Satire is hard, stupidity is easy

I think satire and parody require their own special font. Once again we have a "conservative" commenter--Mark Williams-- jumping into deep shit with an idiotic attempt at satire by posting on his blog a letter from a "colored person" to President Lincoln that he penned somehow thinking it was a creative way to counterattack the NAACP that accused his (now former) political organization with being "racist". Yikes!

Be careful how you use the term "colored person," careful how you use President Lincoln and even more careful how you combine the two.

I'm reminded of my young friend Max Karson getting arrested three years ago for comments made the day after the Virginia Tech massacre about how he could see himself doing that. Of course Max made these comments in a "woman's study" class and Max had previously distinguished himself by getting suspended from Amherst Regional High School for writing about masturbation and gayness and god knows what else.

Naturally the Daily Hampshire Gazette (a puppy to the powers that be) editorially supported the draconian reaction of Boulder, Colorado officials, rather than defending the rough and tumble world of the First Amendment.

But yes, if I were in the Tea Party establishment (and it may come as a surprise to some of you that I'm not a card carrying member) I too would have ejected this idiot for what he wrote on his blog. And if it was just fine, why did he delete it--a cardinal sin for bloggers.

The BIG difference is that Max was arrested and faced jail time from government officials in Colorado for exercising his First Amendment rights, this nitwit Williams was axed by the privately run Tea Party.

I'll drink to that.

NY Daily News (a conservative paper) reports

Max Karson retrospective

First Amendment blog assault continues...

So School Committee Chair Michael DeChiara has not seen his name in print for a few weeks and conveniently decided to continue stoking the fires of censorship by sending a follow-up missive (this time only signed by His Majesty and not the other 4 School Committee Chairs) to the District Attorney attempting to rebut the rightfully concerned ACLU counter-letter that garnered equal headlines to his initial PR ploy.

Okay, fair enough. But one thing you probably should not do in a letter to the DA, who is after all an attorney, is to admit you are "not a lawyer and cannot offer case citations," but then go on to suggest the ACLU lawyers who are lawyers--and well respected ones at that--did "not read the 5/18/10 letter carefully."

DeChiara whines, "Because many of us perceive the possibility of a conflict between Freedom of Expression and Massachusetts' Open Meeting Law it is my/our public belief that many of us are that many public officials are self censoring; limiting their freedom of expression as a result of murky legal waters."

Oh really? So who are all these public officials holding back their desire to found a free blog on Blogger or Wordpress because they fear violation of state law? Can you name one or two? And last I looked the state of Massachusetts has one of the weakest Open Meeting Laws in the nation--as individuals do not get fined for (intentional) violations, so they certainly don't have to worry about ever going to jail.

So if a current public official is that timid to hold off on founding a blog because state government has not issued "Blogging and Open Meeting Law for Dummies," then chances are their blog would be boring as Hell and nobody would read it anyway.

The state Open Meeting Law, as toothless as it is, was enacted to ensure public discussion takes place in public; it's the intentional, deliberate circumvention that should concern citizens--not the once in a blue moon unintentional serial discussion where one board member bumps into another at the grocery store and comments about an issue before them and then that member bumps into another at the Dunkin Donuts and regurgitates the brief comments.

But on a blog, EVERYBODY can look over your shoulder and bear witness to the conversation--all of it time date stamped!

I'm glad DeChiara professes to "wholeheartedly supports the ideas and values behind government acting 'in the sunshine'. However, without clear guidelines from the District Attorney, this is not possible."

Hmm...the First Amendment is a Federal Law enacted to prevent government--even lowly town government--from restricting the rights of 'The People and The Press' to voice their opinions. Asking a (state) government agent for "clear guidelines" about free expression is kind of like asking the fox to come up with organizational rules for the henhouse.

And yeah, I kid you not, he even signed off with:

"Michael DeChiara
Shutesbury, MA
An elected public official seeking guidance from my government."

(Although to his credit, he did at least forward a copy to the ACLU--but not to School Committee blogger Catherine Sanderson who is the obvious target of his egotistical ire.)

Score (another) one for the blogosphere!

