Originally posted from 12-14-03 to 12-21-03
Rises and Falls
by Lady Liberty

It's been an extraordinarily bad month for freedom. Under the usual circumstances, the erosion of liberty tends to proceed in fits and starts, sometimes even heading in a backward and pro-freedom direction before beginning its downhill slide again. But several recent developments have proved the exception to the rule, and if there's any kind of a gauge that measures the light of liberty, the needle has swung abruptly and significantly to the left, where "E" doesn't mean "Empty" but rather "Extinguished."

There has continued to trickle in bits and pieces of good news where the USA PATRIOT Act is concerned. Despite protests of the law's value from the Department of Justice, more cities continue to pass resolutions in opposition to the Act, and more citizens are learning about the law and its negative implications where the civil rights are concerned. A group of Congressmen has even written a letter requesting that there be hearings conducted on the PATRIOT Act and its possible abuses. But the bad news has lately been all but overwhelming.

While the DOJ hasn't wavered as to the value of the USA PATRIOT Act in helping to fight terrorism on American soil, the Department of Homeland Security has apparently decided that lax immigration laws and a lack of enforcement of such laws as do exist is not particularly important. During the second week of December, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told a town hall meeting in Miami that he thought illegal aliens should have "some sort" of "legal status." Although he denied that he meant they should receive citizenship (he said that they shouldn't be rewarded for breaking the law), the White House confirmed just two days later that the administration was once again considering a program that could lead to amnesty for illegals.

In other words, the DOJ is perfectly happy to target and investigate American citizens in violation of their Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, but are inclined to forget the law all together for people who have already broken it. And the Department of Homeland Security is pleased to oversee largely ineffective and almost entirely inefficient airport security, but is willing to forget the fact that terrorists on American soil will almost certainly be here illegally, either by virtue of clandestine border crossings or by improper and/or overstayed visas. It sounds to me less like the federal government is interested in real anti-terrorist activity than certain segments of it are interested in accumulating authority.

The idea of MATRIX was bad enough. But the lack of publicity concerning this major invasion of privacy and usurper of civil liberties is astounding. In late November, another state - New York - said that it won't implement the program except under certain circumstances. Those circumstances, however, have nothing to do with the fact that MATRIX is the antithesis of everything for which the Bill of Rights stands. Instead, officials are saying they won't participate if the program isn't funded by the federal government.

Oh, sure, they've made noises that they also want to ensure it meets their "privacy standards." But if they truly had privacy standards, they wouldn't be considering MATRIX at all. More telling is a quote from an official with the company developing MATRIX. He says that fears of Big Brother are misplaced, and that, "It's going to save lives. It's not Big Brother - it's a life-saving investigative tool." Now, you tell me: how many times have the words, "But if it saves just one life..." been used to justify even the most egregious violations of liberty? Meanwhile, even as New York is at least engaging in the appearance of some concern about MATRIX, the other states involved have been entirely silent on the issue, and the MATRIX web site shows eight states remaining on board for testing of the program (although Georgia's presence there may be the result of a failure to update the MATRIX listings).

Just a couple of weeks after New York made its lukewarm concession to those worried about the invasiveness of MATRIX, the US Supreme Court released a 300 page decision on the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform law. With the exception of two relatively minor provisions, the High Court upheld the law, a ruling that shocked many legal experts, and dismayed virtually all First Amendment advocates. The NRA called the decision "a sad day for the Constitution," and a lawyer with the American Center for Law and Justice said that "the free speech rights of other Americans suffered a serious setback with this decision."

Analysts subsequently said that the decision offered "short shrift" for the First Amendment, and the Libertarian Party's press release on the matter called the ruling "an assault on political rights." But whatever advocates call it, or however unhappy activists are about it, the decision has been made. It will doubtless be revisited, but when? Under what circumstances? And what will happen in the meantime as various groups are effectively muzzled in denial of their First Amendment rights?

Meanwhile, in mid-December, it was widely announced in the media that an agreement was in progress that would give Mexican nationals - both legal and illegal - eligibility for US Social Security benefits. We're repeatedly warned by politicians on both sides of the aisle that the Social Security program is in dire financial straits. While Democrats and Republicans usually have different notions of how to fix the problem, both seem to agree that the dollars aren't going to be there for the payout of benefits in the relatively near future. And yet the governments of Mexico and the United States are putting the finishing touches on an agreement that would result in the expenditure of an additional $750 million within five years. Congress will have to approve any such agreement, but would it truly surprise you if it did?

