The argument goes that I can buy many things if not everything that I need online, why can’t I vote? This is much the argument that CNN made today. Unfortunately one cannot make this comparison and even if that comparison was valid, we still shouldn’t do it.

1. Ecommerce is not as safe as you think it is.
2. It is inherently unfair to the poor.

Ecommerce is not as safe as you think it is

In the case of ecommerce there is a level of risk that is taken by the seller, bank, and user.  That risk is managed but is far from perfect.  It also requires a fairly high level of personal data to be shared and yet is still not foolproof.  The estimated fraud rate is at 0.9% which is far higher than is allowed in voter counting error!  In addition, stores reject over 2% of all transactions.

In most municipalities, a recount can be justified if the race is within one percent.  If we would implement a system based on our existing ecommerce technologies that would force a recount if the vote was within 4 or 5% (1% for too close, 0.9% for fraud, 2.5% for obvious fraud).  Would you accept it if the voting system said it doesn’t believe that this you are a valid voter so it is rejecting it and you will now need to go to your voting booth even though it is 5:45PM.  You would almost certainly sign the petition of your candidate saying that you were denied the right to vote even though you were legitimate and therefore the votes should be recounted or invalidated.

Couple this with the safety and honesty of voting today. In the US, a voter can be harassed and beaten up before and after they enter the polls but once they walk into the building they are very safe.  Unless they specifically ask for assistance, they have no one looking over their shoulder. Even when they ask for assistance the process is usually two people of opposite parties help the individual to insure no undue influence is happening.  Contrast that to the activist preacher that has coffee and cookies at his house and invites all of his members to come over and use his computer to vote and is right there to help you with all of the intricacies including making sure you push the right radio buttons.

With ecommerce fraud, there is the transfer of goods, services, or money to the criminal.  This means that there are clues as to that criminal’s identity and potentially over time the police can catch that criminal.  With internet voting, it happens once or maybe twice per year and the transfer of wealth is extremely hard to connect.

The ecommerce systems also requires a huge amount of personal data that consumers are willing to share with their bank and their store but NOT their government.  Can you imagine the outcries if you were required to have a credit card or a bank account and a phone number to vote!  In the process of checking your credit card, the processing company can check to see if you are paying your bills – no way the government is going to get that right.

Until we allow a national identification system with biometrics, there really can be no online voting and you shouldn’t trust it if it was there.

It is inherently unfair to the poor

The bigger issue is that it is heavily biased to the rich and likely even the white voters. We already have complaints that internet access is difficult for poor and colored people (Jesse Jackson likes to talk about this in his speeches).

Without being too racist or too broadly generalized, rich white people that can afford to have lots of computers in their homes (1 plus for every adult for sure) could easily vote without having to brave the storms, ice, and cold.  It would almost certainly give them nearly 100% participation and they normally vote Republican or at least are more likely to vote Republican.

But what about the working stiff that is barely making minimum wage and therefore cannot afford to own a couple computers with high speed internet.  Let him brave the snow and ice. He is poor and generally speaking is a Democrat so make him go to the voting booth in the back of some school or church, wait in line, and fill out the manual forms that are reserved for the poor people.  The really travesty is that since there will be less rich people at the polls then we don’t need so many of those expensive polling machines and booths and we can have fewer polling locations. Those poor people can take the bus farther to vote.

So even when it is technically possible to vote online, until we can make the access to that voting infrastructure equal we shouldn’t do it. Thurgood Marshall taught us that “separate but equal” is never possible. We cannot make it easier to vote for the wealthy than it is for the poor. It probably already is slanted this way with access to transportation and more flexible work hours but at least all people, rich or poor, need to trudge to the same voting location to make their voice heard.

Related posts

• RANT! emails again – 1 of 2 (0)
• RANT! Airports and electricity (0)
• Polaroid – a testimony to bad management (0)
• AT&T is whining about the iPhone (0)

I have no idea if Rick Perry is a dominionist. I sincerely hope not since, as you will see in this article, this is a false teaching. If Mr. Perry’s goal is to govern the US as a theocracy where punishment is delivered due to lack of adherence to biblical teachings then he would be failing to follow the teachings of Jesus. I have tried to find evidence that Gov. Perry is dominionist by his actions as Governor or scripted speeches (I try to avoid non-scripted off comments in political analysis as these are frequently misspoken, mistakes of wording, or simply out of context comments). As of this writing, while I am not sure that Gov. Perry is qualified to be the President of the United States, I find no evidence of dominionism aside from some people that are dominionists were at a religious gathering that he helped kick-start.

