Recently in
Freedom of Speech Category

Literally and figuratively it turns out.

I heard an interesting factoid this morning while having my coffee. I was watching the travel channel, which I do frequently. Not being of an income bracket to afford actual travel, my travel channel viewing allows me to get a sense of other countries that I can’t (yet) afford to visit in person. Sigh.

But I digress. The first part of the show was set in NYC, featuring a bunch of fancy hotels (massage, boutique cocktails, bla bla bla). Then they turned to the Statue of Liberty - the most famous and recognized symbol of liberty in the history of the world.

And here’s the fact that made me realize how little has changed in our promised land since the statue was conceived and built. It’s worth noting that these facts had not been mentioned to me previously in my 44 years on our little sphere.

Here’s what happened: The nation of France was responsible for the construction, shipment and assembly of the statue in America. The U.S. was to pay for the pedestal on which it would stand.

From the U.S. Parks Department on the French fundraising effort:

Someone with the Franco-American Union had an inspiration: They would hold a lottery. Since very few contributions were coming from France's moneyed elite, the idea of engaging the public's attention with a lottery was a brilliant one. The prizes were highly coveted and valuable, including two works by Bartholdi himself (the statue’s sculptor).

Additional funds were raised in a manner worthy of contemporary merchandising techniques: a signed and numbered collection of clay models of the statue were sold in France and America. By the end of 1879, about 250,000 francs (approximately $750,000 U.S.) had been raised for the statue's construction. Enough, most people thought, to complete the work.

While the statue was nearing completion in France, little was happening on the American side. The American press continued to be critical of the project, especially of its cost. They couldn't understand why the pedestal should cost as much as the statue itself. Congress rejected a bill appropriating $100,000 for the base. New York approved a grant of $50,000, but the expenditure was vetoed by the governor.

Many Americans outside of New York considered it New York's statue. "Let New York pay for it," they said, while America's newly rich, self-made millionaires were saying and contributing nothing. The American half of the Franco-American Union, led by William M. Evarts, held the usual fund-raising events, but public apathy was almost as monumental as the statue itself.

By 1884, after years of fund-raising, only $182,491 had been collected and $179,624 had been spent. It took the intervention of Joseph Pulitzer and the power of the media to make a difference.

[Image of Dr. Martin Luther King]

Here's a link to CNN's fairly extensive coverage of the protest march in Jena, Louisiana today.

I met one of the attorneys for the Jena 6 at Yearly Kos. She was part of a panel called Rebuilding New Orleans, but she wanted to speak about the Jena 6, and we were grateful she did. She paid her own way to come and speak to us and ask for our help in getting this story out and pushing it to the media.

It's shocking to see the pockets of powerful and ugly bigotry that still exist in our country, and that they are still well supported by the structures of local law enforcement and government in areas like Jena, Louisiana.

When I was at Yearly Kos in the beginning of August, this story was far from well known. Now there's a huge protest going on there all day.

This story is another example of how the power of people and the blog community, can serve to shine a bright light on an injustice, and push the media to cover it.

[Photo of Shirley Shor painting "Leaning, 2005", by Gallery Paul Anglim]

Self loathing is an ugly thing. The despair that it can cause in the human heart can wreak havoc on the world around. And this, sadly, is where Senator Larry Craig seems to be.

Last night, in what I can only think of as a sad and desperate act, Senator Craig (R-ID) indicated, through a spokesman and others, that he wanted to perhaps, rethink, his position on his resignation.

"It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital, told The Associated Press.

"We're still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we're able to stay in the fight _ and stay in the Senate," Smith said.

Someone should tell him that the Republican leadership doesn't do takesies backsies, and that public life doesn't provide for do overs. Especially not when the news of your decision comes, not just from your spokesperson, but from the fact that you left a message, on stranger's phone machine, thinking it was your high-priced Washington lawyer's phone machine.

Clearly, stress is having an effect on Craig's judgement, and the pressure he is feeling is evident in his voice. The level of tension and his desperation to hold on to the fiction he has created for himself is tragic.

But the tragedy is compounded when one thinks of the effects of Craig's many votes during his 27-year Senate Career on GLTB issues.

I can only speculate that what is in Craig's mind, which is that he does not see himself as gay. He sees himself as having deviant urges that must, somehow, be suppressed, both in himself, and others. And when that twisted thinking is applied to his voting in the Senate, he turns the tragedy on everyone else.

How does this tragedy manifest itself on a daily basis? Here's one small example: Larry Craig married a woman with three small children. He subsequently adopted those children. To all observers, he has been a steadfast and loving parent to them. So much so, in fact, that one of them appeared on Good Morning America this morning to give public statements of support from himself and his two siblings. But that parental relationship never would have happened in a Larry Craig legislated world, because he opposed gay and lesbian adoption. And as a result, those children likely would have been deprived of the parent/child relationship that quite obviously developed to the benefit of all.

That is the tragedy of the closeted life expanded into a legislative life.