Many of us have been occupied less with what's been happening lately in Washington than in matters overseas, not least of which is the ongoing war in Iraq. The initial battles and everything that has followed has been, we're told, for two reasons: to liberate Iraq, and to prosecute the war on terrorism. On December 14, it was announced that American troops had finally captured former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Iraqi citizens danced in the streets and shot guns into the air in celebration. Other countries, even those against the war efforts in Iraq, made public statements of delight that he had been captured at last. And I myself am truly pleased for the Iraqi people as well as for the soldiers who worked so long and so hard to accomplish their difficult goal.

Americans cannot possibly understand what the Iraqi people went through while Saddam Hussein and his henchmen were in charge. Accusations of genocide are well founded, and we've dealt with no such horror on American soil. But consider other lesser, but still awful comparisons:

With Saddam finally in custody, Iraqis will be able to speak their minds about the government without fear of repercussion. Thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision, we cannot. Without Saddam in power, all of the money Iraqi citizens earn from oil and other efforts will no longer be looted to pay for programs that don't benefit them. If Mexicans are made eligible for US Social Security benefits, we won't be able to say the same. Saddam will be brought to trial for, among other things, "disappearing" people and holding them without charges. Little has been said of our own government doing the same (although I don't suggest for a moment that those in American custody will be routinely tortured and summarily executed as they were in Iraq, I do think an absence of charges alone is still a serious matter).

Perhaps we should be looking to Iraq for an important lesson. As we work with the Iraqi people to rebuild their country and restore freedom, let's hope we spend a little time working in our own country to take back some of our own lost liberties. If we don't, the lesson of Iraq stands even more clearly and in a very harsh light: somewhere, sometime, another Hitler, another Pol Pot, another Saddam Hussein will rise. And who can say that, next time around, he won't have been born an American? Whoever he is, he'll need an amenable political and social climate to rise to power. I humbly submit to you that the ultimate climate control already exists in the form of the Bill of Rights. What do you say we get busy to ensure it's in good working order before it's really needed?

Originally posted from 11-02-03 to 11-09-03
Rights and What's Right
by Lady Liberty

Last weekend, I was invited in my Lady Liberty persona to attend a local property rights group fundraiser. Because I'd spent some time researching property rights advocacy groups on the Internet to add to my website resources pages, I had been able to give the group some advice in the past as to potential contacts for support and information. Now it seems some of the members wanted to meet me in person and to discuss political activism both on and off the Internet.

I was interested in their cause, of course, but was also curious as to how they thought I might be of more help to them. I accepted their kind invitation, and soon found myself enjoying an Oktoberfest celebration complete with beer, brats, and men wearing lederhosen (yes, really). As I was introduced to more and more people, I found that virtually every handshake prompted the same initial question from the people I met. Everyone wanted to know what had made me become a political activist. After some thought, I had to say that I imagine I became an activist for the same reason that most people do: I saw something wrong, and determined to change it.

My first political involvement came some years ago when I heard that Congress was voting on something in which I had a strong interest. I read that it was possible the House would cut funding for a particular program, and I said to myself, "But that's just not right!" I wrote to my Representative, he ended up voting the way I'd asked him to, and the seed was sown (frankly, I don't doubt he would have voted "my" way with or without my letter, but the thought I might have made some small difference was both inspiring and empowering).

In time, I landed a job in the media that necessitated I pay close attention to current events. The more attention I paid, the more often I found myself saying, "Wait a minute...that's just not right!" The number of letters I wrote began to increase in frequency as well as range of topics. But it was after I constructed my own website - originally conceived simply to be an educational vehicle for students and adults alike - that I truly became an activist. You see, one day while I was typing comments having to do with a news item, I realized something that really shook me. I was working very hard to choose just the right words because I didn't want to get myself in trouble, and it suddenly struck me: There I was, pointing at the First Amendment and telling people to take full advantage of it, and I was afraid to do so myself! You can imagine the next words out of my mouth: That's just not right! Lady Liberty had been born months earlier, but that's the day she truly came alive.

Those of us who pay close attention to what's going on in the halls of government power this days know that there are plenty of things going on that just aren't right. But there aren't too many that are more wrong than MATRIX (Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange). Remember the Pentagon's proposed Total Information Awareness (later briefly known as Terrorism Information Awarness) program? When Americans found out that the massive database would include vast amounts of private data on every citizen, the outcry was substantial. Congress took action to deny funding for the program and prohibit the development of similar programs. Retired Admiral John Poindexter, who championed TIA, resigned in disgrace. But now we have MATRIX which, as a friend of mine blurted out when I told him about the program, is essentially TIA reloaded.

