Jimmy Carter Prize: Judge James Ware

We previously reported on an incident in which the principle of Live Oaks High school demanded that several students turn their American Flag t-shirts inside out, because he feared that it would offend Hispanic students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo. Amazingly, a federal court, presided by Judge James Ware, ruled that the school was justified in curtailing the 1st Amendment Rights of these students, because of its concerns about public safety. At its core, the issue is that judge is supporting the principle's decision to take the low road and acquiesce to the demands of the mob, rather than the defend the rights of free expression. This is equivalent to a principle cancelling a meeting of a club for gay students, because they feared the response of homophobic students.Furthermore, the judge should have noted and objected to the asymmetrical policy of the principle; if the assistant principle was truly concerned that patriotic displays would lead to conflict, should he not have banned the display of American and Mexican flags? And does the fact that the assistant principle did not respond to the indignation of Hispanic Students with reason and dialogue (as he did with the flag wearing students) indicate that he holds them in low regard?  For this reason we proudly bestow the Jimmy Carter Prize for the Advancement of Douchebagery to Judge James Ware.

Federal Judge: School can censor student display of American flag

The Daily Caller – Fri, Nov 11, 2011

• Email
  
  
• 1
• Print

A federal court has ruled that school administrators had the right to order California high school students to remove displays of theAmerican flag from their clothing on Cinco De Mayo.

Basing his decision on a concern that violence could result from the display of the American flag on the Mexican holiday, California District Judge James Ware ruled that administrators’ actions to censor the students did not violate the so-called Tinker standard, which protects students’ freedom of speech.

On May 5, 2010, administrators at Live Oak High School told students that if they didn’t turn their American flag-bearing shirts inside-out, they would be sent home for wearing what the school considered to be “incendiary” clothing.

Fox News reported that the order came from Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, who feared an altercation between Mexican-American students celebrating Cinco de Mayo and those wearing the U.S. emblem.

Judge Ware ruled Tuesday that the school was within its right to censor the students for safety purposes.

“In contrast to Tinker, in which the Supreme Court specifically noted that no threats of violence were made here Defendant Rodriguez was warned by two different students that they were concerned thatPlaintiffs’ clothing would lead to violence,” Ware wrote in his ruling. “These warnings were made in a context of ongoing racial tension and gang violence within the school, and after a near-violent altercation had erupted during the prior Cinco de Mayo over the display of an American flag.”

Ware noted that while no violence actually occurred, it was reasonable for school officials to believe there would be negative implications for allowing the students to wear America-themed clothing.

“Because the school officials were responsible for the safety of Plaintiffs on a day-to-day basis, the Court finds that they did not violate the First Amendment by asking Plaintiffs to turn their shirts inside out to avoid physical harm,” he wrote.

The Student Press Law Center reports the students will be appealing the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“If (school officials) believe that in 2009 there was evidence that students would become embroiled in some kind of dispute over race or nationalism, then it behooved them not to permit Cinco de Mayo celebrations to take place,” the students’ lead attorney said, according to SPLC. “Instead … they permitted one group to present their message and then disallowed my clients from presenting their message, which, by the way, was not intended to refute or to contest or to challenge the interests of the students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo.”

Open Letter to Rick Santorum

Mr. Santorum, you are correct; Judeo-Christian values were central in the founding of the United States. From the Declaration of Independence, to the individual writings of the founding fathers, this is abundantly clear. In his writings, Tocqueville noted that while the formal separation of church was a vital aspect of the new republic, Christian faith and liberty  "were intimately united" and "reigned in common over the same country." He believed that in the United States, "the safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of laws, as well as the surest pledge of freedom." And those familiar with American History are aware that the crusade to abolition slavery and expand civil rights were primarily driven by people of faith.

But, for various reasons, I am concerned about your highly religious rhetoric. Nowhere in the writings of the founding fathers do we encounter sentiments that politicians and the state must propagate faith and virtue. They must form and flourish in the womb of civil society, in families, churches and charities. Those who seek to nourish religious sentiments and institutions through the state, will foster the corruption and the dependency of the church. Regarding your focus on contentious social issues; the 10th Amendment dictates that issues like gay marriage and abortion are not the concern of the federal government, rather they are under the jurisdiction of states and communities. Thus, you are fostering the centralization of power that most conservatives criticize President Obama for.

