Ahhh, the Bush Legacy Continues

So just when things were looking good for fans of small government, we get a reminder that America's biggest fan of big government left us with a parting gift.

The Supreme Court today handed down a unanimous decision stating that police officers have the unfettered right to search you at any time, for any reason, and what they find can be used against you as evidence.

That's right folks, 9-0 against the Fourth Amendment. At some point, I'm going to have to accept that I'm just not very bright because I just don't see how that ruling is possible. Here's the Fourth Amendment again,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Maybe I suffer from some extreme form of obtuseitude, but I just don't see anywhere in the Fourth that backs up the Justices opinion. Maybe the H-Blog's reader (Hi Ma!) can shed some light on this for me.

Say's Ginsburg,

The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public."

But what is the standard of "reasonable suspicion?" If a police officer is wrong three times in a row, does he lose his "reasonable suspicion" license? What if they don't find a gun but find the Mary J? What's the check on this power?

But more importantly, I thought Roberts and Alito were supposed to be "strict constructionists." How, how can anyone viewed as a "strict constructionist" stand by and allow this ruling to go forward? Forget Scalia. He's everybit a Constitutional purist as Ginsburg. He just has better rhetoric.

Nope, Robert and Alito are relativists in the same vein as W. Codes are good when they're easy, and bad when they ask us do things we don't agree with. Moral relativism is the mantra of the Bush years, and his court pics reflect that position exaclty.

I AM THE LAW!

That's Judge Dredd for you non-comic book geeks.

Quick blurb from CNN about a "Citizens Citation" against a Portland Police Officer over, get this, a parking violation. First of all, I had no idea that you could even do this. I've heard of "Citizens Arrest" but "Citizens Meter Maid" is a new one. You have to be one serious Parking Afficiando to take the time to go down to the courthouse and file whatever you need to file against a cop. I think someone has a GI JOE collection. But all jokes aside, good for Eric Bryant. He has a right to file the citation and he did it. Probably best if more folks did the same.

But on to 5-oh's take. Assistant Police Chief Bryan Martinek says he tells his officers that it's OK to break the law, and since he says its OK the officer did "nothing wrong." My favorite part comes late in the interview when Officer Martinek says that it would be wrong for officers to wait for a "legal" parking space and then uses the mocking finger signal for "" and goofy shrug when he says "legal." So he acknowledges that the officer in question broke the law. I guess according to officer Martinek the police are there to enforce the law on others, but are above it themselves. I'm not sure that's the best message. I don't want to tell the Portland Police Chief how to run his department, but if it were me, I would make sure Assistant Chief Martinek never came near a camera again.

For the record, I agree that police officers should stay near their cars. But according to Mr Bryant, Portland's law says that the police can only park in loading zones under certain clearly defined situations, and take-out isn't one of them. The police are here to enforce the law, not ignore it.

Twas SWAT, it twas

Interesting news going on in Colorado. World Net Daily report on a Garfield County Sheriff's use of SWAT to break into a home and take a boy, Jonathan Shiflett, from his parents to receive medical care.

Gist of story, some kids were playing, and the young by slipped and hit his head. His father, Tom Shiflett, a former paramedic immediately took the boy inside and checked him out. Decided he was OK and gave him ice and pain relievers (remember this plot point). A neighbor called 911, and according to the article,

The paramedics were allowed to see the boy, and found no significant impairment, but wanted to take him to the hospital for an evaluation anyway. Fearing the hospital's bills, the family refused to allow that.

Paramedics told two friends, who told two friends and so on, until Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak decided to issue a seizure warrant. SWAT was called. Then hilarity ensued.

Oops, my bad. Not so much hilarity, as bungling abuse of power. According to the Mother, Tina, what ensued was,

One (officer) grabbed my daughter Beth (18 years), who also had a gun to her face, slammed her down and kneed her in the back and held her in that position… My sons Adam (14) and Noah (only 7) lay down willingly, yet they were still forced to put their hands behind their backs and were yelled at to keep their heads down.

"My daughter Jeanette was coming out from the back bedroom when she was grabbed, drug down the hallway, across a couch and slammed to the ground," she said. "The officers then began throwing scissors and screwdrivers across the room (out of our reach, I suppose) and going through our cupboards.

