Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Free speech- unless you make a profit?

A little while ago a story made the news that a Michigan mother whose son had been killed in the Iraq war realized her son's name was among the 3,000 listed on a t-shirt which said "Bush Lied." The flap made headlines when Vicki Dickinson enlisted politicians to line up and kick sand at the maker of the shirt containing the name of her son and 2,999 other dead soldiers and propose yet another piece of feel-good legislation which will surely get overturned in the courts.

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, politicians rushed in to save the day and trampled over the Constitution to get to the side of the grieving mother. Even more sad was that one of those was State Senator Mark Schauer who obviously is trying to prove that he's no liberal and that he can restrict free speech as good as any Republican. As you may know Schauer has announced he is taking on radical right wing nut Tim Walberg who sits in the U.S. House of Representatives after beating moderate Republican Joe Schwarz in the GOP primary with lots of money from out-of-district special interest right wing groups like Club for Growth. Schauer is a well-liked moderate Democrat who has built his career on community and constituent service who would be an obvious improvement over the radical idealogue he seeks to replace.

Schauer has co-sponsored a bill which would make it illegal to make a profit using someone's name or image without their permission.

"No one should be allowed to make a buck by exploiting the name and image of someone else, particularly someone who has fought and died for this country," Schauer said in a statement released by his office.

"This measure will prevent greedy profiteers from taking advantage of people and protect the identities and reputations of private citizens."

Obviously, one feels for ALL the mothers who've lost their sons and daughters in a war most Americans think was a mistake, but this bill is so obviously and deeply flawed that it should never even be considered by the legislature. However, if our current political system one has to wonder if even one politician will be willing to stand up and do what's right and vote this thing down if it makes it to a vote.

I was reminded of this controversy when reading the letter column of a national magazine which, in its year end issue, had published the names and photos of American soldiers who died in Iraq in 2007. There was no anti-war message or "exploitation" but one could reasonably argue that publishing those photos would have violated the law proposed by Schauer and others. After all, when someone paid for that magazine, doesn't that mean they profited from the publication of the names and photos? Or does the proposed bill only apply to those who oppose the war?

This bill would open a can of legal worms that I almost can't even wrap my head around: would news broadcasts be forbidden from naming the soldiers who've been killed in the war until they get permission to do so? Obviously, this would even extend far beyond just the debate over the war as many works of journalism, art and literature are based on using people's name or likenesses. Often, it's often simply impossible to get permission from everyone pictured in a news story, a documentary film or even a t-shirt. One can imagine numerous examples where the participants would obviously be unwilling to give permission even though the now-outlawed activity might serve a vital interest. I for one would argue that political expression is a vital interest and the impact of the anti-war shirt would be muted considerable if it didn't contain the names of the REAL people that died in a war that someone believes was started because "Bush Lied."

While many people see nothing more than a grieving mother, I think there's more to it. Sadly, this seems like just a back door way for someone to silence opposition to the war in which their child gave his life. The mother almost admits as much when she says:
"I support my son, and I don't worry about whether I support the war. I support my son, and I support the troops. My son would be upset with this man."
"Supporting the troops" has become both a meaningless catch phrase (often used by those who extend their tours of duty but don't see to it they have body armor or adequate health care) as well as a bludgeon with which to crush opposition of the war- all criticism of the Pentagon, the generals, the Commander in Chief, etc. can be said to "hurt the troops." If the war goes badly because it was a dumb war to begin with, or because it was poorly executed, or because the intent was to sow destruction and chaos to destabilize a region in order to maintain control of it's natural resources, no one can ever point this out because one will "demoralize" the troops. One has to wonder how the troops face the bullets and bombs of the enemy if they can't even tolerate a Congressional debate- obviously, it's not the troops who fear the debate but the politicians and war profiteers who fear losing the debate and resort to cheap straw man or bait and switch rhetorical tactics to prop up the unpopular war. How sad that so many can't see through the cheap theatrics used to stifle this important debate.

