Free Content from Bob Henline

Today is an interesting day in Salt Lake City.  Mayor Ralph Becker has announced that the new Public Safety building will not be built in Library Square, citing the enormous public opposition to the proposed site.

There are a number of permutations to this story.  Did Mayor Becker try to slide this one past the public initially?  Is a new public safety building really necessary?  Hey, I’m not an expert on structural integrity, public safety planning, or Mayor Becker’s state of mind so I’m not even going to attempt to answer those questions.  I have my opinions on the subject, as do several thousand Salt Lake City residents, but they are irrelevant to this discussion.

What is important here is that a site was proposed and the public became active.  Journalists, columnists, activists, business owners, and everyday citizens came together and expressed their opposition to this project.  Enough opposition that Mayor Becker had no choice but to concede to the will of the people and scrap the plan for the new building on Library Square.

This should serve as a lesson to all of us.  As disheartened and disenfranchised as many of us feel about the political process in Utah and the nation, there are times when your voices are heard and your views are respected.  The trick now, ladies and gentlemen, is to find more areas of common concern and to make your voices heard on those subjects.  The largest problem we have in politics today is that very few people are making the noise.  We have the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, extremists that represent less than 5% of the population (if they’re lucky), making 90% of the noise.  When they are the ones doing the talking, they are the voices that are heard and heeded.

This issue shows us that a group of citizens committed to rational action can make their voices heard and effect real change in public policy.  That is the power of democracy when the people decide the become involved.  Today is a good day for America.

On May 31, 2009 a man walked into a church in Wichita, Kansas and shot Dr. George Tiller, killing him.  Dr. Tiller was one of the few doctors in America that would perform late-term abortions and as such was vilified by the anti-choice movement for over three decades.  Dr. Tiller’s clinic had been attacked, his staff and family threatened – yet he continued to do what he thought was right by providing women with a choice.  Randall Terry and Bill O’Reilly have called Dr. Tiller a “mass murderer” and “child-killer” – proclaiming that his death is merely an example of him reaping what he has sown in life.

Over the past several weeks conservative politicians and pundits across the country have been lining up to call Sonia Sotomayor a racist.  They claim that words like empathy are in some way code words for judicial activism that will forever increase the hold of big government on the lives of everyday Americans.  They are lining up with their hats in their hands trying to solicit contributions from their bases to oppose her appointment to the Supreme Court.

Since the beginning of the Obama Administration and his announcement that he would close the illegal detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba the neoconservatives have mounted a public relations attack stating that President Obama wants to release terrorists into America’s communities.  This is no longer a debate about the proper course of American policy nor is it about American values and ideals, it is about fear.  Find something to make Americans afraid and then find a way to blame the other guy for it.

This is what American politics has become:  fear and loathing.  We no longer civilly discuss our differences, we take it to the point of personal attacks and dehumanization.  Dr. Tiller wasn’t a man with a different viewpoint, according to his opponents, he was a mass murderer.  As such his murder was perfectly justified.  Operation Rescue and former O.R. President Randall Terry will claim that they bear no responsibility in his murder, and legally they are correct.  Morally and philosophically however, they bear as much responsibility, if not more, than the man that actually pulled the trigger and ended Dr. Tiller’s life.

Terry stated yesterday that he was afraid that Tiller’s murder might lead to pressure that could “intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions.”  Exactly what effective rhetoric and actions are these?  Clinic bombings, staff and family threats, personal attacks upon doctors and other health care practitioners?  When threats, bombs, and violence are used by Islamic fundamentalists they are deemed the barbarous acts of terrorists.  When these very same means are used by Christian fundamentalists they are deemed to be acts of holy retribution.

The story is the same with Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  This is a judge that was originally appointed to the Federal Appeals Court by President George Bush and confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate.  Now, appointed to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president and facing a democrat-controlled Senate she is in some way less of a judge?  We don’t hear Hannity and O’Reilly discussing her rulings – we hear Limbaugh calling her a racist.  We hear the Heritage Foundation denouncing her as a possible “activist” judge that wants to take away Americans’ freedoms.  What we don’t hear, however, is any basis for any of those accusations in the facts of her credentials and previous rulings.

The conservatives have lined up to oppose her on the basis that she is being appointed by President Obama.  Her history, her accomplishments, and her previous rulings mean nothing.  We aren’t going to get into that discussion.  The opposition would have us believe that she is something less than a real judge, she is a racist or an activist – since when did that become a naughty word?  Judicial activism has been responsible for some of the greatest advances in the American judicial and political systems.  “Activist” judges ruled in 1954 to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson and declare that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal, opening the door for integrated schools.