"I asked if I could make a phone call and was told, 'no.' My daughter asked if that wasn't one of our rights. The reply was made, 'That's only in the movies,'" she said.

While I like He Said/She Said as much as the next guy, that's not really the point of this post. I just have the following questions.

One, if you're forced to get medical attention, do you still have to pay for it? By the way, and this is important, the net result for the boys medical attention? You guessed it, ice and painkillers. This is important. According to the article, the Paramedic's called in to the scene, were satisfied that the boy was OK, but wanted to give him a ride to the ER for evaluation anyway (look above for the quote silly). At this point I have two sub questions. On who's dime is this "what the heck" evaluation made? Two, the net result of all this is that the Paramedics essentially ordered Tom to allow them to take his child to the ER (with the now implied use of force to back up this order). Do we really want Paramedics to have that kind of authority? Shouldn't the parents have that authority, with the Paramedics giving recommendations?

Two, was SWAT really necessary? According to the Sheriff, Lou Vallario, what prompted him to call in SWAT was Mr Shifletts comment to "bring an army" if the cops come back. Really? Are we now at the point where "you and what army?" isn't really a cheap boast, but a command? (Yes, Mr Shiflett also allegedly chased someone with an ax years ago, but there was no arrest). OK, but SWAT? Busting in the house and taking the boy at gun point? Guns and confinement for the other children? Really? Aren't we supposed to trust our safety professionals to find better solutions, especially solutions to problems that didn't really exist?

Three, why does Garfield County even have a SWAT team. Must be the incredibly high number of violent crimes in this county of 44,000. What's that? 130? Per day, right? No...that's for all of 2004. Hmmmm, well no wonder they called in SWAT. Those SWAT guys must be bored out of their feakin' minds. I'm surprised they don't get called out to deliver parking tickets.

Four, I wonder if a mandatory ER trip and psychoanalysis was ordered for the other kids after the invasion?

Bottom line? I have great respect for our police officers. I dig being safe, a lot. And I absolutely know that without the police, that would not be the case. I also don't claim to know exactly what happened here. But this whole incident seems rife with individuals wielding outsized power with outsized toys. This event should have been left to the parents. That's what parents do, decide what's best for their children. There was no prior indication of abuse, nor was there an immediate indication as the Paramedics only advised a trip to be sure that their initial examination (which agreed with the parents) was correct. It's not like the the boy was delirious, paralyzed or bleeding out. A parent and a homeowner has rights. Even, ultimately, the right to be wrong.

Disorderlies?

A Pennsylvania man was charged with "Disorderly Conduct" after writing the "f-word" (I won't write it here, I have a clean record and want to keep it that way) on the Memo line of a check he used to pay a parking conduct.

The man, David Binner, later apologized, and charges were dropped. OK, except I don't see how writing the "f-word" could possibly be considered "Disorderly Conduct." From the all powerful Wiki Disorderly Conduct comes when,

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;

(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or

(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

I don't see any of the above in writing a bad word in the Memo section of a check. Not even a little. In fact to me, and lets face it, that's all that really matters, it seems like a valid, if ineffective means of protest.

Also, what adult could really, honestly be insulted by some random person writing "f" in the memo section of a check? I mean, enough to file charges insulted? Sticks and stones and all that right?

So to recap, a man immaturely vented, someone immaturely claimed to be offended, the man was falsely charged with a crime, the man was either forced to apologize or did so honestly, and all is well.

The larger question, is why did anything happen besides cashing this man's check?

Little Brother is Watching Them.

The City of Denver will pay Evan Herzoff $8,500 because Mr Herzoff was arrested for asking Police Officer Jeffrey Morgan for his business card. Apparently,

Herzoff was walking home April 8, 2006, when he saw police arresting an individual. He filmed the arrest with a small camera and was approached by Officer Jeffrey Morgan, who asked Herzoff for his identification.

Morgan examined Herzoff's ID and was told he was free to leave. When Herzoff asked Morgan for his business card, Herzoff was handcuffed, arrested and forced to spend a night in jail.

Mr Herzoff is a volunteer with a group called Copwatch.

Again, this is an example of how technology can increase democracy. Copwatch could not exist without the internet. A random event in Denver, hits the world, and this blog because of said internet. City organizations now know that they face immediate and complete scrutiny of their actions and have to act accordingly, which only helps the citizens. Cameras are getting smaller and better (not to mention camera phones) which enable everyone to be a reporter, and again, the internet gives everyone a venue.