First, what is dominionism? It isn’t the worship of dominion. Well, actually, it is kind of close to that. According to the best definition that I can find (Wikipedia) it is:

"the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States. It is also known as subjectionism. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law."

The key point of this definition is the concept of a nation governed by Christian understanding of Biblical Law.

I will dig into the concept of Biblical Law in a bit but first a bit of understanding to the viewpoint. In a world where several influential nations are governed by Islamic Law (or Sharia), it is not surprising that in a nation that has a large population of another religion (Christianity) for those people to feel threatened and therefore try to entrench. Also, in times of hardship, it is easy to think back on younger days when everything is remembered (or rumored) to be wonderful and blame the changes in religion for the hardship. I don’t want to dismiss the frustrations of many people that feel that our government could be more ethical or more fair and think that if there was more religious observation in the world, that could be a good thing. However, the ends doesn’t justify the means – a government or a empowered constituency cannot make others be Christians. It just doesn’t work that way.

Sympathies to the concerns aside, the major fallacy of dominionism is the lack of understanding that there is no such thing as Christian Biblical Law.  Yes, Christians are required to keep the 10 Commandments but only because, as Jesus interpreted for us several times, they are all based on one simple commandment: love God above all else and love one another. This interpretation is most obvious in the book of Matthew in the verses 34-40 of the 22nd chapter:

"34 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, trying him: 36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets."

So we see that the 10 Commandments and the laws of the Torah are subset to these two commands.  Jesus is saying that if you keep these two commands then you will keep the rest of the commands of God and all of the laws. But He doesn’t say that punishment will be given to you if you fail. In fact, He says the opposite – He gives a carrot and not a stick in John 15:10 where he says that "…ye shall abide in my love…." if we love God and one another.  This is different than a law. A law delivers punishment not reward.

Your local government may make a law that says you cannot drive your car faster than 20 mph in on a certain road at a certain time. You receive no reward for keeping this law. The police officer doesn’t stop you and give you a coupon for a free oil change if you don’t speed. Instead, if you drive the car over the speed limit and break the law then the police officer can give you a moving vehicle violation ticket that punishes you with a fine or worse. Laws deliver punishment for breaking them but Jesus speaks of reward for doing an action.

Soon before His death, Jesus gave a great deal of advice to His disciples. He knew that He would be dead in a very short time so it was His time to give the strongest and most urgent advice.  He didn’t recite the 10 commandments or the many rules of the Old Testament but instead simply told them (us) to love one another.

John 13:34

"A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

And then in John 15:9-17

"9 Even as the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you: abide ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. 12 This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from my Father, I have made known unto you. 16 Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should abide: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 17 These things I command you, that ye may love one another."

We can now make the conclusion that Biblical Law really doesn’t exist for Christians. Law implies punishment, for law breaking is punishable. In this case, Christian teaching is not about punishment but reward and being like Jesus. A Christian should love all others because Jesus loved us (an example not a law) so that the Christian can have joy and love as Jesus enjoyed love (an example not a law or punishment).

With this understanding, dominionism starts to fall apart but I doubt if I have you convinced yet so I will do a bit more. Let’s discuss why dominionism is not compatible with Christian teachings.

They like to reference teachings before Jesus’ time
Most, if not all, of the teachings of dominionists reference the Old Testament of the Bible. This was the time of the Law and not forgiveness. Forgiveness came from Jesus Christ, therefore, the punishment of the Old Testament is not applicable after the death of Jesus.