Has anyone heard President Obama propose to house suspected terrorists from Guantanamo in any neighborhoods in America?  There has been discussion about transferring some of these “detainees” to maximum security prisons in the United States, but this is a far cry from renting a house next door to your local daycare facility.  Again, it is the politics of fear.

That seems to be the last resort in American politics, make the masses afraid.  By doing so, they control how we think and how we react to issues.  Fear can make us forget our logic, forget our basic principles, even forget ourselves and who we are supposed to be.  They prey upon this fear to manipulate America to advance their own agendas and ideologies.

The same is true with loathing.  By attacking the person making the argument, the argument has less value and the opponent is less than human.  Operation Tiller attempted to make Dr. Tiller a “mass murderer” thereby attempting to destroy his personal credibility.  Who in their right mind will listen to the arguments of a child killer?  What Operation Rescue and the other fundamentalist groups did with Dr. Tiller, though, went far beyond the bounds of dehumanizing.  By attaching their rhetoric and labels to him they made him less than human, objectifying him as a target.  It was this objectification that lead to his murder.

America, we need to learn a lesson from the assassination of Dr. George Tiller.  The way we conduct ourselves and our civil and political discourse is putting us firmly on the path for more of the same types of actions.  The more we allow people like Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly and Terry to dehumanize our political arguments, the more this type of thing will happen.  We saw it after 9/11 when everyone of Middle Eastern heritage or Islamic faith became targets of retribution.  We saw it this weekend with the murder of Dr. George Terry.

We can’t legislate away this problem, these people, like the rest of us, have the freedom to think and to speak their minds.  What we can do, however, is stop listening.  Let them stand on the street corner and proclaim the end of the world with sandwich boards covering their chests until they are blue in the face.  As Americans and as consumers we have the power to demand more, more respect, more civility, more truth.  Until we do, however, they will continue to play to the politics of fear and loathing, the speech of the lowest common denominator.

As we watch the drama unfold with President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination it forces us to again take a close look at our political parties and what they do to American society.  The ultra-right, following in the footsteps of the Heritage Foundation and it’s allies, has labeled Judge Sotomayor as a racist and is lining up the opposition to her confirmation.  The left, following the lead of groups like MoveOn.org, is lining up support, standing on her ethnicity and gender in declaring her an historic nomination.

Both of these groups, and the politicians they control, represent everything that is wrong with American politics.  Has anyone actually stopped to suggest that people actually read Judge Sotomayor’s decisions?  Of course not, that would make too much sense.  We can’t allow the American people to actually think for themselves, if they did the parties would lose their tenuous holds on political power.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the key.  The mainstream political parties thrive on your ignorance.  The parties provide you with the information and the spin they want you to have, and then they condense it into 4-second soundbites that play well on the news and fit on your bumperstickers.  Voters then choose between which soundbites are more appealing, only serving to entrench the status quo.  Change will not happen in America until the voters wake up and demand more from their elected officials.

We have amazing communications technology today, things that were never even remotely imagined when our system was established.  Our representatives and senators have the ability to maintain nearly constant communication with their constituents, providing real information about Washington goings-0n.  Of course, this doesn’t happen because providing real information might encourage the voters to think, and a thoughtful electorate that considers their ballots instead of punching party-line tickets is a threat to the status quo.

It’s on your shoulders America.  Only you can decide if you want this charade to continue.

On May 26, 2009 my freelance relationship with the Tooele Transcript-Bulletin was terminated by the paper’s editor, Jeff Barrus.  In a terse email Barrus explained that my “services are no longer required” because I discussed a column that he declined to run with an outside journalist.

In all fairness to the myopic Mr. Barrus, he provided me with an email explaining his decision not to run the column.  His decision, according to him, was based upon providing a greater variety of topics to readers and had nothing to do with the content of the column – a discussion about a toxic waste container that was repaired with duct tape prior to being shipped from the EnergySolutions facility in Tooele County, Utah.  His reason for terminating me, again according to him, was because the decision about that column was an internal matter and I had no right to discuss it with outside media.  In an interview with KUER Radio on the subject Mr. Barrus likened the situation as a reporter from one newspaper immediately rushing to a competing paper with a story that an editor wouldn’t run.

Here’s the rub:  I am not currently nor have I ever been employed by the Transcript-Bulletin.  I was providing a weekly column on a freelance basis.  I don’t know of any freelancers that don’t attempt to publish in more than one outlet.  Barrus was given an opportunity to run the column, he declined.  At that point there is no reason why I shouldn’t attempt to run my column through other media outlets.  Additionally, this incident occurred a month after the TTB declined the column.  I posted it on my blog where I posted all of my TTB columns with the notation “Rejected by the Transcript-Bulletin.”