Bottom line, I don't think Mr Herzoff would have received his $8,500 30 years ago. Lots of people are afraid of technology, fearing that the government will use it to increase its power. In reality, time and again, governments fear technology because it erodes their power.

The NRA supports Terrorists!

No they don't, they support you and your rights under the Constitution, but their opposition to a bill that would strip citizens of their right to buy a gun if they are a suspected terrorist would clearly put them in that camp if they weren't the NRA. Any other group, especially a "lefty" group, that did something similar would earn the wrath of the right. Soft of terrorism, they don't get it, this is what you can expect from them, more surrender talk, etc.

For the record I agree with the NRA. At some point the nation needs to understand that terrorism is a crime, not an invasion and act accordingly. Just as you can't deny someone the right to buy a gun if they're suspected of car theft, you can't deny someone the right to buy a gun because of some arbitrary, and legally ambiguous, label of terrorist "suspect." Just look at how screwed up the national no-fly list is. Denying thousands of citizens of their constitutional rights because they are merely suspected of doing something wrong definitely goes against "innocent until proven guilty." This isn't a Brittney Spears fan club membership we're talking about, its you're Second Amendment Right. I'm really uncomfortable with a law that strips you of your Constitutional rights without trial, and without you even knowing it. Seriously, how do you get on the list, how do you get off the list? How do you defend yourself? The bottom line, this is an unannounced stripping of your Constitutional rights. How is that defending what America stands for?

Also note that this bill will add to the list of things that can deny you of your Second Amendment rights, won't be the last.

In other news, fire is HOT!

File this under "News that isn't really news." A new study shows that minorities fare worse during traffic stops than whites.

Looks like everyone gets pulled over at about the same rate, but that there's a pretty dramatic disparity of experiences after that.

Insert obvious "Justice is blind" comment/joke here.

Secret, Secret, the State's got a Secret.

Been following the legal case of Khaled el-Masri, a Lebanese born German citizen, and former terrorist suspect. He claims he was,

snatched while on a trip in Macedonia, taken to Afghanistan, jailed, beaten and harassed before being set free without charge after five months.

His request?

explanation and an apology from the United States for his detention, as well as 75,000 dollars in damages.

So he files suit, goes before a Judge, the Defense (the US Government) tells judge, "Hey we'd looooove to stand trial for all this, but unfortunately we can't. See we have this stupid 'state secret' problem. Man we hate that thing, its suuuuch a hassle. Anyway, can't help you, gotta go. Let's do lunch sometime."

Mr. Masri appealed. Defense comes in, says "State Secret" which is apparently Latin for "Screw off" and the appeal was denied. Also, in the appeal we find out that he was "sodomized with an object" while in custody, and while I'm sure that great fun was had by all, that seems like torture to me.

Let's review. A man was taken into custody, denied Habeus Corpus, denied access to a lawyer, taken to a foreign nation and tortured (which is expressly against US law), loses five months of his life (and I know how I felt when I lost 90 minutes of my life when I saw Date Movie), and is then told, "thank you for traveling with the CIA, go home now." Why? Prevailing guess is that his name is similar to someone else's, namely suspected terrorist Khalid al-Masri (wrong vowel leads to hurt bowel?).

The point isn't to rail against arresting an innocent man, it happens every day, and is just part of the legal/investigative process. The problem is that Mr Masri's wild ride was entirely avoidable. If he had the rights of habeas corpus, and the right to an attorney the mistake could have been caught early, avoiding trauma to Mr Masri and embarrassment to the US Government. Somehow habeas corpus and legal representation have come to mean support for the terrorists as opposed to support for the American way. Great marketing that, but entirely wrong.

Speaking of Tobacco

Two smoking bills in the CO, one would the use of a legal product in designated areas of nursing homes, the other would allow local taverns to pay $500 a year to exempt them from the smoking ban.

As I said in my recent abortion post, I'm against these "soft" bans. Smoking is legal if you're over the age of 18. Change that, or leave it alone. I don't smoke, never have, and back in the day, I didn't frequent places that allowed smoking. You can choose to smoke, you can choose to allow/disallow smoking in your establishment, and I can choose my way. So while I do believe that smoking is an unhealthy decision, I also think you're free to make it. We were all getting along just fine, we don't need the government to get involved, especially when it says you may consume this legal product in a one square foot area of the state.