Though its goals are identical to those of TIA, MATRIX is different in several very important ways. First, the data files and computer algorithms are owned by a private company (one Associated Press article sniped that the government is encouraged by that fact because it means the government isn't held to standards demanded by the 1974 Privacy Act if it doesn't own the files). Secondly, it will contain even more data points than TIA was prepared to incorporate. Everything from criminal and arrest records to marriage and divorce records, driver's license and vehicle registration information, Social Security numbers, credit histories, and more will be included in the available files. Yes, I know. That's just not right!

But government officials at varying levels love the idea of MATRIX. According to the published Program Objectives, authorities will be able to use the database to "integrate disparate data from many types of Web-enabled storage systems to identify, develop, and analyze terrorist activity and other crimes". MATRIX is already up and running on a limited basis in the state of Florida, and law enforcement officials there are enthusiastic, saying the program is "nimble and exhaustive." The fact that MATRIX cross-references driving records and police files with "billions of pieces of public ad private data, including credit and property records" is probably a big timesaver for investigating officers. But where's the warrant? Where's the suspicion? A spokesman for the Center for Democracy and Technology says MATRIX will simply make "fishing expeditions [by law enforcement] so much more convenient." And it's certain that such fishing expeditions just aren't right!

MATRIX supporters say the data will be kept secure, and that only "authorized personnel" will be permitted access. But there's already been concern expressed over the fact that the company is owned by a "former drug smuggler turned informant" as well as an incident of "misuse" of MATRIX data that caused one authorized person to be fired from his job with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Now there are rumors that among the "authorized personnel" may be CIA agents. Compound that with the likelihood that MATRIX will contain information including political leanings, and MATRIX goes far beyond "just not right" and well into the realm of the truly horrifying.

At the present time, MATRIX is active in Florida and is being tested in several other states. Among those other states up until last week was the state of Georgia. But the Governor of Georgia has since withdrawn the state's participation saying that criminal information may very well be "relevant to the crime fighting purpose of the pilot project, but personal information of law-abiding citizens is not." And the MATRIX program is ostensibly for crime-fighting purposes. According to the MATRIX Overview web page, the concept behind the program is merely to "increase and enhance the exchange of terrorism and other criminal activity information" between law enforcement agencies. But if that's true, then why is MATRIX including information on all Americans, not just criminals? And why does that information cover a wide range of personal and private data that has nothing to do with criminal activity? Something's just not right, here.

Both the Legal Reader and the Southeastern Legal Foundation have spoken out against any expansion of MATRIX, but the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security like the idea well enough that they've given $12 million in federal funding to expand MATRIX into a multistate pilot project. Meanwhile, the project remains a private venture held on private premises, but guarded by state police and funded by federal monies. As one privacy expert said, "That's very interesting." I'd say it differently. I'd say that can't be right.

Perhaps you've never been much of an activist in the past. Maybe you've written a letter or two, but in the main have been content with the status quo. Well, those kinder, gentler days may be past. You've heard some of the facts. Now get more information about MATRIX. If you're not already muttering to yourself, you will be by the time you're finished learning about MATRIX. And I know just exactly what you'll be saying: That's just not right!

The folks supporting MATRIX had best watch out. After all, look what noticing something was "just not right" did to me!

P.S. In the end, the property rights group members got from me exactly what they wanted at their fundraiser. It wasn't more information and it wasn't money or publicity. It was encouragement. As it turns out, Lady Liberty is a pretty good cheerleader, and Oktoberfest was...festive. (For the record, she did not don lederhosen. That just wouldn't have been right.)

Originally posted from 07-20-03 to 07-27-03
Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other
by Lady Liberty

I belong to a number of advocacy groups. I subscribe to an even greater number of electronic newsletters and alerts services. I belong and I subscribe because I like to keep both active and well informed. I do this in such numbers because no one group typically encompasses the news and alerts I want and need to hear on a scale that covers the whole Constitution and Bill of Rights rather than one narrowly defined segment or another.

I'm not complaining about either the quantity of email I receive (which, in round numbers, can be defined as "a lot") or the fact that these advocacy groups focus on one aspect of civil rights or another. It is, after all, a huge field, and there's frequently enough going on in Congress, in courtrooms, or on the streets across the country to keep all of the groups busy and then some. I'm not even unhappy about the fact that some groups, dedicated to the same cause, frequently come out on different sides of the same issue because I often appreciate hearing in depth details on both sides of a given issue. No, my complaint is both simpler and more complex than that: I'm unhappy that these advocacy groups are so tightly bound to their own cause that the causes of others are immaterial to them.