6:15 AM (Tuesday) So the print Gazette put this ACLU spanking of school committee chairs for trying to censor blogs story on the Front Page--but, alas, below the fold. My friend Vladimir Morales hogged the above the fold location with an article about him getting the Select Board to endorse a boycott of Arizona (geeze, like how hard was that to do?) Just another typical 'Only in Amherst' idea, so naturally it attracts undue media attention.
######################################
9:25 PM Gazettenet just put up tomorrow's edition of the Daily Hampshire Gazette and it contains a "guest column" by Michael DeChiara, chairman of the Shutesbury School Committee defending his idea to get the DA to issue a (restrictive) guidebook for public officials daring to use the open transparency and power of the blog.

The ACLU counter-letter railing against that Free Speech chilling idea could not have come at a better time. Let's hear if for the cavalry!
#######################################

1:15 PM (hot copy)

Those White Knights of Freedom, the ACLU, has come to defense of the blogosphere--or at least Amherst School Committee member Catherine Sanderson's piece of it--with a common sense official letter of concern to the local District Attorney who was recently asked by five School Committee chairs to provide a legal opinion potentially shutting down the freewheeling discussion that takes place on blogs if maintained by public officials--that as an Amherst Redevelopment Authority member include me.

They share the tremendous concern of all of us who value the freedom and New World Order brought on by that great equalizer for Democracy, the Internet.

According to the dispatch signed by William Newman, Director ACLU western Massachusetts Law Offices and his legal partner Thomas Newman, "The Supreme Court has been unwavering that expression on public issues rests on the highest rung of the First Amendment values."

They also point out that which should be pretty obvious: "Blogs are completely open to the public for inspection and response. And where there are no secret meetings or deliberations by a quorum, there is no violation of the Open Meeting Law."

Even more to the point: "The goals of the Open Meeting Law, we suggest, are enhanced, not jeopardized, by the use of blogs by public officials, who invite public comment and debate and allow an elected official to state his or her views and to invite criticism and comment, much as elected officials regularly do when newspapers ask for , and then report, comments and positions of elected officials on pending issues."

And they conclude with "We urge the greatest caution in any formulation of the Open Meeting Law that might tend to compromise the guarantee of the First Amendment."

Or to quote Scottish Braveheart William Wallace's dying word (at least as enunciated by Mel Gibson): FREEDOM!

My initial breaking of this story

The Bully Reported (better late than never)

To Hell with Babe Ruth--and all religion too

So Comedy Central has allowed South Park to have fun with Christianity over the years--Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and an American flag springs to mind-- but God forbid they mention Muhammad.

Will the cowardly quitter of a corporate CEO now become an equal opportunity censor as long as the group complaining threatens violence?

And of course the irony weighs heavier than Muhammad's mountain: the beyond-bullying threat emanates from a radical extremest website based in New York where the World Trade Center Twin Towers once stood tall and proud, like a beacon of American entrepreneurial spirit.

Freedom of speech is a precious, delicate thing. If not protected at every opportunity and defended against all threats, it loses its lifeblood--one drop at a time. And then we are all lost.

Free Speech is good enough for these Radical Muslims

A proud tradition indeed

(9:00 PM ) So tonight the forces of fear and oppression won out, and all of us are microscopically worse off.

The academic forum on a twenty-year-old sedition trial where the main culprit was acquitted, but served 18 years on other charges did go off tonight at Umass...without, however, the main culprit. At the the 11Th hour his parole person suddenly decided that to exercise his First Amendment rights in the great state of Massachusetts (where the war for liberty first started) could violate his parole.

Umass police--including the Chief--were out in force, as was the media. I arrived about two minutes after the 7:15 PM start time (as I had to teach my wife's karate class at the Club) and the room was already sealed. It will be interesting to see how the local and Boston TV stations who turned out with the their very expensive satellite trucks handle this now-turned-non-story.

Sure, about 100-150 off duty cops showed up to hold signs. Fair enough. Ironically they were peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. Something they managed to deny Raymond Luc Levasseur.