But what's striking about these bills is that legislators are playing God (I know that that sounds strong, but if you believe that these legislators are innocently acting on a good intention of saving people, then they are clearly deciding who gets "saved" with this mishmash of banned areas), and their choices are interesting.

Lets go through the exemptions.
Apparently casino employees aren't as important to keep alive as restaurant employees. Not exactly sure why the CO legislature feels that casino employees should die slow cancer related deaths, maybe all the casino employees pants the Legislature back in Middle School.

It also looks like nursing home employees deserve a half-death by cancer. Since smoking is only allowed in well ventilated places, I assume that the Legislature feels that this decreases but does not eliminate nurses from the pale stench of their own death. Or maybe they figure that working in a nursing home they're used to it.

Overall, says Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver,

"The bill we passed last year is uneven, but we need to spend our time bringing establishments into the act rather than exempting them."

Or maybe, his time is best spent letting Tavern owners decide how best to run their business.

However,Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, clearly a H-Blog reader counters with a near flawless argument

This really shows the unintended consequences of the bills we run up here, I opposed the smoking ban. As long as tobacco is a legal substance, we have no business of legislating it out of existence."

Genius

CO Seat-belt bill

CO State Sen. Peter Groff (D-Denver) introduced a bill, SB 151, that would make not wearing a seat-belt a primary traffic offense, meaning a cop could pull you over just for not wearing one (Bonus points to a Democrat for standing in front of this one, way to go Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, you get the Hydrablog "Who'd a thunk it" Award for breaking stereotypes).

This is a pretty basic Libertarian issue so I won't shed anymore light on this subject. But I do want to take SB 151's proposal and add another one. I did a quick internet search, I'm posting this before I head out the door for a quick trip so forgive my sloppy research, trying to find out if you're auto insurance could be canceled if you weren't wearing a seat-belt, a query if you will. Looks like no. My bet is that because insurance is mandatory, you pretty much get it if you pay for it. What I'm curious about is the impact on seat-belt usage if mandatory laws were repealed, and insurance companies could cancel your policy if you weren't wearing one (I would also expand it to DUI's but lets not complicate things right now).

I think people are smart enough to work through the logic. "If I get into an accident, not only am I much more likely to be injured if I'm not wearing a seat-belt, but not doing so voids my policy. More pain, more expense, no coverage, I'm wearing the thing." Not only that, but my bet is that my rates will go down (and like everything else, this is really all about me), because my rates don't have to cover people who were injured while not wearing said seat-belt. In essence, I'm no loner paying for other people to be stupid.

Also, given that after all these years and laws, compliance is still only at 80%, maybe letting people and insurance companies work it out is best.

But Seriously...Life?

The thing about the Michigan Life for Adultery article is that it highlights what I think is one of the biggest problems facing the nation, or not if you like the direction. As I've written before I see an increasing trend towards "Judging from the Assembly" (I'm still playing with the words, I need to hire Frank Lutz) which is the opposite side of the coin from "Legislating from the Bench." The interpretation by Judge William Murphy, sarcastic or not, shows the damage that taking a "literal" interpretation of statues "regardless of the consequences" is not only stupid, but un-American. To take a literal interpretation means you believe the same group of people that routinely garner low 30's in approval rating (I'm not sure what MI's Assembly gets, but I got a dollar that says its max low 50's) can write laws that cover every possible situation while sitting in their office, writing bills, amending them, and passing them is not only naive, but stupid. What happens is that statute exceptions are too many, too cumbersome, poorly written, and overlooked, and a "blanket" rule is passed because its easier to encompass everything than deal with reality. The problem is that its not a security blanket, its a plastic bag.

The Court system insures that common sense prevail in extraordinary circumstances, it is also an independent Third Branch of government. What's the point of having an independent judiciary if they can't be independent? Saying the Court must interpret statutes literally, combined with mandatory sentencing takes away that independence and robs We The People of one of our great protections.

This is what happens when everyone goes all aflutter and buys into the media hype about "Activist Judges." Less freedom for all.

"N" word no-no and a dog

I'm on a bit of a state and local government kick, so bear with me.