In some cases, that wouldn't matter. After all, the folks advocating for Big Brothers Big Sisters programs are in no way affected by those bent on protesting genetically engineered foods. Their efforts and their failures are mutually exclusive. But that's not true where civil rights advocacy groups are concerned. Oh, within certain narrow strictures that's not the case. Discrimination against any religion, for example, has potential implications for those of all religions. But on a wider stage, instead of working in tandem, these groups frequently work in parallel at best, and sometimes in direct opposition without appreciating the repercussions of their work.

Consider for a moment the nomination of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to the Federal bench for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. My electronic mailbox has had several mentions daily of the fact that Pryor will be a particularly bad or particularly good judge, and that I should notify my senators as soon as possible that they should work hard to see Pryor's nomination approved, or spare no effort to see his nomination defeated.

According to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a group that focuses on the First Amendment's religious protections, Bill Pryor is an "extremist". In a Special Report, the group claims that Pryor has "demonstrated a hostility to religious pluralism in America" and that he has argued that the First Amendment "does not fully apply to the states." Pryor has publicly admitted that, "The American experiment is not a theocracy and does not establish an official religion", but he says that the states are "rooted in a Christian perspective," and that the "challenge of the next millennium will be to preserve the American experiment by restoring its Christian perspective." (Pryor's remarks were made in a graduation speech at a Catholic high school in 1997.)

In another matter with First Amendment implications,despite rulings by several courts, Pryor has continued to defend Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore's monument to the Ten Commandments in the State Judicial Building. In fact, Pryor played a major role in a "Save the Commandments" rally. Certainly, Pryor has every right as a citizen to support the causes in which he believes. But this rally was held on the steps of the state Capitol building, and Pryor appeared as the Attorney General at the event. It's clear from this and many other incidents recounted in the lengthy report that Bill Pryor has difficulty granting any non-Christian real freedom of religion, and that he has no problem with the government espousing a religion provided it happens to be his own. You don't get much more anti-First Amendment than that.

The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund is also no fan of Bill Pryor's. According to its synopsis of "Bill Pryor's Record on Disability Issues", Pryor's confirmation as an appeals court judge would "undermine the ability of people with disabilities to enforce important civil rights protections given them by Congress". Much of the group's argument with Pryor is based on the fact that Pryor has fought against the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act on states' rights grounds. Okay, this point goes to Bill Pryor on Tenth Amendment grounds.

The National Rifle Association, on the other hand, likes Bill Pryor. In fact, it likes Bill Pryor a lot. The group has given Pryor its highest award for defense of the Second Amendment, an award which he very graciously accepted. The NRA congratulates Pryor for his "prominent role in fighting frivolous and predatory municipal lawsuits against the firearms industry", and also lauds him for his work to preempt or repeal local gun control ordinances. Gunowners of America endorses Pryor, too. In fact, it calls on its members to support Pryor by saying his confirmation is in danger because "Bill Pryor is way too pro-gun" for some in the Senate When taking the Second Amendment into consideration, Bill Pryor gets my support.

The Institute for Justice, a civil rights law group, has been working to end racial preferences, a project very publicly endorsed by none other than Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor. Although Pryor has notably railed against Supreme Court decisions having to do with the First Amendment, in this instance he is busy supporting the enforcement of previous Supreme Court decisions, these the ones affecting racial preferences. So a point to Pryor for believing everyone should be treated equally under the law as is outlined in many of the Bill of Rights as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. And a point away from Pryor for using the Supreme Court to give added credibility to this effort, but for castigating court decisions that don't follow along the lines of his personal belief system in another arena.

Taken as a whole, Bill Pryor has a lot to recommend him for a Federal judgeship. The problem, though, is that even one instance of placing personal opinion above the Constitution is one instance too many, and Pryor has convincingly and repeatedly shown that, where the First Amendment is concerned, he'd do just that.

Although the NRA is a Second Amendment advocacy group, it does currently have a lawsuit pending a Supreme Court hearing that has to do with the First Amendment. That suit is in connection with Campaign Finance Reform. It's thus clear that the NRA not only knows about the First Amendment, but that it acknowledges the value of same. The Institute for Justice, though partnering with Pryor on the effort to end racial preferences, is a group that works to support the whole of the Bill of Rights, not one amendment or another, so it seems unlikely it would be willing to let the First Amendment fall by the wayside, either.

The bottom line is that any advocacy group for any particular amendment or portion thereof must at least peripherally acknowledge the efforts and the value of groups working on behalf of some other facet of freedom. Within that acknowledgement is the tacit awareness that chipping away at one of the Bill of Rights weakens the other Amendments accordingly. The NRA has, in fact, made that point in the past, saying that weakening the Second Amendment will endanger every other Amendment, and it's right.