Jesus did not want to rule the world and neither should we
Christ didn’t want a theocracy. If He did, then He would have come as a king and conqueror just like many Jews of the first century expected and wanted from the promised Messiah. When Jesus was entering Jerusalem for the last time, many of those along the path thought he was their political savior not their savior from sin. The Man that stopped a raging storm would have had no problems defeating the Roman conquerors. In fact, He was specifically offered to set up a theocracy with Him as ruler of all the lands by the devil in Matthew 4: 8-10. When his time of death was very near and He was obviously dreading what was coming, He specifically did not defend himself and defeat the soldiers in battle as He says that He could in Matthew 26:53.  So the idea of government that is a theocracy is obviously not the desire of Jesus and it shouldn’t be the desire of Christians.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s because we don’t understand God’s Law anyway
It is very clear that Jesus did not want a theocracy or a government built on religious laws. He specifically broke some of these “laws” of his time and declared that enforcers of the law didn’t understand the law they were enforcing (Matthew 12:1-8):

“1 At that season Jesus went on the sabbath day through the grainfields; and his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears and to eat. 2 But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him; 4 how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? 6 But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.”

Jesus specifically tells us in Luke 20: 20-26 to give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s. This is significant because Jesus is saying that he is not the government and wants nothing to do with the government.  It is worth noting that this is such an important concept that this story is repeated in Matthew 22:15-22 and Mark 12:13-17. Very few stories are repeated multiple times in the Gospel and the fact that this point is brought out 3 separate times gives weight to its importance.

If Jesus wanted a theocracy where a portion of the wages of mankind were forcibly given to him, he would have answered this tax question much differently. However, He is saying that the laws of man are just the laws of man and God’s will is much bigger and more powerful (as is evidence in the continuing verses where he says that the laws of man at that time regarding marriage are not applicable after the resurrection).

Punishment of a people
Several dominionists like to say that a certain calamity was the result of the sins of that city or that country. They compare this to Old Testament stories about vast punishment. This is part of their justification that we should compel Christian authority over the government and the citizens to prevent such calamity given as punishment for sinful behavior. This is poor logic since all of these events are in the Old Testament and therefore not applicable after the time of Jesus. The storm that Jesus calmed before it capsized the boat with his disciples was not delivered because of the evil of those disciples, it just happened because storms happen according to the physics of the universe that God created. Storms are not punishment therefore it is foolish to believe that Katrina ravaged New Orleans because of sinners in New Orleans. The disciples were easily better Christians than most of us today and better in the open sea and yet these experienced fishermen were in fear for their life. The storm was not about punishment because they were not good enough, it was simply a strong storm.

I hope that I have given you a few things to think about as why dominionism is not compatible with Christian thought. To be honest, I am not naive enough to think that my words will make you change your mind. Rather, I hope that my words will allow you to ponder the subject and that other influences will allow you to ignore the teachings of dominionism and adopt a belief in love and forgiveness rather than punishment.

And if you find true evidence that Governor Perry is a dominionist, please let me know. Don’t give me examples of where dominionist leaders like Perry – that is rejecting the candidate based on his supporters and an unfair analysis.

Related posts

• No related posts.

Eliminate the loopholes and eliminate the tiered system. Make it fair and make it easy.  Here is a great video explaining one way that this might be possible.

Related posts

• Tax plan just doesn’t seem to be fair (0)
• Companies say health care costs hard to swallow (0)
• Banking problem: 5 rules for a possible solution (0)

The Republicans evidently picked up approximately 60 seats in the House of Representatives. They also made major increases in the Senate and that house appears to be split nearly 50/50 (the exact count probably won’t be known for a couple days as Alaska will probably take a while to count due to the write-in candidate).

What does this election mean? Does it mean that the 2-year era of liberalism is over? Does it mean that conservatism is the rule of the day? Does it mean that Barack Hussein Obama will lose in 2 years? Does it mean that the Republicans have a mandate to go ultra-conservative? Does it mean that the poor and down-trodden will need to look for their medicine in the trash cans of the homes of the wealthy? Does it mean that I have to give up drinking coffee and now drink tea?

What I am 100% confident in is that it doesn’t mean any of the above! It doesn’t mean that BHO is done. It doesn’t mean that all of healthcare should just go to the wealthiest. It doesn’t mean that we should now savage the environment.

I don’t think that the newly elected Republicans have a mandate at all except for the mandate to do a good job and figure out the best way to solve each individual problem regardless of party direction.

I think it means that Americans want a government that works. We want it to work rather slowly and deliberately. We want politicians that don’t act like politicians but rather act like leaders. We want compromise to be the rule of the day. We want our leaders to read, understand, and thoughtfully debate the bills that are before them. We don’t want to find out about what is in the bill after it is turned into law – we want our leaders to know what is in the bill before they make it a law.