First, found this article on Foxnews.com (I'm waiting for my high-five Mr. Malone) about a small town, Brazoria, Mayor in Texas named Ken Corley who wants to make using the "n" word a $500 fine, but only if its used in "an offensive fashion." And what's the threshold for "offensive?"

Under the proposed Brazoria ordinance, users of the N-word would be fined only if a complaint were filed against them, thus protecting those who think they are using the word as a term of endearment.

Hmmmmm. How does it protect those who use this horribly offensive word as a "term of endearment" if the deciding factor is someone else's feelings or interpretation? I may call Muscles for Justice a "serial rapist" and mean it with the most love, but if files a complaint I get charged. So just how was I "protected?"

I love it when unconstitutional laws are also poorly thought out and written.

Over in Washington State, State Senator Ken Jacobsen introduced a bill that would allow dogs in bars with their owners. Two things I want to point out. One, as in other posts, however silly, I like to point out and give an H-Blog Hear Hear to anyone who attempts to roll back government. While hardly a cornerstone of the Libertarian platform, or the Senator Jacobsen's motivation, allowing bar/restaurant owners to decide if they want dogs in their establishments, and allowing patrons to decide if they want to eat and drink there is a step in the right direction. Two, if this bill passes into law, dogs will be allowed in bars and restaurants, but not smokers. I'll give you, the reader, the final comment on that as we head into break.

CO Courts say 1st Amendment need not apply

The Colorado Supreme Court, while overturning a 45 day jail sentence for contempt of court for wearing a T-Shirt with a picture of Stanley "Tookie" Williams (more on that later), says,

"...wearing a shirt bearing a political message in a courtroom is not protected under the First Amendment."

Meaning, the CO Ct believes that your First Amendment rights are valid everywhere but the very place set up to protect that right. Meaning, you can't make a political statement in court. This seems a bit off to me. When did the court become Cuba? I understand that Judges are, in effect, mini-dictators (patience, patience), but now they feel the need to quash political speech? Wow.

Now, on to the 45 days for contempt by said dictator. I've never fully understood how a judge can just accuse you of something and jail you without:

1. Arrest
   
2. Representation
3. Burden of guilt
   
4. Right to face accuser
5. Trial by jury

Judge says you did bad, go directly to jail, do not pass go. Yes, there is an appeal, but it comes not after a trial, but in effect is your trial, and you're not released on bond until said bizzaro trial. Get it? You're presumed guilty. Contempt skips kind of a key part of our legal process, in the very place set up to protect our legal process.

I find that...contemptible.

You're innocent but your cash is guilty

Andrew Wolfe of the Nashua Telegraph (Looked it up, Nashua's in New Hampshire-which probably explains the tone) has an article about asset seizures and the law and K9's.

Interesting stuff. The individuals cited had seizures of $22,740, $124,700 and $30,670 respectively despite spending zero guilty verdicts, and zero actual charges. Yup, the government took a total of $178,110 and didn't file a single actual charge.

How's that you ask? Because the people looked guilty and a dog "alerted" to the cash (meaning the dog acted as if it smelled drugs on the cash). Yup, a dog acted as if your property had drug smell on it, so the government can take your property. Not, the "alert" lead to the finding of drugs, not the "alert" showed the money was made of drugs, not even the "alert" lead to a confession, just that the "alert" signaled that your property may have been near drugs.

Citing the amount of cash Gonzolez carried, his efforts to conceal it, his method of travel and the drug-dog alert, the (Nebraska) court ruled that “the evidence as a whole demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense.”

"Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas" I guess. See, here because things looked bad, and the dog "alerted," the preponderance of evidence concept doesn't get you a criminal charge, it gets you "guilty" and a loss of significant assets. An alerting dog, by the way, cannot be cross examined. I did some quick research and found this about the importance of training, as well as this, plus this on false positives, there's more but you get the drift. An imperfect dog, added to imperfect appearance leads to a perfect outcome for the government.

Well, at least the NB judge used the words "preponderance of evidence" to take a man's money. The reputationaly liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was happy with "probable cause."

If this is OK with cash, is it OK for your home?

The only thing that even begins to make sense on any level is that a seizure can only occur with a guilty verdict. Period.

Finally, I would love to see some kind of data on the amount of cash and other assets seized each year in relation to guilty verdicts. My pessimistic guess is that lots of value is taken from the citizens each year, without guilt.