Another local blogger, who happens to work for the Salt Lake Tribune, happened upon that column on my blog and asked me why the TTB declined it.  Instead of speculating that it might perhaps be due to pressure from EnergySolutions, I did Barrus the courtesy of providing Glen Warchol with the email Barrus sent explaining his reason for declining the piece.  This was not some sort of confidential employment information (especially given my lack of status as an employee), and it was not malicious.  It was providing another journalist with the information they requested – in Jeff Barrus’ own words.  For this, my freelance relationship with the Transcript-Bulletin was terminated.

Is the Transcript-Bulletin a shill for EnergySolutions?  Research their coverage of the company and its actions and decide for yourself.  I have my own opinions on the subject, but won’t put them here.  What I can say is this, Jeff Barrus and the Tooele Transcript-Bulletin represent hypocrisy in its worst form:  a “news” outlet that is opposed to the freedom of expression.

For more on this story, check out the Salt Lake Crawler which is linked in the blogroll to the right.

The pundits are at it again regarding the retirement of Justice Souter and his replacement.  This time, however, there is actually something to talk about, President Obama has nominated Sonia Maria Sotomayor (Federal Appellate Judge) as his choice to assume Justice Souter’s seat on the bench.

And here they come, the Rush/Gingrich/Hannity crowd is out in force calling her an activist and a racist.  The liberal pundits are already sending emails to their bases advocating immediate support and rapid confirmation.  Both sides in this debate are focusing on the fact that Judge Sotomayor is a woman and hispanic.  According to conservatives the hispanic-female side of Judge Sotomayor makes her “empathetic” to the plight of women and minorities in America, drawing the conclusion that she would then be an activist judge and support reverse-discrimination and affirmative action types of policy.  According to the liberals, because she is a woman and she’s hispanic she is empathetic, meaning that she understands the plight of the downtrodden and will therefore bring a human perspective to the Supreme Court.

The Next Associate Justice?

Pardon me for having common sense, but I really don’t care that she’s a woman and I really don’t care about her ethnic heritage.  What I care about is what Judge Sotomayor has to say about the governing principles of this nation.  The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law and to ensure that laws that are passed and the actions of our government are consistent with our constitutional principles.  To me, that means that Judge Sotomayor – as well as every Supreme Court Justice – has to exercise a reasonable level of judicial activism.

The Constitution was written to provide for flexibility in times that required change.  This allows America to grow and to adapt to a new world without abandoning our fundamental principles.  Was it “runaway activism” when the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that separate educational facilities for whites and people of color were inherently unequal?  Many argued that it was, but this was a necessary ruling, providing valuable legal foundations to the Civil Rights Movement.

There are times when Justices of the Supreme Court have to exercise activism.  We cannot rely upon legal precedent alone to determine the course of this nation’s future or, to put it simply, we won’t have one.  Congress has passed laws that were struck down as unconstitutional, presidents have taken actions that were illegal, and the Court itself has made decisions that were in error.  It is the role of the Court to revisit and review these items and to make rulings about how they relate not only to what is written in law, but also to what the spirit of that law means.

So, before I make up my mind on Judge Sotomayor, I intend to read her biographies, research some of her rulings, and pay attention to the confirmation hearings.  I can only hope the Senate panel conducting those hearings can do so in an atmosphere of openness and respect.  This isn’t about her race, her gender, or even her political views – it is about her qualifications as a judge and the view she has upon that responsibility.

In Monday’s issue of UtahPolicy.com Art and Jaynie Brown of MADD-Utah published an interesting piece regarding Utah’s private club rules. If this piece is truly representative of MADD-Utah’s position, I am forced to conclude that MADD-Utah has become another one of those organizations that started with a good purpose but has gone off the deep end of fanatical knee-jerk politics. They have moved from an organization working to solve a legitimate social issue (driving while intoxicated) to a fringe element attempting to bring back failed prohibition policies through other means. MADD is opposed to eliminating Utah’s private club laws, and lists the following 5 reasons:

“The private club law provides 5 benefits: 1) It enables owners to refuse access to known drunks and trouble-makers.  2) It discourages bar-hopping (drinking at multiple bars before driving home) by requiring a membership fee.  3) A membership, or temporary membership card, provides some record of accountability so if a drunk hits you on the way home, you can recover medical or funeral costs by suing the bar for over-serving. 4) It keeps bars out of pubic restaurants, thus keeping alcohol glamorization from impressionable kids, for when kids “expect drinking to be a pleasurable experience they are more likely to drink.”(1)  5) It establishes an important social norm that alcohol is an adult product whose over-consumption can create public harm and needs some control. Remove the law and you allow bars in public restaurants, increasing consumption and public harm.”