We don’t want stagnation. If Boehner drives the government to a stall the way that Gingrich did, that would be a mistake.

Most of all, I think Americans don’t want to deal with the federal government. We don’t want our lives to be tied up with governing. Life is hard enough with births, jobs, bills, lousy bosses, teenagers, sickness, and death – we don’t want to worry about the feds as well. I think most Americans would be perfectly happy if government would just get out of our lives with the exception of keeping us safe, making sure the infrastructure works, and helping out with the truly disadvantaged. We will pay a reasonable tax for that as long as we think it is well managed.

I raise my coffee cup in a salute to the Tea Party activists for energizing America in making their point. That point, I believe, is that we want our legislators to pay attention to us, don’t tax us to death, and spend what you need but make sure what you buy is needed. 2 years ago, pundits were saying that the Republican party was dead, now the pundits need to say, “Listen to your constituents if you want to keep your job.” 

There is no such thing as a mandate to do radical things. Extremism is a bad position no matter which side of the scale you are on.

If the grown men and women in the federal government can’t get along better than a bunch of nursery school kids, then we will take away their ball and send a new bunch of children to Washington in 2 years.

Related posts

• Healthcare for illegals (0)
• Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama? (1)
• Tom Daschle on taxes (1)
• Least qualified President in decades/century?/ever? (1)
• The 100 accomplishments of the George W. Bush administration (3)

This is reprehensible conduct. What is worse is our support of a society that allows this. The US will give approximately $400M to Uganda in aid in 2010. We need to put strings on this money. It doesn’t come free. The recipients of this aid must not have laws that will cause more hardship to some of its citizens. We can enhance the benefit of that aid to more than just children that need medicine by requiring these countries to adopt standards that approximate the realities of human rights in the 21st century.

I understand that withholding aid to countries with low human rights ratings will hurt the most disadvantaged in that country. But, by providing aid to those that are disadvantaged we are also propping up and supporting the government of the country. We should not be friends with countries that have a low level of human rights standards.

What is even more disgusting is that it appears that some of this hatred was seeded by people from the US that say that they are Christians. This is not Christian behavior! I would write about these groups that instigated this behavior if I could find their names but the article only mentions them in one paragraph and then doesn’t delve into them in more detail.

A few paragraphs from the Washington Post:

The front-page newspaper story featured a list of Uganda’s 100 “top” homosexuals, with a bright yellow banner across it that read: “Hang Them.” Alongside their photos were the men’s names and addresses.

In the days since it was published, at least four gay Ugandans on the list have been attacked and many others are in hiding, according to rights activist Julian Onziema. One person named in the story had stones thrown at his house by neighbors.

A lawmaker in this conservative African country introduced a bill a year ago that would have imposed the death penalty for some homosexual acts and life in prison for others. An international uproar ensued, and the bill was quietly shelved.

But gays in Uganda say they have faced a year of harassment and attacks since the bill’s introduction.

The legislation was drawn up following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy they say allows gays to become heterosexual.

Related posts

• No related posts.

After seeing Ms. O’Donnell screw up the conversation regarding the separation of church and state in the debate with her opponent, I must conclude that she does not currently have the required skills to be a US Senator.

I encourage you to view this video from CNN if you are a citizen of Delaware. If the video doesn’t play below (CNN’s embed technique is not up to par), you can jump over to CNN and watch it directly: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/10/20/ac.odonnell.constitution.gaffe.cnn?hpt=C2

Related posts

• Delaware Senate race (1)

Maybe it is the fact that I really don’t like Bill Maher. I think he is not funny and an idiot. Whenever I watch his show, I am absolutely amazed at the stupid things that he says. When he is trying to be funny, I rarely crack a smile. When the audience laughs at his monologue I keep wondering if there is some big, mean-looking guy standing beside the “LAUGH” sign with a baseball bat ready to bash anyone that can think an intellectual thought.

So when Bill Maher, another non-resident of Delaware, goes on the rampage against Ms. O’Donnell, it makes me kind of like her. If nothing else, I feel sorry for her because Bill can get himself onto a lot of TV. Bill acts like he is smart (when what he says is often foolishness) and Bill acts like he is funny (when he couldn’t do a stand-up routine any better than I can).