Steve Horner wants no friends

Apparently attempts to draw large amounts of inebriated women to one location deeply offends Mr Horner, and he's mad as hell and he's not taking it anymore. So Mr Horner filed suit to stop "ladies night" at bars in Colorado.

Why? Well legally its because he's being "discriminated" against. Funny, I didn't know that bitter, women hating divorcee was a protected minority. But the real reason? The article says that Mr Horner has "been on an anti-feminist crusade since his wife left him with two young children several years ago." Yes, clearly the feminist ideal that Gloria Steinem envisioned was, in fact, half-price drinks for ladies at bars across America, all the better if a wet t-shirt contest is thrown in. Well done Mr Horner, you've struck a direct and devastating blow against feminism! What will Ms Steinem do now that feminism has been set back so? (As a side, my bet is that Ms Steinem was no big fan of "ladies night," potentially throwing this into the upper reaches of the comedy scale.)

At the risk of putting words in Mr Horner's mouth (and also at the risk of killing the comedic genius of such mighty calls to arms as, "I will now make it a point to visit as many ladies nights as I can every week. I'll have my rights violated, then I'll sue them in county court and collect my $500 (the maximum penalty in county court for each incident of discrimination)...I feel it could net me $3,000 to $4,000 a week easy, and I'm going to do it"), I think he means that he's been on an "anti-women" crusade since his wife left him several years ago. Why anyone would want to leave such a fun loving guy is a real mystery.

Now ladies night may be a thing of the past (I think a bigger hit that the smoking ban). Soooo, to summarize, in the era before Mr Horner, ladies night meant that women got half-priced drinks, men got to hit on drunk women, and the world was a happier place once a week. Mr Horner, doing his best to bring back the He-Man Women Hater's Club, felt that this was an abomination, sued, won, and now ladies night is at risk. Wow, what a guy. He doesn't like ladies and has now ruined a good thing for all those who do. That's it, I hereby revoke his "guy" card. Revocation of said card means that guys everywhere are free to wedgie, wet willie, and titty twist (aka "Purple Nurple") Mr Horner at will, with the addition of a maximum of one swirly a week.

Lest we think he's done, Mr Horner adds, "It takes me five minutes to be discriminated against." Yes, and five seconds to sound like a complete idiot.

Goin' Postal

Not one week into the new year and W's back at it. Now he wants to read your mail. To a new Postal bill, he adds one of his signature "signing statements":

"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Agreed that this doesn't sound like much. But the question remains, if as Tony Snow says, "this is not new," then why add the new language?

And yes Stalin, I admit my bias here. After 6 years of relentless (I said I was biased) attacks on our privacy, I'm not real keen on biting on, "Hey, I'm just sayin'." If its not new, or irrelevant then don't add it. Like my middle school teacher used to say, "When in doubt, KISS." No, she didn't mean "Knights in Satan's Service," but she did mean "Keep It Simple Stupid." It's almost like she's reaching through time to talk directly to W (sorry, couldn't resist the jab, remember I'm biased. Once I admit that, I'm allowed to say anything I want, its the power of honesty).

Equal Access

More than 2 million U.S. students pray together each September at public schools across the country during the annual See You at the Pole day, according to the National Network of Youth Ministries.

See You at the Pole began in 1990, but if I remember correctly, maybe a dozen students met semi-regularly to pray at my Tampa-area high school's flagpole in the late '80s.

Tolerated by all though they were, Chrisitian students elsewhere who wanted to gather freely before school hours on campus to pray needed Clinton's education secretary to write "American educators" a note reminding them about their students' basic civil liberties and the Equal Access Act. How far from the margins of public life expressions of faith have come, and for the better of us all.

The act simply and clearly states that public secondary schools that allow one non-curricular group to meet at school during non-instructional time cannot "deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting [at school] on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings."

The Equal Access Act, therefore, protects not only the rights of the religious, but those of whom the religious too often are less tolerant, such as Okeechobee, Florida 's Yasmin Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a 17-year old public high school senior in "a town of about 5,500 residents and around 60 churches", began a Gay-Straight Alliance for students that her principal and school board will not allow to meet at school.

