Ipso Facto – Musings and more

If members of the press would end their camp-outs at the church headed by Rev. Terry Jones, it might help the rest of us convey the message that we are prepared to ignore his wacky ideas and move on with our lives.  It would only remove one of his motivations, as he appears to be equally motivated by a genuine and misplace hatred for all Islam; however, it would remove the complicity of others in his actions.  The only reporting on it would be from his congregation members, and the only photos would be from those members who post them on the Internet.  How about it news media? Leave Gainesville now.

P.S. Fox news:  your bias in all things showed through clearly last evening.  During Bret Baier’s Special Report, you posted a viewer poll asking, “Who is most reponsible for inflaming the Ground Zero mosque debate: the media, the Obama administration, or Rev. Jones?”  WRONG:  The partially correct answer is “the media,” but only after ultra-conservative individuals brought the issue to its attention.  Where was the choice “other politicians” among your answers?

P.P.S. Newt Gingrich:  Nazis in Germany destroyed houses of worship and had public mass book burnings. Of you, Rev. Jones, and Imam Rauf, who among you seems to be most espousing Nazi actions?

I’ve been a technogeek most of my life – pretty much since I pushed a touch-tone phone pad at the 1964 New York World’s Fair.  In this digital age of the iPad, Netflix, and other new consumer technologies, it is clear that technology has changed much of what we do each day.  There are arguments to be made about the cost of technological advance, in terms of impact on human behavior, effects on our environment, and in other ways, but I will leave those to another time.  Instead, here I present a list of some of the things that, while probably not as efficient or as cheap as we do them now, I miss at least a little bit.

• Running to the store to pick up photos 3-5 days after we dropped off the film, and wondering how they’ll turn out.
• Waiting at the mailbox for the photos 5-7 days after I mailed in the film, and wondering how they’ll turn out.
• My Polaroid Swinger and Model 80B Land cameras
• Gathering the family around a double 8 projector to watch the 4-minute silent movie that just came back from the processor.
• My sore index finger, after repeatedly dialing a busy phone number.
• Phone number exchanges that had meaning: TUxedo, FRanklin, BUtterfield, PEnnsylvania.
• 45 RPM single records, paying only 79¢ for the one song you wanted, and occasionally finding a gem on the flip side.
• Console television sets
• Pocket-size AM radios with awful sounding earphones
• Chemistry sets
• Heathkits
• A clear starting date for the new television season
• Movie double features
• Drive-in theaters (yes, there are still some around)

What do you miss?

The flare-up over Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s gratuitous use of the N-word during a call on her radio show last week provided a brief distraction from the overboard media coverage and political controversy over the proposed Islamic center in south Manhattan.  By now the circumstances of the call that led to her use of the word some 11 times, several of the times in succession, are well documented.  See, e.g., this Washington Post article and the apology she posted on her own web site.

Putting aside her use of the N-word, which in this context undoubtedly was offensive to many people, there are two other points I’d like to make. First, she offers the opinion that raising issues of race once a biracial president is in office is a red herring.  Apparently in her opinion, the election of Barak Obama as president has magically erased racism from our culture.  I think not.

Second, in her subsequent appearance with Larry King, she said she was giving up her radio show so she could “regain her first amendment rights.”  Funny, I don’t recall that the FCC was threatening to fine her for indecency, or that some other government agency was barring her from the airwaves.  So how were her first amendment rights infringed?  Oh, people criticized her for what she said.  The language in the first amendment is pretty clear, at least as to whom it prevents from restricting one’s speech.  ”Congress shall make no law…”, and as a fundamental right, the 14th Amendment applies it to the states.  It does not insulate one from private reaction to your words, whether or not they would offend a “reasonable person.”  So, Dr. Laura is giving up her show because she doesn’t want to take the heat she generates.  I can understand that, but if you are getting out of the kitchen, as President Truman advised, don’t claim you’re doing it to protect your constitutional rights.

Yesterday’s decision on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 will engender plenty of commentary from those on both sides of the issue.  I’ll add my own thoughts here, though I harbor no illusions that I will change anyone’s opinion.  I merely want to state my own and also my concerns about the political fallout should the case ultimately be affirmed by the Supreme Court, or if that court declines review following an expected affirmance by the ninth circuit panel that will likely hear the case.  Mind you, I don’t think these concerns would justify not moving forward with efforts to secure equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

Stephen Smith, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, who blogs at Law, Religion, and Ethics, wrote yesterday that he did not have to read the opinion to know what it said.  He states three reasons for this, which I paraphrase here.  First, that today’s judges and academics have “detached” the meaning of the equal protection and due process clauses from any meanings intended by their original authors.  Second, “elite culture in this country, including the academy and the mainstream media, is generally hostile to traditional judgments about family and sexual morality, and to practices and institutions that embody those judgments.”  Third, the judge was looking to make a name for himself.

I’ll take the easiest charge first – Why would one presume a judge making a decision favoring the progressive side of an argument would be anymore likely to be seeking the limelight than one choosing the opposite course?  This is simply an ad hominem attack, and is not worthy of any further comment.  As to Smith’s first argument, that the drafters of the 14th amendment and those who ratified it did not intend such effects, I daresay the law of unintended consequences is a slim argument. I suggest that at the time of debate on the amendment, no one asked the proponents, “Do you want to extend this to advance equal rights for homosexuals?” Society changes substantially in only  twenty years, and has undergone more than sea change in the 144 years since the amendment’s submission to the states.  It is entirely reasonable for a court, or a society, looking to apply the principles of “equal protection,” to find today that denial of equal rights to what most believe is a “benefit conferred by the state” violates those principles.