I am not sure what Ms. O’Donnell stands for.  As I said, I am not from the state and therefore don’t have a dog in the hunt. I am not endorsing her here although I would never endorse her opponent. If I was a registered voter in Delaware, I would spend a lot of time getting to know Ms. O’Donnell since there is no way I would ever vote for Chris Coons, her opponent. My vote, if I were a resident, would either be a vote for O’Donnell or, if I thought she was an idiot, I would leave that contest blank and abstain.

If Ms. O’Donnell really does keep her promise, as she says in this ad, of not doing back room deals for votes, then she just might be right for the job. This promise alone, if kept, would likely make her better than most of the other 99 Senators that she will serve with in that august house. Besides, what other Senator would want to get anywhere close to her – she just might turn her foes into toads!

Related posts

• She wouldn’t have my vote (0)
• My comments on New Rule: Not Everything in America Has to Make a Profit (0)

First, a bit about myself. I hate taxes. I know that I need to pay them. I know that I make a good living (not from this blog mind you) and I need to pay into the system more than some others that don’t work as hard as I work. I get all of that.

In general though, I don’t want to pay taxes and I definitely don’t want to pay MORE taxes. I would much prefer that the federal, state, and local governments do a better job of using my money wisely. I would also appreciate that my money is not transferred to someone that won’t work (strong distinction from “can’t work” and “can’t find work”). In fact, if an adult WON’T work then I am perfectly comfortable with that adult starving to death and dying. Probably my only regret in that scenario is that my tax dollars will likely have to go to bury his sorry body. I realize that this isn’t a very Christian attitude but, frankly, God gave that adult man or woman 2 legs, 2 arms and a brain to use to work – not to live off of the generosity of others.

Now, back to the President’s proposals. I just don’t get it. Something doesn’t make sense. According to CBS News:

President Barack Obama will call on Congress to pass new tax breaks that would allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their new capital investments through 2011, the latest in a series of proposals the White House is rolling out in hopes of jump-starting economic growth ahead of the November elections.

An administration official said the tax breaks would save businesses $200 billion over two years, allowing companies to have more cash on hand. The president will outline the proposal during a speech on the economy in Cleveland, Ohio, on Wednesday.

I understand that part on a simplistic level. It makes perfect sense to me that if businesses don’t have to pay taxes on capital investments, they will be able to justify more money (the original money plus the tax money they didn’t have to spend) on capital investments. They might even spend more money on that as the internal return on that investment would be a little bit better without the tax overhead. This would potentially mean more purchases of goods by businesses which, in theory, would spark more jobs to be created.

However, according to the Washinton Post:

Corporate America is hoarding a massive pile of cash. It just doesn’t want to spend it hiring anyone.

Nonfinancial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, roughly one-quarter more than at the beginning of the recession. And as several major firms report impressive earnings this week, the money continues to flow into firms’ coffers.

This means that the businesses are doing well, even if people are not doing well. So the President’s message is that we need to give these rich businesses an incentive to have them spend the money and that incentive will be taxes. I guess that makes sense. How about doing the reverse though? Why not tax them on the cash that they leave laying around and don’t invest? That way the US coffers don’t go down but actually might go up if they don’t spend it AND we get the benefit of increasing capital expenditures.  In fact, we might get MORE business spending with my plan. Why not heavily tax any cash that is in excess of last year’s cash reserves for the company.

It gets a bit more confusing. When it comes to people, the President feels the exact opposite as he does on businesses. He is fully okay with taxing a person more if they make more money. He wants to increase taxes on those that make a certain amount ($250K seems to be the magic number right now). This is exactly the opposite of what he is doing for businesses. For people he isn’t incenting them to spend more money to jumpstart the economy, he is simply taxing them for making more money. 

If a person last year made $220K and then had a great year and made $275K, the President wants to sock it to that enterprising citizen. He wants to charge him more for the right to be a US citizen and live in this great land. That 25% increase is going to drive that individual to pay a much higher rate of income tax. But not the company that is in the same city as the individual. That company has increased its cash by 25% (according to the article cited above) and it is receiving a tax break, not a tax bill.