It's a hard lesson to learn, but maybe now Craig will understand that the legislature, be it state or federal, has no place in the bedrooms of consenting adults. And should this public fiasco result in him remaining in the Senate, one would hope that he would bring some newfound compassion for the persecution that homosexuals endure in our society, and reevaluate his Senate votes on these issues.

Of course, I won't be holding my breath, but I can always hold out hope that people will learn from their own personal tragedies.

Craig would say he supports freedom, but what freedom is there in constantly feeling as though you have to hide a most basic part of your self?

[Editor's Note: Link to Talking Points Memos Story added after initial posting of this story. Further note: changes made to correct grammatical and spelling error, incorrect links, and other coffee deprived errors. Apologies for the confusationess. ]

[Image credit: Wichita State College]

It seems that many a Republican presidential candidate are finding themselves with they YouTube jitters, and the CNN YouTube debate may not happen at all.

1. Why do you think the candidates are trying to avoid this format of debate?

2. What question would you ask a Republican candidate via You Tube that you think would have a hope in hell of getting through the selection process?

3. Do you agree that there should be, as some have suggested, an American Idol type call in voting immediately following the each of the future Democratic and Republican debates, to get people used to voting for political candidates and not just entertainment stars?

4. Did you think that question number three was a real question? It wasn't. I made up the whole thing, especially the "some people have suggested part". See how easy it is to be a journalist? All you have to do is add "some people" into any question, and it can make any idiotic assertion look like a plausible and reasonable question to ask. Right up there with asking Barack Obama if he's "black enough".

5. What the hell does "black enough" mean?

6. Anyone here think that Alberto is trying to get himself out of perjury charges by pretending to spill the beans on "other intelligence activities" as a cover?

7. And is it the height of incompetence to suggest that you have committed a lesser sin than perjury by admitting instead that you were talking about a whole other program of spying, so heinous in its illegality, that half of the Justice Department was ready to take a walk if they didn't knock it off?

8. Was the Hillary/Obama "fight", carried on thoughout last week to the interest of almost no one, utterly stupid and vapid?

9. Anyone know who did the John Edwards "hair video"? It's an education in itself how to react to this sort of absolutely idiotic nonsense, namely the hubub about his haircut. You respond with ridicule. If you missed it, it's here for viewing. And by viewing, I mean viewing in non-partisan terms, but as a piece of strategy and response in today's media culture. I don't endorse any candidate for office. I endorse solid political thinking.

10. Will Solicitor General Paul Clement appoint a special prosecutor to the DOJ USA firings investigation? The best I can come up with is, maybe. I am positive that if Ted Olsen were still the Solicitor General of the United States, he would and do so swiftly. As much as I dislike Olsen's stand on any number of social issues, I have always admired him as a good legal scholar who loves the law. Same goes for James Comey, and many, if not most of the employees at the justice department. So the question becomes, does Paul Clement love the law, or does he love some other ideology which ascends some folks above the reach of the Rule of Law for its namesake?

BONUS QUESTION: Now that Inslee is putting a Gonazales impeachment bill in the hopper, has Harry Reid thought about the problem of President Bush using the August recess to dump Gonzales and do a recess appointment of a new Attorney General without any Congressional oversight? Hmmm...

I have questions. You have answers. Pick a question or ten and let's get the discussion going.

[Photo credit of eggs frying on sidewalk: operapixels]

All the kids I know are asking if you can really do this...yes, you can, but it's disgusting. I give that answer alot these days.

[UPDATE: Harriet Miers blows off the subpoena. Conyers responds here. My response? Throw her ass in jail. Now. What's your response?]

Speaking of these days, you don't need me to tell you that it's summertime. The mercury is through the roof, and we're all seeking a little shelter. And while you seek that shelter, what are you talking about with your friends and neighbors? More important, what are you talking about with strangers? You know, the folks in line at the grocery store, or in my case, at the town pool.

I usually know what's on the minds of my close friends and neighbors, but I've found that what's on the minds of strangers usually provides the most insight as to what the country, as a whole, is talking about.

So here's what people are talking back about:

(The quote in the above window sticker is by Donald Rumsfeld. The photos in this blog entry are by DiAnne Grieser.)

"Free Speech is Not a Crime" is what I saw painted on a wall this morning. I circled the block, parked in a bus zone and hurriedly snapped a photo. With my mental set thus primed, I saw examples of the exercise of free speech all around. I saw it in the manner in which people were dressed, I heard it in the music and the words that they chose, and I even read it on the bathroom wall.

I do not necessarily agree with all of the sentiments as expressed, but I will strongly defend the right of individuals to express themselves. Free speech does not have to be a newspaper or television program by a major media conglomerate. In fact, free speech nowadays is more likely to come from the words, pen, or other expressive media of an individual, unfettered by obligation to represent a corporate CEO or power-hungry politician.

Blogs, YouTube, street theater, flyers -- we need to use all available media to insure that we can continue to exercise our freedom of expression as guaranteed to us in the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-- First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States