our own, that is exerting undue pressure and the NBA is a private concern. Now if you can see what China will do against someone who criticizes it...even indirectly...who is a citizen of a different nation, you can imagine the immense persecution that those residing in that vast, important country must be undergoing for speaking up themselves.  A sober reminder that our own First Amendment needs to be held up high and honored for the treasure that it is...

And finally, not exactly a First Amendment issue...at least yet...is the wave of political correctness, much of it retroactive, that is sweeping this country, especially on the political left.  At the Packers-Cowboys football game in Texas the other day, comedian Ellen DeGeneres and former president George W. Bush were seen sitting together and amiably chatting and laughing, two good friends who are able to step outside their political differences and see each other as human beings.  From the negative reactions I have been seeing...all against Ellen associating with Bush...you would have thought she had said something like "Go Hong Kong" or "illegal alien".  Why does she need to explain being friendly and nice with someone?  Is that how bad it's gotten in this country?!

Tuesday's List: The First Six Florida Constitutional Amendments on the Ballot

A few weeks ago I listed the thirteen amendments to the Florida State Constitution that are up for vote this November 6th...since then Amendment Eight has been withdrawn.  Today I'm discussing...very briefly...each of the first six amendments and my take on them.  For any of these amendments to be accepted in the state's constitution, they need to receive approval of at least 60% of the voters in the election.  I learned a lot about them from the website Be Ready to Vote...click on it to get some needed information, complete with pros and cons for each proposed amendment.  I plan to discuss Amendments Seven through Thirteen next Tuesday...

1 INCREASED HOMESTEAD TAX EXEMPTION
This amendment increases up to a maximum additional $25,000 homestead tax exemption on properties valued at $100,000 or higher.  For those eligible who want to save tax money for themselves, this seems good...but local governments stand to lose an enormous amount of needed revenue should this pass...I'm voting "no".

2 LIMITATIONS ON PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS
This is only for non-homesteaded property and limits to 10% the taxable value increase for such property.  Apartment renters and vacation home owners in particular stand to personally benefit from such an amendment, but as with the first one, this is estimated to cause a serious shortfall in local government revenue.  Again, I'm voting "no".

3 VOTER CONTROL OF GAMBLING IN FLORIDA
This amendment seems to be getting the most media attention, with supporters pointing to other states of differing political orientations that have this amendment in their constitutions...let the people decide if they want a casino or not, right?  But the way I see it, since casinos are a good source of government revenue, I'd rather see people voluntarily fund it playing at them than forced to through more compulsory taxes...and I really don't want to see Florida feel as if it needs to resort to a state income tax. Since voting "yes" will inhibit casinos, I'm voting "no" although I'm personally no fan of gambling...

4 VOTING RESTORATION
This amendment restores full voting rights to convicted felons...excluding murderers or those convicted of sex crimes...once they have completed their sentences and are no longer on probation or parole.  The current state law, which is undergoing a court challenge right now, mandates five years before a felon can even begin a tedious application process to restore voting rights.  I'm voting "yes"...I believe in the restoration of rights (and hope) after criminals have served their punishment, otherwise rehabilitation means nothing...

5 SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE, AUTHORIZE, OR RAISE STATE TAXES OR FEES
This amendment, pushed by Tea Party Governor Rick Scott, makes it very difficult to raise taxes and may in the end necessitate cuts to important state services, including those to people unable to fend for themselves.  If you're a "never tax" Floridian, vote for it...I'm noting "no"...

6 RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS; JUDGES
While increasing the mandatory retirement age of judges from 70 to 75, this amendment gives emphasis to crime victims.  The website I referred to mentioned that many of this amendment's provisions are already state law.  There is also proposed a further time limitation on convicts' appeals...and eliminates a section already in law that prevents victims' rights from interfering with those of the accused.  I'm fine with letting judges work to 75. About the time limit on appeals I'm unsure...how far does it go?  But what killed this amendment for me was allowing victims' rights to impinge upon those of the accused...as a friend of mine recently remarked: innocent until proven guilty and let nothing unfairly interfere with due process.  This amendment in a revised form might be acceptable to me as I also care about crime victims, but I'm voting "no"...I'm also wary of the distorted TV ads in favor of it that appear to equate suspects with convicts...

One thing about the above amendments, as well as those that follow: the fact that they are on the ballot in the first place, to me, seems to be an indictment against the ability or willingness of a sitting  state government, composed of the governor, the senate, and the house...all controlled by the same party...to govern and pass meaningful legislation.  After all, didn't we elect them to represent us and pass laws? Oh well, as I said, the election is November 6th... 

Quote of the Week...from Christopher Hitchens

The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy - the one that's absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes.               ---Christopher Hitchens

When I think of totalitarianism, three different images come to my mind.  One is the maniacal third-generation tyrant of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, and how utterly obsequious everyone is around him within his dominion...they all know that one slipup...even just a frown instead of a big smile in the wrong situation...can mean that it's all over for them!  Another is an image of ISIS, or Islamic State, as they prey upon the native Muslim and Christian populations of northern Syria and Iraq, imposing their own extreme ideology on all...and the people had better respond in heartfelt, grateful, and complete agreement with their "liberators"!  And the third is an old Twilight Zone episode titled It's a Good Life, adapted from the same-titled short story by Jerome Bixby.  It depicts a young boy, played by Billy Mumy of Lost in Space fame, who completely subjugates his rural American home community by getting into the minds of all around him, discerning their intentions...and then mentally sending them off dead into the cornfield if they don't meet his standards.  All three are examples of what the late intellectual giant Christopher Hitchens would call the totalitarian...and they are very different from "authoritarians"...