How about a similar offer to people, Mr. President? How about you say that you don’t have to pay taxes on anything that you buy that generates manufacturing jobs in the US.  Buy a car – get a tax write-off for your down payment.  Buy a house – get a tax write-off for your down payment. Replace the windows in your house – no taxes on that money.  Buy a pizza – that isn’t taxable either. Even your latte at Starbuck’s should have no taxes if you treated people like you treat corporations. Buy a TV or computer manufactured in China though and you pay income taxes. Sorry Best Buy and Apple – you get screwed in my plan but not really since it just remains status quo for you. The people that benefit are the people that live within the borders of the land of the free and the brave.

Like I said above, I don’t like taxes. I know that there has to be some taxes because I want to have those brave soldiers that rescue ships that are attacked by pirates. But how about a little common sense and fair play when it comes to the tax burden.

Related posts

• Will Clinton take over as VP? (0)
• Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama? (1)
• Tom Daschle on taxes (1)
• The continuing saga of the Illinois Senator (2)
• RANT! Tom Daschle on taxes – update (2)

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it is our turn. Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for — the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it. (taken from the transcripts on CNN)

It almost seems like he couldn’t work on the economy because of the distractions of the war. Surely this is not so. He repeatedly spoke in the election that a President (or at least him as President) can do more than one thing at once. Maybe, he found out he can’t do it all.

Related posts

• Healthcare for illegals (0)
• You want change – you can have change (0)
• Will Clinton take over as VP? (0)
• Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama? (1)
• Too politically correct (0)

I think this is logical. By challenging the journalists that hurt the Freedom of Press right or cause it to be abused, the journalists of the world are self-policing themselves. They are saying that with a Right comes a Responsibility. Abuse of the responsibility for fair reporting risks the rights of all journalists and, by extension, the rights of all US citizens.

Evidently, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal doesn’t agree with me (unless I am misunderstanding his argument). He recently wrote in his daily column that Ms. Shirley Sherrod was planning on suing Mr. Andrew Breitbart due to his highly edited video of her. This video ultimately forced her to be fired from her government job and she is upset about that. In my opinion, she should be upset. I think that Mr. Taranto even thinks she has the right to be upset. What he is arguing is that she may not want to sue (I don’t have an opinion on that) and that the journalists that heard her speak of the suit shouldn’t be encouraging her.

I disagree with Mr. Taranto’s opinion. While I read his column daily and agree with a large portion of what he writes, his statements here are incorrect, in my opinion. Journalists should be the first to condemn Breitbart – not the last. While I am just a simple blogger, I hereby condemn Mr. Breitbart for publishing a video that intentionally leads a viewer to an knowingly incorrect conclusion. If Mr. Breitbart would have stated that this video was only his opinion and not the actual facts of the full length video, I would feel differently.

I am not sure if Mr. Taranto’s column is externally exposed for all to read so here are the paragraphs that I have issue with.

But one aspect of this story strikes us as passing strange: The venue in which she issued this threat was a convention of journalists. What’s more, someone who was there tells us that when she said she planned to sue, the audience applauded. Our source was careful to note that there were nonjournalists in the audience too (PR men and corporate sponsors). Still, we have to ask: What kind of journalist would applaud the threat of a defamation lawsuit?

Journalists have an institutional interest in maximizing the scope of First Amendment protections, and that means keeping it as hard as possible for plaintiffs to sue for defamation. Even meritless defamation suits against journalists and news organizations are a nuisance. Thus one would expect journalists to have a general antipathy to the idea of defamation lawsuits, even when sympathetic to a particular prospective plaintiff.

We have noted that Breitbart is not a traditional journalist, and it follows from this that he has no special claim on the sympathy of those who are. Our point, however, is that the interests of defamation plaintiffs run counter to those of journalists, regardless of whether the defendants are journalists or are doing journalism.

New York Times v. Sullivan is itself a case in point. Although the defendant was a newspaper, the published material at issue was not news but a political ad–an open letter from the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South, which criticized officials in Jim Crow-era Alabama for their treatment of civil rights demonstrators.

Journalists depend more on the First Amendment than just about anyone else, but we more than anyone should be cognizant that the protections we enjoy as we do our work apply to everyone, including civil rights advocates–and Andrew Breitbart.

Related posts

• Why we shouldn’t regulate venture capitalists (0)
• RANT! How dumb are the oil companies? (0)
• I agree until I disagree – Senator John Kerry (0)
• Healthcare for illegals (0)