Let’s take a realistic look at this situation. Point 1: the private club law allows owners to refuse access to known drunks and troublemakers. While private clubs certainly can do this, it has nothing to do with the law, the argument is a complete distortion of reality. I’ve never been in a bar or private club (both in and out of Utah) that does not maintain an “86 list” of banned parties. Refusing service at the establishment’s discretion is certainly not exclusive to private clubs, virtually every business in America openly advertises such a policy.

Point 2: private club rules and membership fees discourage bar-hopping. Apart from the fact that most patrons tend to be loyal to a small number of establishments, drinkers determined to bar-hop generally group together and pool their individual memberships to bypass the private club issue. Additionally, there is really no evidence that bar-hopping contributes to drunken driving. In fact, most “pub-crawls” or bar-hopping events are coordinated with cabs or buses, creating a much safer environment.

Point 3: a membership card increases accountability by giving a victim or family someone else to sue. What kind of accountability is this? Someone has a club membership so the intoxicated driver must have been coming from that club, and it must be the club’s fault that the driver was impaired. Accountability would be holding the driver responsible for his or her own poor decision. In addition, most clubs now are so overly concerned about compliance with these ridiculous regulations that their staffs don’t have the time and ability to focus on the real issues regarding over-consumption and patrons leaving in vehicles that shouldn’t be driving.

Point 4: it keeps bars out of public restaurants. Really? I thought liquor licenses existed for that purpose. Additionally, the last time I checked there were bars in a number of restaurants around Utah. Senator Waddoups was up in arms because he actually witnessed a drink being mixed behind a “zion curtain” in a Chili’s one day. The entire issue of “alcohol glamorization” is ludicrous on its face. If you don’t want your children to drink you should step up, be a parent, and teach them about the dangers of alcohol. I have three children myself and usually have beer or wine in my refrigerator. My kids understand that these are adult beverages and they don’t touch them. It’s truly amazing what kids can learn when their parents teach them instead of attempting to foist off that responsibility onto the shoulders of society at large.

Point 5: it establishes a social norm that alcohol is an adult product. This is another blatant fallacy. The law that establishes the legal drinking age as 21 is intended to create that norm. Like the private club law, it has and will continue to fail to do so. Try as you might, you can’t legislate morality or changes in attitude. In fact, additional regulations, especially ones that make no sense, will have exactly the opposite effect. By acting in such an irrational and knee-jerk manner we only serve to mystify the consumption of alcohol for our youth. As long as we continue to provide alcohol with that status, rebellious youth will be enticed to try it. As mentioned above, the solution is for parents to step up and teach their children about alcohol in a reasonable and sensible manner.

The most interesting point made in this piece is that 45% of all alcohol consumed is by “binge-drinkers” that represent 7% of the population – and they frequent private clubs. If this is a true statement, how exactly are private club requirements helping to alleviate the problem? Seems to me that what is occurring is the exact opposite of the desired outcome. Additionally, why are we implementing laws that adversely impact not only the establishments but also the other 93% of drinkers in order to target the 7% that are causing the problem? To address the DUI issue we need to strengthen the actual laws against driving while intoxicated. We need automatic revocation of driving privileges, even on the first offense, a minimum of a second-degree murder charge for anyone for alcohol-involved accidents resulting in death, and other serious measures aimed not only to punish violators, but to provide a real reason to not drive while drunk. There are a number of ways we can force violators to accept responsibility for their own poor decisions, dancing around the real issue with grandstanding policies has failed in the past, and it will continue to fail. The last thing we need is for the government to waste time and valuable enforcement money and energy chasing down ridiculous administrative violations when the real problems are drunk behind the wheel.

The bottom line is this: drunken driving is a personal decision made by people that just don’t care. Placing barriers to alcohol will not address this problem. Someone that wants to get drunk is going to get drunk. MADD’s own statistics indicate that the greatest part of the problem is from 7% of the drinkers, yet they seek to lump everyone that consumes alcohol at any level into one category of potential drunken drivers. Is MADD not an acronym for Mothers Against Drunk Driving? This position is reminiscent of the prohibition movement of the early 20^th century, and I’m sure we don’t need a history lesson to remember how that turned out. My suggestion for MADD: focus on the problem. Concentrate your efforts on education and legislation that will help to discourage drunken driving or severely punish those that choose to recklessly endanger others with this irresponsible behavior.