August 3, 2006
Ending Corporate Welfare
The ACLU is indignant that there are members of Congress pushing to pass a law that would bar awards of attorney fees when groups sue to get religion out of the public square. These award of legal fees are very directly responsible to a vast increase in the body of law that has gone so far to protect against the appearances of government endorsement of religion, that even private individuals have been sanctioned for daring to utter the unutterable name of Jesus Christ in public.
It has been the ACLU's influence that not only is the government (rightly) prevented from taking sides on the matter of religion, but when private individuals happen to be speaking on government property, the First Amendment is brought to bear against them. It is unthinkable in the highest degree that the Founders or anything in the Constitution intended to restrict the free expression rights of citizens. The First Amendment was designed to create institutional separation between the agencies of government and the houses of religion, not to be a pre-regulated restriction on what private people can or cannot say.
The ACLU has used attorney fees to bully schools into submission in questionable cases or in matters where no settled law exists. School budgets are already tight (mostly because of bloated bureaucracy, but that's not the point). Many schools will capitulate to avoid having to fork out money to defend a winning case. As in most areas of law, he who has the most money wins. With the award of legal fees, it only encourages entrepreneurial lawyers to build cases where none may exist. It also prevents the ACLU from browbeating agencies into avoiding situations where those agencies may be right.
However, the money schools have is not their own. The money sitting in government accounts is not their own. They are merely stewards of assets they have been given to perform tasks they have been assigned. Their masters are the citizens who fund those organizations and who elect their leaders.
There is something profoundly wrong when, because of the actions of a politician, the entire society that funds that politician's organization is made to pay. There is much talk about making politicians and bureaucrats accountable, awarding legal fees for cases like this don't make the politicians accountable, it makes society accountable. It is irresponsible in the extreme to make other people pay for someone's "bad" actions. I'd prefer courts punish those people who are actually doing the deeds, not finding someone who has big enough pockets and make them pay, no matter how peripheral they may be. We'll throw them out of office the next election if the case warrants it.
Preventing the default award of legal fees makes good economic sense and it is good policy. The First Amendment is a simple area of constitutional law that does not, nor should not, take millions of dollars to litigate. It is about time this case of corporate welfare comes to an end.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 8, 2006
Hollywood to America: You Much Watch Our Smut
A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them of gratuitous nudity, over-the-top profanity, and puerile violence. For years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.
In what seems like a simple compromise, a company would pay for the video, sanitize the content for those who request that service, and then sell the video to the consumer. In these cases, Hollywood gets paid for the price of the movie.
That apparently is not enough.
It isn't enough for Hollywood to get paid for their trash, consumers must watch the garbage in unedited form to make sure that viewers either have to manually fast-forward or otherwise endure pornography that is completely irrelevant to the storyline. Hollywood says that editing their films destroys the "creative intent" of movie producers.
Exactly what does a nude Kate Winslet add to the storyline of Titanic… well, besides masturbatory material?
Christians and other groups have responded to the trend of Hollywood being barely able to make a movie without some B-rate actress flashing the audience by setting up companies to siphon out the irrelevant content. Again, in cases where people buy these movies with the cleaned content, Hollywood gets paid full price. They make exactly as much as they would if someone bought the unedited film some place else.
There is simple economics involved. This is a free country, if people demand porn; they can get porn (despite the clear objectification of women and harm it does to society). However, if people want movies without the extraneous and non-plot enhancing nudity, violence, or profanity, that is something that presents a clear and present danger to our nation. In this case, we cannot allow supply to meet demand.
Here's the interesting feature, by pursuing this line of litigation with firms like Clean Flicks, Hollywood is causing direct harm to their bottom line. Instead of allowing consumers to buy the films edited to their standards, it generates a conflict. Consumers are now faced with the choice to either buy the film that they object to as-is, or to not buy it at all. This litigation has made the voice of the American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries, and the like that much louder. Ever better, it gives a catalyst to help propel the nascent efforts of a Christian movie-making industry into a viable movement.
The ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy (or more accurately, murder their child) is celebrated. The ability to choose the gender of one's sexual partner is hailed. The ability to choose to have sexual relations outside marriage (or adultery for that matter) is elevated to civil right. In all areas of American life, the right to choose whatever one wills is held up as the central and united ideal. That is, until someone chooses to express their Christian values in their economic activity. (Or for that matter, if they dare utter the name of Christ in anything that can be labeled a "public square".)
