Doug Fiedor
New News In The News
(Newsletter #269 - A Weekly View from the Middle of an Asphalt Jungle)
There was some rather interesting news last week that did not
receive enough media play. Some of these things could even be
important to the rights of the American people. Others are just
interesting because very few people heard about them.
One interesting tidbit is that Rep. David Bonior -- who Rush calls
the "Pet Yorkie" for good reason -- is running for Governor of
Michigan. Because of that, House Socialist-Democrat leader Dick
Gephardt stopped by for a while to promote him. The good part is,
hardly anyone paid any attention.
Bonior will be a big loser in Michigan. Too many people there
still respect honesty and Bonior doesn’t have any. What he has is a
very long record that exemplifies everything that is wrong on Capitol
Hill. From taking money for votes right on the floor of the House to
shepherding through bills that are little more than thinly disguised
copies of planks of the Communist Manifesto, Bonior has much to
answer for. If he runs for governor, we’ll start compiling his record
for all to see.
In the Senate, Republican leader Trent (Chester the rights
molester) Lott learned that there are, in fact, some rules on the
Internet. At least, there are rules on the Senate Internet server,
anyway.
Lott wanted to create the web page disappointed.senate.gov to
harangue the Socialist-Democratic Senate leader’s lack of (and
obstructionist) action. Problem is, the Senate has a rule that states
that the use of the Senate’s web server for partisan activity is
strictly verboten. In fact, it even says so right on the web site:
"The use of Senate Internet Services for personal, promotional,
commercial, or partisan political/campaign purposes is
prohibited."
One would think that a Senate leader would know that -- but, never
mind. . . . .
Later, we learned that Congress wants to cut a tax in half that
few of us even knew we were paying: The Beer tax.
According to reports, Rep. Phil English (R-PA) introduced the bill
(H.R. 1305) last year. English’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Hall, told
reporters, "It’s an unfair tax that targets lower - to middle-class
Americans." She said that two-thirds of the beer consumed in the
country is bought by people earning less than $45,000 per year.
Then, like the loud midnight shrill of a burning cat high on
methamphetamines, up popped the Lizzie Borden types.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- who’s leadership have racked up
more drunk driving tickets than anyone I know who is not a
professional barfly -- complained that the reduction in the tax by
$18 per barrel, as proposed, would decrease the price of a six-pack
by a whopping 33 cents, causing more people to drink.
Also last week: President Bush called for an Amendment to the
Constitution and few even heard about that. Bush said that victims of
violent crime are too often an afterthought in the courts and deserve
a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing their rights.
"The protection of victims’ rights is one of those rare instances
when amending the Constitution is the right thing to do," President
Bush said. Therefore, he endorses a bill introduced last Monday in
the Senate by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). If approved
by a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate, and then ratified
by at least 38 of the 50 states, the amendment would declare: "The
rights of victims of violent crime, being capable of protection
without denying the constitutional rights of those accused of
victimizing them, are hereby established and shall not be denied by
any state or the United States."
Will that be enforced as well as the Second Amendment is? Or,
perhaps it will protect us against unwarranted searches like the
Fourth Amendment does? We just saw simple campaign finance
legislation override the First Amendment’s protection of our
political speech. What’s the point in writing even more
Constitutional Amendments when no one in Washington honors the ones
we already have?
Thinking of free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us a good
indication of what they may do to that new Campaign Finance Act when
it gets to them.
In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Court ruled that the
government went too far when it tried to ban computer simulations and
other depictions of youngsters having sex.
"The statute proscribes the visual depiction of an idea -- that of
teen-agers engaging in sexual activity -- that is a fact of modern
society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the
ages," Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority decision. He was joined
by four other justices. Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion
agreeing with the majority.
Speech is speech, not action, in other words. Art is speech and is
protected -- even when we don’t like it.
"Teen-age sexual activity and the sexual abuse of children have
inspired countless literary works. William Shakespeare created the
most famous pair of teen-age lovers, one of whom is just 13," Kennedy
wrote, describing "Romeo and Juliet."
"In the drama, Shakespeare portrays the relationship as something
splendid and innocent," yet modern staging of the play could run
afoul of the anti-child pornography law, Kennedy admonished. Academy
Award- winning dramas "Traffic," and "American Beauty" would also be
suspect, the Court said.
According to many Supreme Court decisions, political speech holds
the highest protection. Which means, look for most of the Campaign
Finance Act and parts of the Patriot Act to be scrapped as soon as
they are presented to the Court.
Doug Fiedor