In an authoritarian system, the leadership...like that of the totalitarian...is unchallengable, and there are usually many limits placed on the population's freedoms, especially that of dissent.  Yet the people in general are allowed to go about their own lives and practice their own beliefs as long as they don't challenge the authorities or associate with any who do.  I'd put Russia's present ruler Vladimir Putin in the category of authoritarian, while the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin was totalitarian...as were Germany's Hitler, China's Mao, Japan's Tojo, Cambodia's Pol Pot, and our own home-grown Jim Jones, to name some of the more infamous of this lot.  Fortunately we live in neither an authoritarian nor a totalitarian society.   However...

Sometimes I get the feeling that I am being unduly pressured by others to conform to certain patterns of speech, presentation, and behavior that reflect a particular group's way of seeing things.  And it's true that, within various organizations, either political, religious, business, or otherwise, there is a collective philosophy and expectation as to how the members express and present themselves on various issues...some of them not necessarily directly related to the aims of the groups themselves.  But although there may sometimes be a feeling of totalitarianism in these situations, remember that in the final analysis these groups are the results of the voluntary free association guaranteed to us in this wonderful country by our Constitution...we're not compelled to stay in these groups if we don't want to.  It is wholly natural for folks to want to associate with each other according to common interests and beliefs as well as try to persuade others to their mindset...but if you find yourself around a bunch who seem wedded to a certain conformity pattern that goes against what you stand for, why then hang around?  Of course, underworld crime organizations and cults are two examples of groups that can have a totalitarian grip on their members...both involve isolating people from mainstream society and simultaneously placing them in a dependency relationship with their "masters" for physical needs while holding out the real threat of serious punishment for perceived disloyalty or a desire to leave...beware of these and avoid them at all costs...

So yes, I agree with Christopher Hitchens that the totalitarian is my enemy. Sometimes, though, I feel that we are too quick with our sometimes overly-sensitive natures to realize that we have a lot more power in our lives then we like to imagine...and should refrain from tacking that pejorative label on people and groups that are only expressing themselves in the context of a free, open society but who come across as too pushy or intolerant of opposing views and lifestyles...

Foundational Documents, Their Interpretation, and the Living-Out, Part 1

Back in the late 1980s when I began to work for the post office, whose employees work under separate collective bargaining agreements between management and four different unions, my own union gave each member a copy of the then-current collective bargaining agreement...a compact, easy-to-tote paperback volume.  As I was reading through it one day I noticed what seemed to me to be a rule that was being flagrantly violated as it pertained to certain individuals being eligible to bid by seniority on posted job assignments.  I brought this up to my reluctant union steward, who dissuaded me from pressing the issue and introduced me to the concept of "letters of understanding".  In many sections of the agreement, whenever a dispute occurs over a passage's meaning and application, a process has to be taken whereby the passage is more precisely interpreted and delineated as to how it applies in the real world of management-employee relations.  So going around waving the collective bargaining agreement in people's faces...as if one thoroughly understood the process...is pointless.  Because the collective body of precedent and refinement contained within the massive amount of those letters of understanding...along with laws and regulations that can supersede elements of the agreement...make it all much more cumbersome to deal with: that little paperback book turned out to be only the starting place...

I bring up my old collective bargaining agreement as just one example of a foundational document that, while important as creating a structure of rules and/or knowledge in a particular area, is also in itself incomplete...needing much interpretation as those trying to implement it live it out in the real world.  Our society is full of these documents...our Constitution is a prime example, as are the scriptures on which different faiths are based.  And to be perfectly frank, although these often tend to be treated as original in nature, in fact they have their own precedents from which they were derived.  So a televangelist may casually wave the Bible around onstage or a Senator may thrust out his pocket-sized copy of the Constitution during a floor speech...as if that's the be-all and end-all to everything...but there's a lot more to these works, what they represent, and where they came from... 

I'm not sure whether I'll make this discussion of foundational documents a weekly topic or whether I'll just write about it from time to time...in any event, there's more to come...

NFL Shows Double Standard with "Free Speech"

The National Football League's double standard concerning the issue of free speech as it pertains to player protests during the national anthem and one team's attempt to honor its slain law enforcement officers is too much for me to bear.  Following the refusal of the league to allow Dallas Cowboys players to display a small memorial to the recent murdered policemen from their city on their helmets, the same organization is bending over backwards to appease players who refuse to honor our national anthem, either by remaining seated, kneeling, or pumping their fists in the air.  Now if you are going to side with the players who protested in this manner before yesterday's games because you agree with their agenda but oppose what the Dallas players want to do, then perhaps you are one who believes in freedom of speech only as long as whoever is speaking "freely" agrees with you.  On the other hand, you may agree with some of the reasons for the protests...as I do and am also concerned about civil rights violations of minorities by police...but think that this form of expression is unacceptable.  I know that our Constitution's First Amendment, which protects us from being persecuted or censored by our government for what we say or express, does not extend to private employees who are expected by their employers to abide by a certain standard of demeanor for the sake of the company's public image...or go seek employment elsewhere.  No doubt this also includes playing for professional sports teams as well.  And the National Football League is quick to apply free speech restrictions in the case of the Dallas Cowboys players wanting to honor their fallen police heroes.  But they then turn around and say it is these other players' "rights" to openly show their contempt for this country while publicly on the field, wearing their teams' uniforms, and getting paid their millions.  Something is seriously amiss here.  I followed the first weekend of the 2016 regular season to see what would come of all this after second-rate 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick started it all by refusing to stand for the anthem before an exhibition game. Sad to say, I am very disappointed at the outcome and plan to boycott the National Football League henceforth...