Too often we hear people threatening to not vote for Obama if he doesn'[t give in to their demands. The most recent that caught my eye was Gene Karpinski from the League of Conservation Voters, Without question air quality is an important issue, but with the Republican Congress saying "NO!" to everything raised by the President, I readily understand why Karpinski was told that Obama would take it up if he was elected to a second term but could not do it now. The top priority right now has to be economics and jobs. The greatest country in the free world is hardly living up to that label these days yet many in the USA have not caught on to that and are living with the past way of doing things.
In March, one survey found that Education was a top priority. Read more.
For CEOs it was 'how to promote creativity within their organization'. Read more
With Christmas approaching as well as the end of the year for people to offset taxes by gifting to charity, 'our mail cup runneth over. We mourn the waste of resources trying to squeak out more money than we have to give. Everyone but the top 1% seems to be suffering, clamoring for assistance, and it all seems to be as basic as survival. For this country to have so many people on the verge of malnutrition and starvation, homeless who are living exposed to the elements, returned war veterans left bereft of acknowledgement for what their service cost them and their families and jobless, it is not a pretty sight and a real blemish on the face of the United States of America.
Is it any wonder people are resorting to protesting in the streets. How do the police justify their brutality for peaceful protesting and the right to free speech when the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are individuals and that obscenely generous campaign contributions are protected by the right to free speech. People may not complain of the injustice to our democracy while the Supreme Court justifies changing the reading and meaning of the first amendment which has stood for
The amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It does not limit as to how that speech can be delivered but peaceful protest has always been acceptable. Even in the Colonial days, the soap box became the stage for citizens to speak out in the town parks. Why are we allowing these values to dissipate?
In March, one survey found that Education was a top priority. Read more.
For CEOs it was 'how to promote creativity within their organization'. Read more
With Christmas approaching as well as the end of the year for people to offset taxes by gifting to charity, 'our mail cup runneth over. We mourn the waste of resources trying to squeak out more money than we have to give. Everyone but the top 1% seems to be suffering, clamoring for assistance, and it all seems to be as basic as survival. For this country to have so many people on the verge of malnutrition and starvation, homeless who are living exposed to the elements, returned war veterans left bereft of acknowledgement for what their service cost them and their families and jobless, it is not a pretty sight and a real blemish on the face of the United States of America.
Is it any wonder people are resorting to protesting in the streets. How do the police justify their brutality for peaceful protesting and the right to free speech when the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are individuals and that obscenely generous campaign contributions are protected by the right to free speech. People may not complain of the injustice to our democracy while the Supreme Court justifies changing the reading and meaning of the first amendment which has stood for
The amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It does not limit as to how that speech can be delivered but peaceful protest has always been acceptable. Even in the Colonial days, the soap box became the stage for citizens to speak out in the town parks. Why are we allowing these values to dissipate?
3 comments:
The cities that are breaking up the "Occupy ..." camps are legally within their rights, although I strongly disagree with the way these cities have handled the protests.
The courts have repeatedly held that municipalities can restrict the time and place of speech, as long as said speech is permitted at some reasonable place and time. For example, a city may prohibit you from driving a truck with loud speakers blaring "Vote for Jones" through a residential neighborhood at 3 in the morning, as long as they do permit you to do so at 3 in the afternoon. Cities such as Oakland can argue that since they permit protestors are to demonstrate during the day, they can forbid sleeping in the park overnight.
So Oakland, L.A. and other cities are technically in the right to evacuate the Occupy encampments. but their handling of the protest is still execrable. For starters, they are changing the rules in the middle of the game. If these cities have a "no sleeping in the park" law, it should apply to everyone at all times. Instead, these cities cheerfully waived this rule when the protests first started, then enforced the rule when the protests became politically unpopular. Nothing diminished the authority of the law more than its arbitrary application.
More importantly, the level of force used against the protestors is inexcusably excessive. Non-violent sitting protestors have been pepper sprayed, Oakland cops beat an Iraq war veteran, and demonstrators have been shot with rubber bullets. In one of the most disquieting and under-reported stories, it appears that these efforts to break up the OWS protests are being coordinated by the Obama administration; see
http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies
The mostly young "Occupy.." protesters have been badly exploited for political gains. Many of them are hopelessly naive, but one cannot help but think that they have gotten a particularly harsh reality check. I wonder how many of these idealistic youths will turn to non-government solutions to their problems.
Also, check out my blog post on Boston mayor Menino's dreadful record on the First Amendment in general, and "Occupy Boston" in particular:
http://fatherbrain.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-boston-versus-what-occupies.html
I agree that they are within legal rights to states terms of the protest as to time, place, and treatment of the area. I do not approve of their tactics. Pepper spray is beyond reasonable for non-violent protesters!
Post a Comment