Hollywood, in rejecting a compromise that allows everyone to benefit, has chosen to bring the culture war to the forefront and fired the opening volleys. They believe that their monopoly on American moviemaking gives them the right to dictate what society's values should be. As a result, they've directly attacked one their streams of revenue.
Hollywood has the right to produce trashy films, or to attempt to integrate trashiness in films that can stand on their own without it. However, the consumer has the right not to buy such trash.
With the incredible success of films like The Passion of Christ, Lord of the Rings, and other family-friendly films one would think that the movie industry would see that there is an untapped market to be exploited. Instead, they've chosen against their financial interest and decided to alienate that market. In a free market, businesses that tell their customers that their values don't matter tend to not do well in the long term. Time will tell how long it will be until another entity fills the void.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
December 19, 2005
Forget Eavesdropping - Let's just surrender
After Katrina, one of the blog posts that was making the rounds was tribes. It's essentially a societal commentary written during the aftermath and political blood-letting that took place.
I remembered this article in the recent debate on the eavesdropping that the government is apparently doing in the course of the War on Terror. Politicians are taking turns pointing fingers, and apparently the New York Times timed the release not for the soonest possible dissemination of the information, but to shill a book that's coming out and try to sink the Patriot Act. (Yes, they are just that unpatriotic that they can't even vote for a law called the Patriot Act).
Particularly, that the pink tribes out there still don't believe there is a war on. They believe that they can still blame 9/11 on us and that all we need to do to win the War on Terror is "understand" our enemies and "raise awareness" (read as surrender).
First things first, who cares if the government is listening to phone calls? There are complaints that warrants haven't been issued. Let me get this straight, a warrant issued by a star chambers court (FISA court) where only the government gets to present a case, all the proceedings are sealed, and the judge hearing the case is appointed by the administration is safe and protects civil liberties, but a policy reviewed by the Administration every 90 days to make sure it's actually targeting bad guys is not? Would you trust a closed court that did not allow for the accused to present a defense an adequate way to try criminal offenses? Didn't think so. The whole process is cloak-and-dagger to being with, how is this news?
I have a cell phone; that means everyone within about 25 miles can hear what I say on it. That's right, you can listen in to the occasional suggestive comment I make to my wife. I don't call phone sex lines, I don't buy drugs, and I'm not trying to score some hookers. You listen to my phone calls and about the most you'll get out of it is that I love my wife. Scandalous! I figure most people are the same way. Innocence rarely utters shrill shrieks.
That should not be read to mean that I think the man should be in the business of listening to everyone's phone calls, but that there are some phone calls I'd like the government to listen in on. Particularly the ones that say when and where the next terrorist strike is going to happen.
However, the pink tribes have once again mounted the ramparts against the sheepdogs. It's not the wolves that are dangerous; it's the sheepdogs that protect us. Cops don't protect us from criminals, they intimidate minorities. Soldiers aren't defenders of freedom; they are indentured baby-killers. In short, the perpetrators are the victims and the defenders are the perpetrators. If we would only disarm, then we can all live in peace, and joy, any light.
For every victory the United States achieves, there are those who would choose to then lay blame. "We must learn from our mistakes!" The Iraqis just voted for their first constitutional government, instead of celebrating this event we are mourning our "failure".
After 9/11 and in fact during Hurricane Katrina, I tried various ways to get involved. I made several phone calls, was turned down, and moved on. I didn't feel good about it because I knew I could have done something. I learned more than peeling potatoes in the military and, if nothing else, I have proven that I'm a darn good crisis manager. That's the difference between the greys and the pinks. I wanted to get involve and helped. The pink wanted to blame FEMA.
The culture war is little more than this: will we do it ourselves, or will we hold out our hands and wait for someone else to do it for us. There is the constant drumbeat from the left, "you can't do it" (aka affirmative action), "you can't trust others to do it" (aka the fight against faith-based initiatives), and so on.
The facts are these, no one ever was known for being able to find the best government welfare programs. Stories of success in history are of people who fought, strived, failed, but got up and succeeded. These are the people we celebrate.
Before we give in to pessimism, despair, and finger-pointed, how about we at least figure out if the powers were misused first. Maybe we should wait to kick around the sheepdogs until we figure out if they did wrong. How about, for a change, we not assume every evil motivation simple by the fact that someone somewhere has another opinion? Instead of the raging pink brigade telling us everything that's wrong, how about they contribute something that helps things get better instead of telling us who is to blame?