Finally, Smith argues that elites are hostile to traditional values and practices of family and institutions.  In other words, discrimination is justified because “it’s always been done that way.”  I’m certain that had Smith been writing 55 years ago he would have said the same about the decision in Brown v. Board of Education or 43 years ago about that in Loving v. Virginia.  “We’ve always done it that way” is the refuge of those who have no rational basis for their position.  And nothing about extending state recognition of marriage between same-sex couples will affect other families or non-governmental institutions.  In our society, marriage carries meaning to both government and to the church.  Nowhere is a court telling a church it has to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies.  If you want to belong to a church that hews to the traditional meaning, you are more than welcome to do so.  But the government may not enforce or condone such discrimination in its activities.  I would even go so far to say that using the religious basis for keeping the state from recognizing marriage for same-sex couples is a violation of the establishment clause.

My concerns on the political process reflect the current extreme conservative mood in the much of the country, and most notably in Congress.  Republican leaders are giving serious consideration to proposing the fourteenth amendment be modified to deny automatic citizenship to all born in our country.  It is no stretch to see them adding to that proposal the provision that either defines marriage as between a man and a woman, or more cryptically says that notwithstanding the amendment, equal protection shall not be applied to prevent states from defining marriage.  It is not impossible to imagine such a proposal getting a favorable 2/3 vote in a slightly more conservative Congress, and I truly wonder whether the need to have thirty-eight states ratify such a discriminatory amendment will stand as a bulwark against such a mean-spirited proposal.

Beyond my concerns with drivers distracted by their texting on phones while driving lies my pet peeve with moviegoers who insist on texting or reading messages during the movie.  Most theaters now display an on-screen reminder, typically sponsored by a wireless carrier, to “Silence your phone.”  Would that was enough in this day and age.  As much as a conversation during a movie is an assault on the ears, a fully lighted mobile screen in any of the rows in front of me, held in plain view of the rest of us, is an assault on the eyes.  It has no less effect than if you had turned on a Mag-lite® and shone it directly into my eyes.  If you want to waste your $10 on a movie ticket by texting instead of watching the screen, step into the lobby.  I’d like to see the film without the distraction of your multi-candlepower mobile device flashing in front of me.

In keeping with my theme that monetary penalties rather than traffic violation charges may be the most effective way to combat this activity, I would add the following language to my prior recommendation, to make this a pocketbook hit:

If in any civil action in which the operator of a motor vehicle has been adjudged negligent in the operation of the vehicle, and the finder-of-fact has found the operator’s negligence occurred at the time the operator was reading or sending text messages, or was viewing the screen of a device capable of displaying or sending text messages, then the operator’s automobile insurance carrier may charge an additional liability insurance premium of 15% of the base amount of the premium, regardless of any provision in the policy to the contrary, and regardless of any other provision of state law to the contrary.  The additional charge may remain in effect until not later than one year after such adjudication.

Ohio is among the states whose legislatures are considering banning the act of texting while driving.  H.B. No. 415 has passed the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate.  Today’s student-run University of Cincinnati newspaper, the News Record, contains two pieces condemning passage of such a bill, one of which is available at   http://tinyurl.com/3x9s8cs.  While I can appreciate the opinion of those who think such a law would be ineffective, I cannot condone any who find the practice itself unobjectionable.  Talking on a cell phone while driving is bad enough, as it takes your ears and a good part of your concentration off the task at hand – driving.  Texting then takes your eyes out of the driving equation as well.  How many of us would intentionally drive for several seconds with our eyes closed?

I have no quarrel with making the act of either talking on a phone or texting while driving a traffic offense, but I think the legislature should be thinking more creatively.  Perhaps putting a financial burden on this offense would be more effective, and putting a driver’s insurance premiums at risk would be most effective of all.  I suggest that all legislatures considering banning phoning or texting while driving add this statute to their laws:

“In any civil action for damages arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, if the operator of the vehicle was texting with an electronic device or using a hand-held telephone while operating the vehicle, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the operator was acting in a negligent manner.  The introduction of evidence that the operator was texting with an electronic device or using a hand-held telephone while operating the vehicle shall establish a prima facie case that the operator was acting in a negligent manner.”  Torts specialists, I invite you to clean up my language.

Potentially more troubling than Republican assertions that they will fight to repeal the bill (H.R 3590), soon to be the act (Pub.L. 111-148?), is the charge of several Republican Attorneys General being led by Bill McCollum of Florida.  Putting aside whatever legitimate arguments concerning the 9th and 10th amendments may be advanced in their argument, McCollum’s apparent self-appointment as spokesman for this group is blatantly political.  I recall McCollum’s first run for Congress thirty years ago, when I lived in Volusia County, Florida.  It was apparent then that our political philosophies were diametrically opposed, and this has been confirmed many times during his career, including most notably his service as a manager of the Clinton impeachment resolution in the House of Representatives.  McCollum is presently a candidate to succeed Charlie Crist as governor.  I hope this process will be resolved quickly in the courts, not agonizingly in  the media, but I know that mine is a futile wish.