Zero Tolerance at School – No Religious Art Permitted
April 1, 2008
I read an article earlier today on FoxNews.com concerning a high school student who received a failing grade on an art project because it included a Bible reference. For the project, students were asked to draw a landscape. It looks like all of the pieces were charcoal works and one of the students included a Bible reference – simply John 3:16 – in the piece.
At the beginning of the semester, students were required to sign a policy that prohibited creation of any art that included violence, blood, sexual connotations or reference religious beliefs. The students lawsuit indicates that Julie Millin, the teacher, told the student that he had signed away his Constitutional rights by signing the agreement. I hardly think a high school student can sign away Constitutional rights even if he was older than 18. Is that even legal? Can you sign away rights that are inalienable? Read more
“Speak English” Signs OK for Cheesesteak Shop
March 20, 2008
Although using English phrases it’s still not good form in Venezuela, Philadelphia cheesesteak shop owner Joe Vento has received the blessing of the Human Relations panel to leave up signs that reminds patrons that they are in America, and should speak English when ordering. Somehow, the panel only voted 2 to 1 in favor of Joe. Read more
Kentucky Lawmaker Wants to Make Anonymous Internet Posting Illegal
March 11, 2008
Representative Tim Couch, a Republican from Kentucky wants to make it illegal for people to post anonymously on Internet Web sites. Sorry Tim, you’re way off base here.
His idea is to have the site operator fined $500 for the first time they allow someone to post anonymously, then $1,000 each time after. He wants to cut down on online bullying. Has that feel-good legislation feel to it ya know? Read more
Money and Politics – How to Buy a Vote
February 14, 2008
No matter how often supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) – a.k.a McCain-Feingold – tell us that they got the money out of politics, every day more cash is being thrown around by national politicians.
During the 2000 election cycle, campaign finance reform was the issue. Soft money had to be removed from the political machine. It was “out of control.”
The BCRA was a mixed bag for those who wanted to remove the money from politics. It eliminated all soft money donations to the national party committees, but it also more than doubled the contribution limit of hard money, from $1,000 to $2,300 per election cycle, with a built-in increase for inflation.
In addition, the bill aimed to curtail ads by non-party organizations by banning the use of corporate or union money to pay for “electioneering communications,” a term defined as broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election.
This provision of McCain-Feingold, sponsored by Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Vermont Independent James Jeffords, as introduced applied only to for-profit corporations, but was extended to incorporated, non-profit issue organizations, such as the Environmental Defense Fund or the National Rifle Association, as part of the “Wellstone Amendment,” sponsored by Senator Paul Wellstone.
So what we’re left with are Political Action Committees and 527s. From boston.com:
Superdelegates get campaign cash
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor February 14, 2008 03:54 PMMany of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.
“While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years,” the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.
About half the 800 superdelegates — elected officials, party leaders, and others — have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.
Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Clinton’s political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
Yeah, really got the money out of politics didn’t they? All of this is perfectly legal, but the money that I send to the NRA can’t be used for political advertising in support of my positions within 30 days of a primary, or 60 days before a general election. So much for the 1st Amendment.
Shut Up and Respect My Freedom of Speech
February 10, 2008
On Friday, James Taranto had a good comment concerning the situation in Berkeley. Activists want the Marines out. Here’s the post:
Shut Up and Respect My Freedom of Speech
San Jose’s KNTV reports that the City Council of Berkeley, Calif., at its Tuesday meeting will consider backing down from its resolution denouncing the U.S. Marines, which have a recruiting center in Berkeley, as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders.” This comes in the face of an effort by Republican senators to cut off $2.3 million in federal money for Berkeley. On this question, Sen. Barbara Boxer is siding against the Marines.The station reports that one left-wing activist doesn’t quite understand the concept of free speech:
Code Pink announced they would have what they called a “24-hour peace-in” leading up to Tuesday’s city council meeting. They will be camping out but will have a lot of company. A group of pro-troop protesters will also be there.
“I was under the impression that we have the right of free speech,” said Xanne Joi of Code Pink. “To me, I thought free speech meant you get to say what you want without recrimination.”
In fact, free speech is reciprocal. Xanne Joi has the right to criminate, but the rest of us have a right to recriminate. It’s remarkable how many on the left think their free speech rights are violated when they are criticized–that is, when others exercise their free speech rights.
He’s right on of course, way-left liberals often bring this argument up. Of course they have a right to free speech, but others must be shut out. Let’s not forget the Fairness Doctrine.
One other thing about free speech, if you expect to have the right to speak in public – on the street, online or in print – you best be willing to tell us who you are. That’s the beauty of true free speech, you’re less likely to say something really stupid if others know who you are.