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:29 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
September 23, 2005
DI Column Posted: Don't Get Stuck on Stupid
You can read it here.
You can see my the snippet of the e-mail Kagan sent here about the alleged racial cleansing on New Orleans.
If you'd like to read about the many conservatives who have been silenced or discriminated against nationwide, I encourage you to check out FIRE
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 22, 2005
Stop the ACLU: Stop the Pilfering of Tax Dollars
Many cases the ACLU takes are settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars before actually entering a court room. When an agency is sued by the ACLU, they are rightfully intimidated. The ACLU is a national organization with huge resources to call upon. Elementary schools, for instance, don't have teams of lawyers standing by. They don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for lawyers who will fight for the school. Instead, they roll-over and take the easy road, just give the ACLU what they want.
In some circles this would be called extortion. In law, it is apparently called civil rights justice.
I have yet to get a satisfactory answer as to why someone who sues a city government for the use of a religious symbol gets $1 and the ACLU gets over a million. Here's this week's blogburst.
=======
On 1, Oct. 19, 1976 Congress passed an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which gave the Courts the power to award attorney's fees in civil rights cases to the prevailing party. 'The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976' was passed with high hopes, and the good intentions that it would help provide relief for individuals that might not otherwise be able to afford the expenses of defending their civil liberties if they were violated. The ACLU, and other judicial activitist have completely turned the intentions of this amendment on its head.
Whenever the ACLU fights voluntary prayer in school, a war memorial because it's in the shape of a cross, ten commandment displays, or keeping the boyscouts from military sponsorship, and they win, you pay for their attorney's fees.
What was intended to protect people from having their civil rights violated has been twisted by the ACLU to use as leverage when they threaten small schools and communities that can't afford to defend themselves from the well funded, and well staffed ACLU bully. Yes, legislation intended to protect civil liberties is often used to supress religious expression by the likes of the ACLU.
There is currently legislation in the House introduced by Representive Hostettler that hopes to remedy its abuse. It is an amendment that limits the attorney fees in Establishment Clause cases to injuctive relief only. In other words, if the ACLU wants to pick a fight over someone praying in public, or a ten commandments display that offends one sensitive athiest, they'll have to dig into their own deep pockets, and it will not come from yours.
We want your voice to be heard in D.C. supporting this legislation. It's really simple, all we need is your autograph.
SIGN THE PETITION TO GET THE ACLU OFF THE TAXPAYER'S DOLE
This was a production of Stop The ACLU blogburst. If you would like to join our efforts to fight the ACLU, it's very simple. Just register at our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info you will need. Over 100 blogs already on board. Join us!
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:58 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 21, 2005
National Conservative Coming Out Day - Summary and Pics
Well the National Conservative Coming Out Day has come and gone. For about the ten or so conservatives that were there, there were about 100 or so protesters. Most of the time they sat there with their backs turned, held up signs, and were quiet. There were members of I-Resist (who isn't a legitimate organization anymore apparenlty) with a megaphone that kept making noise. One picture below is a guy who yelled "stop being a dick". PRIDE was there trying to say they didn't like the stereotyping but in their press release they stereotype conservatives as wanting women in the kitchen.
My article in the DI on Friday will have most of my opinions, but here are some parting pictures of the event which was, all in all, uneventful. Pictures are in the full entry, click on it. My favorite is the 5th picture of the girl protesting intolerance and bigotry by wearing a shirt that has a racial slur on it.
The all of about 6 conservatives up there, outnumbers by probably even the number of cops on the scene.
Can't have a coming out without a closet door, I guess.
Some of the hundred some odd protesters.
One of their signs.
Nothing like protesting bigotry and intolerance while wearing a T-shirt with racial slurs.
This was megaphone, stop being a dick, guy.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 19, 2005
DI Responses: I am amused
I make points, the lefties bring ad hominems. I'm amused.
Another column kinda in response
and
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 16, 2005
DailyIllini Column up: The War on Free Speech
You can read it here...
Or you can comment below.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 28, 2005
More Disgusting Protests
Lest I be accused of having double standards, I think this is crap too. A funeral is never a place for protests, right or left. Anti-war protesters should have the common courtesy to let the dead lie, as should the anti-gay protesters (which I disagree with also). That doesn't mean (like AWARE) seem to think I'm for restricting free speech. But that also doesn't mean every expression of speak is praiseworthy and free of criticism.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