Let your faith continue to guide your private and public decisions, because the constitution grants us freedom of, not freedom from religion. But, be aware that the surest defense of religious liberty is not a strong central government that intervenes in social life, but the system of limited government and federalism established by our constitution. And we ask that you have faith that America's rich Judeo-Christian traditions will continue to flourish without the help of the state and without your campaign rhetoric. G-d and good sense be with you.

Brief Reflection On The Value Of Hypocrisy

A close associate of mine's favorite past time is to gather and gloat over examples of hypocrisy committed by self proclaimed social and religious conservatives. Every time a "family value conservative" or evangelical preacher is caught in an extramarital affair or homosexual dalliance is presented as proof positive of the innate defects of social conservatism and its purveyors. Paradoxically, hypocrisy is a highly undesirable trait for individuals to possess, on a broader social level, it can be viewed as a "necessary evil." To start off with, just because an individual falls short of a professed virtue, either through temptation or insincerity, does not negate its value or utility. For example, just because Al Gore flies around the globe in a private jet, spewing out green house gases, does not undermine the value of his environmental message, it merely casts his personal character into question. And by definition, the only way an individual or society could be free of hypocrisy would be to significantly lower our standards, so that we can ensure that they are met. Take the issue of marital infidelity; I recall a discussion with an Italian client of mine who was amazed that some Americans were concerned with former President Clinton's infidelity, because " when our leaders openly parade their mistresses in public, it barely raises an eyebrow." He went on to state that, "America is filled with hypocrites, because they too cheat on their spouses but simply do not fess up to it." 

This begs the question: would American Society be better off if we purged hypocrisy from our midst by not promoting marital (or any other) standards that many of us fail to live up to? I would respond "no" to that premise, simply because for many people, even the perceived values and behavior of our neighbors can shape our own, even if they sharply differ from the reality that exists behind closed doors. For example, if the members of a community believed that their neighbors all gave to charity, they would be more inclined to do so too, out of fear of gossip and social isolation. But, if out of a distaste for hypocrisy or general indifference, a community ceased extolling certain values and chastising certain vices, the rate of negative behaviors would surely increase. So, in closing, the hypocrisy of private citizens and politicians speak poorly of their character, but not of the values that they fail to live up to. Lowering the bar of acceptable conduct  as a means of eliminating hypocrisy is a juvenile endeavor that erodes the social capital of communities and countries alike.

Why Was Gaddafi Overthrown?

I will emphatically state that I was never a fan of Muammar Qaddafi or any authoritarian leader, but I was deeply troubled by the American led overthrow of his regime. It is obvious that the rebels were armed and government sites were bombed by NATO troops, not because of the violence it used in suppressing a revolt. By African and Middle-Eastern standards, the Qaddafi regime was not particularly brutal or corrupt and actually had some impressive accomplishments: 

From 1977 onward, per capita income in the country rose to more than US $11,000, the fifth-highest in Africa,^[56] while the Human Development Index became the highest in Africa and greater than that of Saudi Arabia.^[57] This was achieved without borrowing any foreign loans, keeping Libya debt-free.

The presence of oil, combined with his unwillingness to follow the lead of the United States and the European Powers is the most probable reason we engineered his removal. And in the end, what did we accomplish? There is nothing that indicates that the fragmented regime of the rebels is any more democratic and popular than Qaddafi's. So far they've harassed and even massacred black Libyans and by overturning the previous ban on polygamy, they've shown an inclination towards Islamic Law. And there is no reason to believe that their enthusiasm for the western powers  is anything more than a transitory phenomena. If the new regime doesn't deliver on its political and economic promises, soon we will get blamed for its failings. All this for the bargain of only $1 billion, paid for by you, the American Tax Payer!

Are You A Right Wing Extremist?

A report by the Department of Homeland Security on "right wing extremism" states that it has "no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence," but "right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on fears about several emergent issues." In other words, they are concerned about the beliefs and not the actions of  law abiding American Citizens. According to the Department of Homeland Security, you may be a "right wing extremist" if you are concerned:


"(about) the loss of US manufacturing capability to China and India." 


"(that) a world government would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty." 

"that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages," 


"(about) restrictive gun laws" 


Even those who are in complete disagreement with the said beliefs should be troubled that the federal government is attempting to paint its non-violent critics as dangerous. And perhaps the most offensive aspect of the report is that we are warned about "disgruntled military veterans." The great irony of this report is that it will be fuel the very anti-government sentiments that the Department of Homeland Security is so concerned about.