According to schools superintendent Barbara Cooper, ''My position was then and remains that we are an abstinence-only district, that our clubs are primarily dealing with curriculum or curriculum-related clubs and organizations and we would decline the request . . . . We are an abstinence-only district and it's abstinence from any kind of sexual behavior, whether it's heterosexual or bisexual or homosexual, whatever it is.''

Cooper betrays not only a fundamental misunderstanding of Gay-Straight Alliances and, of course, the law, but also her curriculum.

That's What Chanukkah is All About, Charlie Brown

There is an irony in the Chabad of Greater Seattle's demand for the local airport to include a Menorah among its Christmas decorations that I, after 15 years in an "interfaith" relationship, am only beginning to understand: A Menorah stands alone.

A Menorah is much more than a representation of the ancient set of candles, lit with precious little oil, that Jews believe miraculously lasted eight days. Nevertheless, a Menorah lacks the religious significance that holiday displays such as those in Seattle and around the country lead too many kind-hearted people to assume means that Chauukkah matters as much to Jews as Christmas does to Christians. It ain't so, and it's a disservice not only to observant Jews and Christians, but to taxpayers regardless of faith who are paying for this multicultural clusterfuck.

Here's Channukah in a nutshell, thanks to Tracey Rich at the eminently informative Judaism 101: Channukah commemorates Jews who stood against the ruling Greeks who tried to make their rites the Jews'. Channukah is not a holiday of "Peace on Earth"; it's a celebration of defiance and independence. It's the Fourth of July--eight of 'em!

Or as Rich writes, " Chanukkah is probably one of the best known Jewish holidays, not because of any great religious significance, but because of its proximity to Christmas. Many non-Jews (and even many assimilated Jews!) think of this holiday as the Jewish Christmas, adopting many of the Christmas customs, such as elaborate gift-giving and decoration. It is bitterly ironic that this holiday, which has its roots in a revolution against assimilation and the suppression of Jewish religion, has become the most assimilated, secular holiday on [the Jewish] calendar."

Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky, the Chabad of Greater Seattle's spokesman, exacerbates this irony when he says demanding a Menorah at the airport was about "adding light to the holiday, not diminishing any light"; yet the murk is exactly where we as a nation drag ourselves when we conflate Christmas and Chanukkah into a nonsensical "the holiday" for local officials nationwide to slap together every year at the eleventh hour like a playhouse without instructions. Whatever Chanukkah and Christmas mean, is it clearly not the business of the Seattle Port Commission?

To be brutally honest, these entanglements are less "church and state" and more "Mommy, it's my brother's birthday, why don't I get a gift?"

The expedient and compassionate solution is to do what officials around the country do: Simply ignore the civic and religious principles at stake, and let everyone have a happy whatever, usually on the taxpayer's tab. After all, if your local city manager won't celebrate these holidays for you, who will?

But, Christians and Jews, if I have to render unto your Lord and your Lord what is Caesar's, can official celebrations at least be true to the spirits of your holidays, and your faiths?

Can we, for example, instead of Christmatizing Chanukkah, celebrate Rosh Hashanah?

Traditionally, Rosh Hashanah begins the Jewish year with a blast from the shofar, the ram's horn seen above. (Sadly, this was missing from our family's dinner, but, oh, the brisket!) Apples dipped in honey represent the hope for, as Rich writes, "a sweet new year." Pockets customarily are emptied of bread into flowing water to symbolize the casting away of the past year's sins. I'd love to see any of this from the people mover on the way to B terminal.

Happy Chanukkah.

Rapids Response

Hats off--but not niqabs--for Grand Rapids' bus authority. The Interurban Transit Partnership ended a policy that allowed drivers to refuse service to anyone with a covered face after a Muslim woman was told she'd have to unveil herself before she could ride a public bus.

In a city of more than a million people, among whom there always will be "the poor", public transportation is a necessary evil if you're a taxpayer; therefore, if you're a taxpayer, you have a right to ride--or not--and what you wear without harming others should be beside the point. Can we as Americans agree that Grand Rapids is not Jerusalem (or cities throughout Europe), that our public buses are not commercial jets, and to not torch another bridge between ourselves and our ideals until lighting the match is at least a tough choice?


Unfortunately, no ('though some of the knee jerks come with a few worthy one liners about women and Islam). Nevertheless, the buses in Grand Rapids--with all aboard--will roll on. Remember that on the long road ahead . . .