Yes, this is America

So I can’t even remember the last time I disagreed with my friends at the Springfield Republican, but today they kind of blew it with an editorial on Ray Luc Levasseur’s censored Umass appearance.

On the one hand they “were ready to defend his right to speak at UMass. This is America, after all.” But on the other hand they’re “glad that Levasseur, a convicted terrorist, won’t be able to lead a three-ring circus that would mock freedom of speech.”

Say what? How is simply exercising your American right (yes even someone on Parole has rights) under the First Amendment making a mockery of free speech? And who is responsible for the “three-ring circus”?

The Boston Herald and conservative talk radio whipped up the masses in a classic yellow journalism campaign that would have made William Randolph Hearst proud.

I do not condone violence to achieve change (and apparently neither does Lavasseur anymore); as President Lincoln so succinctly stated: “The ballot is stronger than the bullet”. As flight 93 headed towards Washington DC on a suicide mission the passengers took a vote before attempting to retake the plane.

To advocate freedom of speech but applaud its denial strikes me as hypocritical.
##############################################
This from The Boston Globe:
Not everyone who suffered in the Freedom Front’s wake agrees with stifling Levasseur’s voice. Edmund Narine, who lost a leg in the 1976 courthouse bombing, said despite a desire to protest a Levasseur appearance, free speech trumps his anger.

Levasseur “should be prosecuted again, and if I have to return and testify again, I would,’’ he said yesterday in a phone interview from Kampala, Uganda, where he is visiting family. “At the same time if he wants to talk about it, and I don’t know what he’s going to tell the kids, but I think he should be given the opportunity to speak.’’

“I think the public can learn from someone who’s carried out these sorts of heinous acts,’’ said Narine, 72, who is a writer in Mission Hill. “It’s important for us to hear why they did it, what motivated them. . . . It’s good for all of us to hear that, especially professionals, because it might help them to take preventive action in the future.’’

Levasseur said he was humbled by Narine’s support.

“I think that’s a tremendous thing for him to do. And I appreciate it given what he’s been through,’’ said Levasseur, noting that he never intended to hurt innocent civilians.
##############################################

The Springfield Republican Speaks

Worcester Telegram & Gazette Columnist gets it right

UMass President Jack Wilson (before the Body Snatchers got him)

Even the Umass Daily Collegian gets it!

Worth dying for

UPDATE: 6:45 PM So the on-again, off-again speech by convicted domestic terrorist Raymond Luc Levasseur at Umass, you know, that bastion of higher education where the market of ideas--no matter how whacked--can be discussed in a civilized manner, is now OFF.

And if I had to guess, since a venerable duly appointed taxpayer funded government Parole Officer is involved, this time it's permanent. Now I know what Michelle Obama meant when she suggested sometimes you're ashamed to be called an American.

The Boston Herald "reports" (requiring three "reporters" no less)

UMass Library Under Fire

No, not from "cleared" Gitmo detainees relocated to the People's Republic of Amherst, just from the usual suspects--right wing radio shock jocks who moonlight as Boston Herald columnists.

And yes these are the same folks who flamed Umass Amherst last spring when Nitwit left wingers interrupted and shut down conservative speaker Don Feder.

But when the shoe is on the other foot...

Yeah, the old First-Amendment-is-great-as-long-as-it-only-applies-to-me routine. You would think folks who make a living spewing vitriol would be passionate defenders of the right to say whatever the Hell you want. Of course this is the same journalist that told Amherst Selectman Gerry Weiss a few weeks back that "innocent until proven guilty" should only apply to Americans.

The speech/discussion by convicted domestic terrorist Ray Luc Levasseur scheduled for next week is now cancelled. But Herald columnist McPhee is dead wrong that the Governor "pulled the plug." UMass Amherst Libraries’ Department of Special Collections and University Archives director Rob Cox, with the greatest of regrets, pulled the plug. Because he feared a circus like atmosphere possibly endangering public safety.

Of course police officers should be upset with what this man once represented caused the murder of one of their own (not by Levasseur but somebody in his group so that still makes him complicit). But he paid his dues--twenty years of hard labor. And if you believe in our American system of justice he has a right to get on with his life. That includes using the constitutionally guaranteed protection of the First Amendment.