Time For Progressives To Make Some Hard Choices

Facing a huge budget short fall, Chicago's Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Governor Quinn announced the closure of 6 city  and 7 state mental health facilities.Mental health activists and concerned citizens are justifiably indignant, because mental health services are already woefully inadequate. And even I, an ardent conservative am troubled by these cuts, because assisting those who are truly incapable of taking care of themselves is a legitimate function of the state. But, given that we are broke, progressives cannot defend their entire policy platform. They will have to make some hard choices in which programs and groups are most deserving of limited funds and which must be slashed. And they will have to implicitly acknowledge the concept of the (more and the less) deserving poor. Should economically unsustainable patterns of single motherhood be subsidized, when countless individuals suffer from untreated mental illness? Can we support lavish benefits for public workers, when basic public services (like schools, roads and the police) are in such a poor state? Progressives who are grounded in fiscal reality will have to consider traditionally conservative questions.

Aldermen unhappy about Emanuel’s mental health clinic closings

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/fspielman@suntimes.com October 25, 2011 5:00PM

• Reprints
• 14

Alderman Nick Sposato during todays City Council meeting in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Thursday, July 28, 2011 | Brian Jackson~Sun-Times

Updated: October 25, 2011 5:42PM

Chicago aldermen on Tuesday ripped Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to close six mental health clinics, fully fund just two of them and have seven city health clinics partner with federally-qualified health centers.

“We’re leaving many people with nowhere to turn. In the long run, it’s going to be very costly in tax dollars and suffering because people will not get the care they need. They’ll be ending up in emergency rooms and jails,” said Ald. Nick Sposato (36th).

Ald. Walter Burnett (27th) focused on the 53 Health Department employees who stand to lose their jobs in 2012.

“Most of these layoffs are minorities. That’s a big concern,” Burnett said.

Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd) warned that the consolidation of mental health clinics would force patients to travel long distances “outside their comfort zone” and asked Health Commissioner Bechara Choucair whether he had consulted with Chicago Police about the closing.

When Choucair said he had not, Waguespack pointed to the July 2008 death of Chicago Police Officer Richard Francis.

Francis was answering a disturbance call on a CTA bus when he was shot and killed by a woman with a history of violent seizures who grabbed his gun during a struggle. Just a few days before, the same woman had pulled a knife on one of her daughters.

“We’re putting police officers in a difficult position,” Waguespack said.

Over and over, Choucair insisted that the cuts were carefully considered and that mental health patients would be better served at lower cost to Chicago taxpayers.

“I’m confident we’re enhancing services,” the commissioner said.

Of all the cuts in the mayor’s first budget, the health and library cuts have drawn the most fire during City Council budget hearings.

Emanuel wants to lay off 53 Health Department employees and eliminate 25 vacant positions.

Six of the city’s 12 mental health clinics would be closed, and only two of the remaining six would be fully-funded. The budget also calls for implementing the mayor’s summer plan to have seven city health clinics partner with federally-qualified health centers.

Henry Bayer, executive director of AFSCME Council 31, called the Health Department cuts the most devastating cost-cutting in the mayor’s first budget.

“If you presented this budget to [Republican House Speaker] John Boehner in Congress, he’d pass it in a minute. I hope the City Council won’t,” Bayer said.

“The mayor is cutting into basic services and laying off hundreds of front-line employees who provide those vital services. When we actually see who is being laid off, I suspect it’ll be largely females and minorities.”

Top mayoral aides have insisted that the city was “reinvesting $500,000 in enhanced psychiatry services and care coordination” in the consolidated mental health clinics. That’s a move, they claim that would provide “improved service at a lower cost.”

“The city will maintain services for those most in need — uninsured patients — but provide the services in a more cost-effective manner. The city will actually be able to increase services provided and save $3 million,” Kathleen Strand, a spokesperson for the city’s Office of Budget and Management, said earlier this month.

She noted that all 3,000 uninsured patients would continue to be served by the city.

Ranking Freedom in the 50 States

Very interesting research that ranks freedom in the 50 states. Scores were calculated by quantifying and adding up social and economic (tax and regulatory) freedom. The authors found that low ranking states, such as New York, California and Illinois had experienced a net population outflow and for the most part, higher ranking states, like South Dakota and Idaho were enjoying population inflows. To view a short and informative interview with the authors, click here.