My response to Molli P

Molli P's post on cigarette smoking and airport security

While I agree that the dangers of cigarette smoking are very real, I do now see how this compares to airport security. Over the past several years, there has been a lot done to try to help reduce exposure to second hand smoke. There are very few establishments where smoking is permitted. Many employers have gone to completely smoke free campuses. My employer even charges an extra monthly surcharge on health insurance if you or your dependents smoke. Outside of completely banning cigarettes, which, as you stated, is not likely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future, I do not see much more that can be done. However, the threat to air travel is something we can try to control. After having watched one of the planes hit the twin towers on 9/11, I believe everything being done and all of the money being spent in airports now is justified. I don't believe anyone would have had a problem with the security in place in the days immediately following 9/11. Unfortunately, as that day becomes a more distant memory people become more intolerant of these measures.

Freedom of the press vs National Security

     With the recent postings on Wikileaks of classified government documents we must ask ourselves if there is a time when the interests of government overshadow freedom of the press.  I believe that as in freedom of speech, there are times when for the greater good there should be limits placed upon the right of the press to publish government information.

     First Amendment Center gives several examples of when the public’s best interests were best served by the restriction of sensitive information.  Rarely does the Supreme Court agree with the unlimited access of information to the press.  As this website tells us, in the decision sited in the 1965 case, Zemel vs Rusk, the court stated that “the right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.”  Also, a third circuit court upheld the state department’s right to hold deportation hearings in secret during the immediate post 9/11 months in North Jersey Media Group v. Ashcroft.  The decision was based on the information’s importance in maintaining national security. 

     The freedom of the press is an important check that helps hold government officials accountable for their actions.  I believe this is an important check that is vital to a government by the people.  I do not believe the government has the right to withhold information in an effort to hide mistakes.  However, there is definitely information to which the whole world should not be privy to in the interest of the security of our country and to promote favorable world relations.

This whole immigration thing....

Response to a blog on Lina's View on Government:

Lina, I definitely agree with you in that the general public often stops looking at illegal immigrants as people.  I admit to having issues with people being here illegally, not contributing to any public programs, yet still reaping the benefits of those programs.  However, as you stated, I can see myself doing the same thing if the situations were reversed.  If our country was the same as Mexico, I would probably be figuring out a way to get my children into Canada by any means possible.  I see people talking down to immigrants, even to their children.  While I agree with the logic behind the arguments against illegal immigrants, we still need to see them as people and treat them as such.  The answer to the problem is immigration reform, not hatred.

Freedom of speech: Does the constitution come with disclaimers?

     Does freedom of speech apply to all, or just to those with whom we agree? I surprised myself in the writing of this article.  By the end of it I realized that I did not have the opinion that I believed I did upon first hearing of this case.  When I put aside my emotions I realized that intellectually I had to disagree with my own initial thoughts.

     I recently read about a case that is going to be heard by the Supreme Court this session.  The case began as a lawsuit brought by a father against a church group that protested at his son's funeral in 2006.  The man's son was a U.S. marine killed during active duty in Iraq.  The church group believes that U.S. soldiers are being killed because our country in too tolerant of homosexuals.  They picketed outside the marine's funeral with signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."  A Maryland court awarded monetary damages to the marine's father for invasion of privacy and emotional distress, but an appeals court overturned the ruling on the basis of the church group's first amendment rights.  The case will now go to the Supreme Court. 

      I'm sure that this topic could bring forth very heated debates in any venue.  I am very glad not to be one of the judges making this decision.  As much as I abhor what these people did, I believe the Supreme Court will have no choice but to uphold the appellate court's ruling.  While I doubt that the writers of the constitution would support these people’s despicable actions, they insured that they would have the right to voice their opinions no matter how offensive you or I may find them.  I have always been quite fond of saying that nowhere in the constitution does it say that we have to right to not be offended. 

      If we put limits on our first amendment rights, we go against everything that our forefathers believed in; everything that our soldiers have fought and died for since the birth of our country.  I may detest what these protesters did and how they added to this poor father's grief, but his son died protecting their right to do so.  As vulgar as this group’s actions are to me, I have to stand by their right to perform them.  

"Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim."--Brian Kilmeade

     Today I read a blog by David Neiwert on the Crooks and Liars website.  His blog was in response to Brian Kilmeade’s comment that “Not all Muslim are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim”.   Neiwart’s blog is aimed not only at Mr. Kilmeade, but also at other Americans who share the same view.  Mr. Neiwart supplies examples of numerous non-Muslim people who have performed acts of terror in our country.   I agree with Mr. Neiwart.  I had this argument with someone just a few days ago when they posted on facebook that we should stop allowing Muslims into our country.  My question to them concerned Christians who bomb abortion clinics.  By their logic, all Christians will bomb clinics.  Apparently we should stop allowing Christians into our country as well.

     Our country is great because of its diversity not in spite of it.  The close mindedness that people like Mr. Kilmeade are demonstrating is the same as that shown by people who think all black people are thieves or all Hispanics are illegal.  The majority of Muslims entering our country are coming because they are fleeing the same radicalism that we fear not because they want to participate in it. 

     I believe I may have lost track of my critique and crossed over into an editorial of my own.  I apologize.  I feel that Neiwert did a good job of disabusing the notion that only Muslim’s are terrorists.  His viewpoint is well supported by the examples he provides.  He provides sound arguments that negate Kilmeade’s statement.  He reminds us all that the greatest threat to our country is not coming from without; it is coming from within. 

voteeasy.org: Helping you navigate the murky waters of the political pool

I read an editorial in the Austin American Statesman titled Voting time approaches; do your homework.  The title caught my eye because I myself have such a difficult time trying to sort through all the information and mud slinging to decide which candidate to choose.  The author of this article is speaking to Texans voting for legislative candidates who may be having the same difficulty as I am.  He agrees that it is often difficult for the average person to figure out on their own which candidate shares the viewpoints and ideals that they themselves have.  In this article the author tells us about Project Vote Smart, a nonpartisan group that helps voters by getting them easier to understand information about the candidates.  The author does a good job of pointing out both the strengths and the weaknesses of the group and their website voteeasy.org.  He explains to us the methods that the group uses to obtain this information such as questionnaires given to the candidates.  Unfortunately, the effectiveness of questionnaires is limited by the amount of candidates who actually respond.  According to this editorial, only 40% of those running for legislative office in Texas responded this year.   Luckily, this low participation does not deter the group.  They conduct extensive research into the candidates to glean the information they need in other ways such as reading public statements.  I agree with the author in that this is an excellent resource for voters.  It is unfortunate that this group only deals with legislative candidates.  Their help would be appreciated in other elections as well.

Deliberative democracy-a plausible alternative to direct democracy?

On the heels of our discussion regarding direct democracy, I found this article very interesting. (How Can a Democracy Solve Tough Problems)  This article discusses a method of decision making based on a procedure used by the ancient Greeks.  It is currently being used by a district in China.  A certain amount of citizens are chosen using scientific method to obtain a suitable sample of the population.  That group then meets for several days and is educated by experts on opposite sides of an issue.  They are then allowed to ask questions of those experts.  Afterward, they discuss with each other and make an informed decision that is then presented to the local government.  James Fishkin, a Stanford professor, has been conducting experiments in this process for 20 years.  He states that, "If people think their voice actually matters, they'll do the hard work, really study their briefing books, ask the experts smart questions and then make tough decisions. When they hear the experts disagreeing, they're forced to think for themselves. About 70% change their minds in the process."  I found this article very interesting.  Read it for yourself and see if you believe this might be an alternative to direct democracy that could give the common man a bigger voice.