What better way to find out what motivates somebody to violence then to hear a first hand account; so that maybe in the future we can take measures to avoid it. Computer security companies love to hire hackers fresh out of the Federal pen and put them to work protecting systems they once pillaged.

The library was going to cover his travel expenses (so yes, some tax money was involved) but the small honorarium was going to be donated to the Rosenberg Fund for Children. And it's not like they were putting him up in a fancy Sheraton Hotel for a week and giving him champagne and call girls.

The Springfield Republican reports:

The Boston Herald brags

FIRE gets fired up

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Not in Amherst

Hadley's Howard Johnson's

Oozing the outdated bricks and mortar 4’th Estate policy of “never apologize, never explain” today’s Amherst Bulletin editorial suggesting a compromise on the July 4’th Parade brew-ha-ha controversy actually champions a sound principle:

Let the League of Women Voters have their rag-tag “Protest Parade”; although Iraq is now won and even President Obama, the darling of the liberal left, is talking tough on Afghanistan.

Let them run the same route as the normal, All-American Rockwell style parade (at a safe distance from the end) that private organizers have promoted since 2002, after the town gave up in 1976.

The same cops who control things for the private July 4’th Parade Committee can stay in place and also handle the yahoos (since Union rules guarantee them 4 hours and two parades can happen within that time frame.) The two groups could probably also split the cost of insurance.

Too bad the Bully did not think of this eleven months ago.

Bully Nitwit editorial 5/2/08

What I find journalistically fascinating is this same “newspaper” previously told the private Amherst July 4’th Parade Committee to go find another holiday to have a Parade (yeah, gee there nitwits, they should have a July 4’th Parade on April 1’st eh?)

And they applauded the Town Mangler’s Nazi like takeover of the Parade from the private group by declaring he would not give them a permit for July 4, 2009—A resoundingly overt violation of the First Amendment and an idiotic move that brought a reprimand and federal lawsuit threat from the ACLU (also the darling of the left).

We think the 6-year-old Amherst parade will find a better home on a holiday that is not so closely aligned with the cherished principles of free speech and independence. Shaffer's stance creates a hundred and one headaches for himself and other town officials before Independence Day rolls around in 2009. But anyone who takes seriously the rights won by the nation's founders - a fight that began on a certain July day in 1776 - owes Shaffer a tip of the tricorn.

Any real newspaper that takes seriously their journalistic watchdog role—unlike the toothless, aging, arthritic, senile Bully--would have told Shaffer where to stick that tricorn.
Click to enlarge/read

The Bully "reports"

Abridging the freedom of speech

I don’t like attending choreographed “PR events,” and when I do it’s like the person who has no great love for NASCAR or the Indy 500 but grudgingly goes simply hoping for a spectacular car crash.

But I do indeed love, respect and will fight to the death to protect the First Amendment. And this staged event at Umass was, after all, a rally to support our rights to say whatever the Hell we want.

It brought together the student Democratic and Republican Clubs who normally mix like fire and gasoline. And of course the same nitwits who shut down Don Feder’s speech three weeks ago attended with their signs and banners--but a lot less vocal this time around. (The bright glare of national publicity will do that).

Last week Sheila Bair, former Umass professor and now Chair of the FDIC (and “second most powerful woman in the world”) spoke at the Isenberg School of Management about the financial meltdown and the resulting federal bailout. Not a peep out of the standing-room-only overflow audience.

If I had the time (which most protesters obviously do) I would have attended with a large sign reading “Are you out of your mind!” Bailout the poor schmucks who need it, but put all the other idiots in jail.

Ahhh but she’s a middle aged white woman—and a very successful one at that. Don Feder is this aging Jewish guy who used to write a column for—gasp—The Boston Herald.

After all, this is Umass--located in the People’s Republic of Amherst.

This student is probably thinking if he knew Ch 40 TV was coming with such a cute reporter he would have dressed better. Or maybe not.

The burly guy with a beard gets around. But they could have used another volunteer or two on the bottom corners.

(March 11 at the Don Feder speech fiasco.) Hey at least they believe in recycling.