Surely if we don't want our judges to pick and choose which of the Amendments to honor and which to set aside, we can't support those judges even when our chosen Amendment is one of those slated for honor. If we endorse the picking and choosing of freedoms, it's to be expected that the judge will, sooner or later, pick and choose. And is there really any group - or any individual - who wants someone to make that kind of choice?

Originally posted from 07-13-03 to 07-20-03
There Are None So Blind...
by Lady Liberty

I am embarrassed to say that I lived for some years in an abusive relationship. I'm embarrassed not because the abuse was my fault, but because I didn't seriously attempt to escape it. In fact, I'm even more embarrassed that I really didn't recognize the abusive behavior for what it was. After all, the man never laid a hand on me in anger, and that's the kind of abuse I'd been educated to see as fitting the definition of the word.

Other people could see the abuse, though. Close friends had broached the subject with me in years past (hearing one story, a good friend burst out without thinking, "That's emotional cruelty! That's abuse!", and his reaction was one of several similar ones to several different scenarios). But I always had a reason that things weren't really that bad. "He's sick," was not only a convenient rationale for the behavior of the man involved, it also had the added legitimacy of being true. "He hasn't been too bad for awhile," was another, as if I could imagine his problems would get better permanently simply because they had gotten better temporarily. When friends urged me to leave him, I countered with my wedding vows: "In sickness and in health," I'd say, and I suppose that sense of honor buoyed me above some of the cruelty even while it made me stick around for more of the same.

The relationship finally unraveled, and it was the man who insisted it was over. In the end, I'm thankful that he did so because I was still working up to a point where I could have finished it myself. I spoke just last week with an acquaintance who happens to run the local battered women's shelter, and she was horrified by a few of the stories I told her. Where my friends had tried while I denied, this woman at long last succeeded in opening my eyes to the reality of what I lived through and to the fact that, though I bear no bruises, I was, indeed, a battered woman. She wasn't a friend trying to be supportive, nor did she have a grudge against the man involved. She was merely a trained professional who made an educated diagnosis of a problem. I could assign her no ulterior motives, and so had to finally fully face the truth myself.

I'm neither uneducated or stupid, so how was it that I largely missed identifying my situation as one of abuse? In part, I think it's because there was no physical battery involved. But another reason for my inability to see the whole picture of my relationship was that I was simply too close to it. Hold a newspaper two inches in front of your eyes and try to read something. At best, you'll cross your eyes and give yourself a headache trying to decipher what the words say. Now slowly move the paper away. At a comfortable distance, the fuzzy blobs will resolve into letters of the alphabet, and you'll have no problem reading and understanding what you see.

In much the same way I spent time in denial before I could even see the circumstances of my life let alone diagnose them as unhealthy, many Americans are in denial as to their own lives. They don't see the threat of the loss of liberty as imminent because it's been creeping up on them gradually for years, and they're not afraid because they've not been directly or physically threatened. But if I was abused in my own small relationship, then by the same definitions, American citizens are being abused in their relationship with the government.

In a marriage, it's abuse to repeatedly threaten someone with loss simply to get your way ("I'm going to leave you if you don't fill-in-the-blank-here!"). Yet the goverment's threats of loss to citizens are swallowed whole and with very little distaste. A couple of weeks ago, WorldNetDaily printed the story of a Massachusetts woman whose homeschooled children were taken from her because she wouldn't allow the state to administer the standard state educational tests to her kids. The threat was clear: follow the dictates of an education system with which you obviously disagree, or lose your kids. (This threat is far from isolated. In attempting to locate this story once again, I queried a search engine using the appropriate search terms of "homeschool", "tests", "arrest", and "state trooper". There were 65 hits, which is how I learned of a similar incident in Vermont where a woman was not only threatened with the loss of her children but with the loss of her freedom as well.)

We can certainly agree that it's abusive behavior to take something belonging to another, without their agreement or reasonable compensation, to deprive them of its use, or to destroy it before their eyes. And yet this is just what's happening in a small community in Ohio as landowners fight for the right to keep their own property out of the hands of the local park system. The park insists that a railroad company gave them an option on some land; the facts are showing otherwise. Yet despite the evidence, the landowners have been threatened with a variety of actions and have been forced to respond with legal action of their own. The fight there continues, though not without significant cost to all of those involved.