Lawmakers should quit trying to score cheap political points by caving in on the rights these soldiers are said to be protecting. I worry that Schauer's support of this bill is just yet another sign that too many Democratic politicians are willing to sell out the core principles of the party to curry favor with supposed "moderates." Too bad the mythical moderates are too often turned off by Democrats who pander on important issues instead of standing up for what they believe in and the base of the party is left without anyone to carry their message and the political debate once again drifts further to the right. After all, why should voters send Mark Schauer to Washington if he's going to try to strip us of our right to free speech and to political dissent? We already have Tim Walberg to do that.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Primary post-mortem

It sure was nice to see that Barry County Commissioner Jeff VanNortwick survived the recall attempt. As many of you surely know VanNortwick was singled out for voting for the TOST ordinance requested by the local health department despite being but one of seven commissioners to vote for it. As many of you also know, VanNortwick beat local Farm Bureau member Tom Wing by a handful of votes and has been a vocal critic of industrial farm pollution. It doesn't take a genius to see why VanNortwick faced recall while the other 7 commissioners who approved TOST got a pass. Many saw his narrow victory over Wing in the GOP primary as evidence of his political weakness yet VanNortwick managed to beat down the recall effort by focusing his energy on a positive grassroots effort that emphasized connecting with neighbors, relatives and friends, going door to door and practicing old fashioned retail politics. It didn't hurt his efforts that the recall campaign never offered anything besides criticism of TOST- one vote- to try to subvert the electoral process and the voters of Baltimore, Johnstown and Assyria Townships soundly rejected it.

While many people see serial recall-instigator George Hubka as the biggest loser in the failed recall effort, I would have to say that Barry County Democratic Party Chair Barb Cichy has a claim to that title in that at least at one time she had the respect of many people who now question her recent actions. Cichy, once a vocal critic of the failures and cronyism of the Southwest Barry Sewer Authority, seemed to be hell-bent on taking out a protector of the environment who happened to be on the ballot with an (R) next to his name. The Democratic Party should offer up a legitimate candidate and support them instead of trying assist this Quixotic effort. The party's political capital and energy would be better spent building up instead of tearing down. Cichy was also an opponent of the Charlton Park millage which was certainly at least understandable, but her free and easy way with numbers and facts in that campaign and the recall effort are not, and neither is her aligning herself and her party with some of Barry County's most suspect characters in the process. It doesn't further the interests of the party or the citizens of Barry County.

###

The big winner in the Michigan primary Tuesday night was Mitt Romney, whose mostly self-financed campaign had done well in early states but except for a shallow victory in Wyoming had yet to notch a win that would impress the Beltway insiders. Romney, son of 3-term Michigan Governor George Romney, had the name and the cash to make a stand in Michigan and pulled out a rather decisive victory over John McCain who had taken the state in 2000 and supposedly had momentum which now seems all but lost as they head to South Carolina which derailed McCain's 2000 effort and could do so once again. The nail in McCain's coffin in Michigan was more than likely his blunt and cold assessment of lost manufacturing jobs while Romney pandered and promised the moon, in the eyes of many in the media at least.

Meanwhile, the big loser at the state level was the Democratic Party and the voters. Because of Michigan's decision to move up in the schedule, the state was penalized by the national parties. While the Republican National Committee chose to make Michigan pay by taking away half its delegates, the Democratic National Committee meted out a harsher sentence and stripped the state of all its delegates and threatened candidates with punishment is they campaigned here which resulted in 2 of the 3 Democratic contenders removing their names from the ballot and thus not even making it an interesting diversion. While the country and the Republican candidates talked about the state's issues (which was the intent of those in the state who forced the change), the Democratic candidates were nowhere to be found. What followed was an absurd one-sided discussion which mostly focused on the same George Bush voodoo economics that hasn't worked and never will- and certainly not the cure for what ails us. The argument went mostly unchallenged in the political debate played out via news reports, commercials, etc.

If the national Democratic Party thinks it only punished Mark Brewer and Debbie Dingell then they're simply wrong. Even if they think they only hurt the Democratic activists in the state who might not get the best hotel rooms in Denver for the national convention, they're mistaken. The DNC's overzealous punishment has hurt the party's chances to hold on to Michigan and hurt the country by giving the Republican Party nearly a week of exclusive access to the airwaves and the public consciousness. Then again, Michigan voters probably had less exposure to the recent attempts to drag down the Democratic debate in South Carolina so perhaps the Democrats weren't hurt here so bad after all.