In any relationship, telling lies - particularly those crafted with the intent to wound or to generate some result that would otherwise be in doubt - can be defined as abusive. I have learned in recent months, for example, that the man with whom I was involved stopped by the home of a very good friend of mine and told her that I was very angry with her and that I never wanted to see her again. In turn, he told me that she'd dropped some of my belongings she'd borrowed back at our house, and that she said when she did that she never wanted to see me again. It was a chance meeting and the ability to overcome a good deal of trepidation on both our parts that led us to find out what really happened. In the interim, we lost years of what would doubtless have continued to be a very close and fulfilling friendship. Now we're learning that certain claims made by the government concerning Iraq were exaggerations at best, perhaps even fabrications. It remains to be seen what, besides still more trust for politicians, we've lost as the result of these lies, but it's fair to say credibility with much of the rest of the world is among the likely losses.

Does anyone doubt that it's cruel and abusive to behave randomly under circumstances that should be considered predictable? When a partner says he dislikes something, you make accommodation for that dislike. But when he suddenly claims the opposite, it's downright cruelty to be angry with you for behaving according to the originally stated dislike. Yet that's just what happened to me in several instances that occurred over the years. It's also exactly what happened to a man in California who, acting not only in accordance with local law but by request from local officials, was arrested and prosecuted under federal law. Fortunately, the jury was horrified when it learned the true facts of the case, and the judge was sufficiently sympathetic to make what could have been a multiple year sentence into a one-day jail term which he then promptly suspended. But finally coming to some sort of new understanding didn't fully repair the strain on my marriage or the damage to my psyche. And being set free in the end doesn't pay Ed Rosenthal back for the time, the money, or the reputation he's lost in dealing with contradictory laws (one of which is, to add insult to injury, needlessly invasive and heartless to boot).

If you're still waiting for someone to hit you or do you other physical harm before you admit that you, too, are a victim, then you've not been paying much attention to the news. Remember Waco? First, the residents of the Branch Davidian compound were threatened with search warrants (which, according to noted Second Amendment David Kopel and a writing partner, were issued without adequate cause and in contradiction to the Fourth Amendment). Then those threats were followed through with some of the most horrific physical abuses of power ever seen in the modern U.S. And don't tell the Weaver family they're not victims of abuse. They lost their mother to FBI sniper shots during a stand-off on Ruby Ridge in Idaho. And who among us could forget the sad case of little Elian Gonzalez?

The lies, the threats, the cruelty were all there in my life. I suppose I was personally waiting for some physical threat to manifest itself before I could admit that the danger was present, and that I needed to remove myself from the abusive situation. Sure, he was sick. But that put me at no less risk! It's patently obvious that the lies, the threats, and the cruelty are also hallmarks of many in government authority today. And yes, the government is systemically sick, making the risk to liberty more immediate and significant than ever. Just as the best thing that I could have done for my personal safety was to leave, the best thing that we can do for the health of our country is to see to it that those responsible for usurping our freedoms are, one by one, forced to leave their positions of authority.

Our escape from the abusive relationship with the government will happen only through activism and the ballot box (those of you who think such things can never work on the large scale haven't been reading much about the recall of California Governor Gray Davis or to the proposal set forth by the Free State Project). It will happen only through education and exposure to the many manifestations of abuse that we see happening to others around the country under unconstitutional laws and mandates.

At this point in history, consider me your good friend who, hearing of yet another incidence of emotional cruelty or psychological battery, is telling you, "Baby, you need to get out!" And then take action. Open your own eyes, and see the reality of our circumstances. Be gentle, but persistent in showing others the danger they're living with. They may not know it. Or they may not fully grasp the reality of it. But that doesn't make them any less victims of abuse. I, for one, am through being a victim. How about you?

Originally posted from 06-29-03 to 07-06-03
Negative Affirmation
by Lady Liberty

On June 23, the US Supreme Court announced decisions in a pair of affirmative action cases. Both involved the University of Michigan. The first, Grutter v. Bollinger, alleged that a white applicant with good grades and test scores was denied admission to the University's School of Law in primary part because other, less qualified candidates were chosen on the basis of race. The second, Gratz v. Bollinger, complained that though the applicants for admission to the University of Michigan were qualified, they were denied admission under circumstances that would have seen a racial minority student accepted.

In the case of the Law School, the court found that its preferences policies in admissions were not unconstitutional. It said that the consideration of race was "narrowly tailored" and thus not in violation of the Constitution. But in the second suit involving the school's undergraduate programs, the Court found that the University policy was not acceptable as is and needs to be revised. It does not, however, need to be scrapped all together.

According to Peter Kirsanow, a Cleveland labor lawyer and a member of the US Commission on Civil Rights, the Court essentially found in both cases that student body diversity was a compelling government interest and that it trumps the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of "equal protection under the law". Kirsanow, who was quoted in a story posted online at the Cybercast News Service, also claimed that the Court relied for its decision on expert studies on race "many of which have been debunked" and called the decisions contorted and "a license to discriminate, albeit carefully." Another member of the Commission, Abigail Thernstrom, said, "We have just signed on to quotas for the foreseeable future and for decades to come."

Despite having publicly stated opposition to his affirmative action programs in the past, President Bush issued a press release in which he applauded the Court's decisions and said that the Court sought "a careful balance between the goal of campus diversity and the fundamental principal of equal treatment under the law", an oxymoron if ever there was one. Then, bizarrely, he went on to tout "race-neutral approaches", something the Court had just ruled wasn't necessary.

In another online article, we're told that at the same time most Democrats confessed to delight that the University would be allowed to continue to discriminate, most Republicans were, at least in private, decrying the decisions. And one Democrat - Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) said in a speech at the recent Rainbow/PUSH convention, that Justice Scalia's dissent in the rulings was "sinister". Scalia, she said, wrote that the University of Michigan "could either be an elite, first-rate school, or it could lower its standards and pursue racial diversity." The problem with Scalia's comment is that it may have been a little blunt for some to swallow easily, but it wasn't wrong.

Many people who profess their support of affirmative action programs say such programs are needed to ensure fairness. But the program itself is inherently unfair. It dictates percentages of minorities that must be represented, and then schools and corporations are obligated to match those percentages. That means that schools with 500 spaces to fill are not allowed to fill them with the 500 most qualified candidates. Admissions officers must go down the list of applicants until they fill x number of seats with black students; x number with Native Americans; and so on. This means that eminently qualified white students are denied admission while less qualified minority applicants are accepted. All of this may sound perfectly fair to some minority students or to the social-engineering contingent. But try using identical methodology to deny the best black basketball players a job because white men are underrepresented on the team, and you'll hear the howls of protest begin!

Even those people in favor of affirmative action aren't truly in favor of it. Consider the man or woman who has to have open heart surgery, and then ask him or her to choose between two surgeons: Dr. A, who met his medical school's highest criteria and who was his hospital's first choice to fill a job opening; or Dr. B, who didn't meet his school's admission requirements, but was let in ahead of other qualified candidates because his minority status granted him special consideration, and who was hired at the hospital solely because he was the only minority applicant and the hospital really needed him to fulfill a diversity requirement.

Such an example is relatively blatant and provides a fairly obvious course of action. More subtle, and more insidious, is the very matter of which Scalia spoke. If the best schools don't limit their admissions to the best students, then they're watering down the quality of their graduates and their educational programs along with their reputations. Even worse is the idea that the best students aren't getting into the best schools and are having to settle for the second-best or less. Mathematical brilliance should get the chance to shine at MIT whether it is housed in the body of an Asian, black, or white student. Medical genius should be nurtured at Harvard whether the student is male or female. Diversity is all well and good, but it doesn't teach you quantum physics, and I'm almost positive it's not going to help Dr. B when your heart stops during surgery.

Affirmative action is really a negative reaction. In claiming racial equality, it's really institutionalizing racial inequality. It's also essentially the temper tantrum of a spoiled brat. Yes, maybe you were turned down for admission at Carnegie Mellon University. Do you have any idea how many applicants are? The answer is: most of them. This isn't about you being black or red or yellow or purple. It's about you not being qualified. Grow up. Rather than demanding admission to the very best school, work toward admission at the very best school for which you are qualified. Life isn't always fair, but school admission policies could be...if we'd let them.

Originally posted from 01-29-03 to 02-09-03
The Super Slippery Slope
by Lady Liberty

The Super Bowl is a major and uniquely American event. Last year, only a few months after 9/11, those very factors would make the championship football game an attractive target for terrorists. As a result, the security measures undertaken to ensure a safe event were unprecedented in both scale and scope.

Despite the fresh memories of 9/11, many Americans were taken aback by some of the more invasive aspects of the security. Much ado was made of rules that prohibited backpacks and even purses, and of long lines at metal detectors. Afterward, there was a significant public outcry when it was learned that a host of cameras and facial recognition software were employed. Civil liberties groups denounced such practices, and many citizens sided with them.

This year, things have been very different. There's been no recent terrorist attack on American soil and, despite a slow economy and the threat of a war with Iraq, there's a feeling of normalcy. In a way, the idea that everything is okay may be even more frightening than the "spectacular" terrorist attack the FBI occasionally predicts!

Though the security for the Super Bowl in San Diego was no secret - media reports were widespread and relatively thorough - there was little if any reported public protest. Is this because security was less prevalent or intrusive this year? Not at all. In a report published online by CBS News, an expert in NFL security is quoted as saying, "We're doing a lot of the same things" as last year. He claims that, because "we're doing it better, more efficiently", security measures are simply less noticeable. I believe he's wrong, that people notice just as much. Unfortunately, they care a lot less.

You might suppose it's good news that facial recognition software wasn't used this year. It's actually more pragmatism on the part of security forces than it is any concern for civil liberties that engendered the decision to forego the technology in San Diego. Wired News published an article that says facial scans aren't reliable, and that the head of Super Bowl Security for the San Diego Police Department "heard too many bad reports" to include such a system in his plans.

As if to make up for its failure to include such scans of the crowds on Super Bowl Sunday, more than fifty cameras were in place at Qualcomm Stadium, all of which were wired in such a way that law enforcement personnel from all over the country could monitor whatever they wished in real time (a password was required for access, a nominal safety check at best on the privacy of countless innocents). CBS says that the president of the company that created the camera system worked to provide "more cameras" and "more control of the cameras" for the event.

MSNBC, meanwhile, printed a story that claimed more than 4,000 law enforcement personnel were on hand at the venue, including forces ranging from local police to the FBI, military, and Secret Service. National Guardsmen were tapped to keep an eye on nearby fuel storage tanks, the airspace over the stadium was interdicted, and fighter jets were in the air.

One of Tampa Bay's team members told reporters that he wasn't worried about security because, "Driving down the Pacific Coast highway, there's not another car to be seen. Ramps are closed off." That was in addition to the parking lots at Qualcomm. Attendees were ferried to the stadium via a shuttle service. Even those taking the train were not permitted to exit their car without a ticket to the Super Bowl. Anyone needing that particular stop but not planning on seeing the game in person had to exit at stops before or after the one for the stadium.

As striking as the evidence of high security is the utter absence of complaint. Ticketholders who were told they should arrive early on game day so as to avoid long waits in the lines for metal detectors and searches meekly did as they were bid. Wired News matter-of-factly says that such precautions as all those that were taken would let law enforcement personnel focus on such suspicious things - indicators that would "raise your eybrows a bit" - as someone wearing a coat or carrying a backpack. Nobody blinked. (Yes, San Diego is typically quite temperate, but the ocean breeze can be cool, particularly if someone is at all sensitive to it. And backpacks are extremely handy carry-alls for souveniers, snacks, and more, especially for those people limited to shuttle transporation back to their own vehicles.)

Obviously, some security preparation and implementation is important at any large event. But no procedure, no matter how invasive, is guaranteed to stop all possibility of a terrorist attack. So why the extremity of the measures at the Super Bowl? Well, why not? No one complained. And it is there that the danger lies, not with the potential of a terrorist strike.

Imagine for a moment what would have happened if, back in the early 1930's, someone had said to the German people, "Hey! What do you say we kill all the Jews?" The vast majority of the population would have been outraged. So instead, the government registered all handguns. After nearly everyone complied, it confiscated all handguns. Guns weren't necessary for defense when a wonderful police force and investigative body (ever heard of the Gestapo or the SS?) was placed in charge of law enforcement! Then it registered all Jews, gypsies, and their "ilk". After that, it concentrated them in one area "for their own safety". Later, it "relocated" them. And of course, we all know now what happened to the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and others in those "relocation" camps.

Taken one step at a time, and with a rational explanation from the government for what it was doing, it's much less difficult to imagine that most Germans comforted themselves with the thought that the government knew best or that the government was working to protect the people - crime rates were down, and the economy was recovering nicely from the damage suffered due to World War I - and that by the time anyone realized what was really going on, the Nazi juggernaut could not be easily stopped.

Now translate these lessons to today when certain civilian and government factions are demanding firearms registration (a few are already clamoring for outright confiscation, at least of handguns). Consider the fact that the US Census, Constitutionally mandated to include only a count of citizens, now demands such information as race or ethnicity (ostensibly, the government needs this information to determine aid to communities, and it is claimed that such information is not identifiable with individuals, a matter of wishful thinking if I ever heard one). And look at the establishment of laws and agencies designed "for safety" but which, in reality, are designed to contravene the Constitutional protections we've all enjoyed - and too many of us taken for granted - up 'til now.

I don't for a moment suggest that any ethnic group is going to soon be targeted for genocide in America (although I'd have to confess I wouldn't be overly surprised to see patriots or far-right conservatives targeted in significant numbers relatively soon for jail time and government harrassment, maybe even worse). But I am saying that, by taking Super Bowl security in stride, we've already shown we're ready for the next step against us and our freedom, whatever that next step may be. It's hard to care who won the football game when you realize all that's been lost.