24. February 2011 by admin.

I’m going to start here with two quotes. You may recognize the first:

“Amendment 1: 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.”–U.S. Constitution

The second is from USA Today, here’s the link,

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/02/ag-dept-employee-sues-conservative-blogger-over-edited-video/1

and here’s the text:

“Shirley Sherrod, the African-American Agriculture Department employee who lost her job over an edited video purporting to show her anti-white bias, filed a lawsuit against the owner of a conservative website who posted it, The New York Times reports.

In the video, Sherrod appears to be confessing in a speech that she had discriminated against white farmers while working for the department. The full version, which surfaced a few days later, shows that the speech was about how she overcame her own biases to help the farmer.

Andrew Breitbart posted the edited video on his site, biggovernment.com.

In the uproar triggered by the initial posting, Sherrod was pressured by the Obama administration to resign.

In the suit filed last week, Sherrod charged that the edited video damaged her reputation and prevented her from continuing her work.

Breitbart said in a statement that he “categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech,” The Timesreports.”



Mr. Breitbart, with all due respect, you are wrong. This is not constitutionally protected free speech. If your edits had not changed the intention of her words, THEN it would be constitutionally protected free speech.

The Constitution of the United States of America is the document that defines how our government is made up, how it is constituted. At the time of its inception–and I feel a series of posts coming on about the whole document–the convention of men were very concerned that the citizens have access to information about their leaders and their political activities. One of the problems they were trying to prevent right out of the gate was a fettered press. It was widely considered that as long as the journalists felt confident that they could, without fear of reprisal, freely report on the issues and events within the layers of the government, government could be held to an exacting standard of integrity.The government officials would know that they are being watch and that they cannot operate in secret. Where the government had the codified authority to stifle the press, the government had the power of tyranny over the people. The news outlets of that time, and of all times, needed then and need now to have no fear to broadcast the TRUTH.

This is where Mr. Breitbart’s statement is in error. He has no constitutionally protected right to tell a LIE. Deliberately altering material so that the intention is diametrically opposed to the intent is deceptive and false. It is exactly what the press is supposed to protect US against.

I suppose that Mr. Breitbart could position himself as a commentator rather than a pure journalist, but the fact remains that he still has no constitutional protection to allow him to deceive his readers. He may get away with it, he may have many times gotten away with it, and that doesn’t make it acceptable or correct.

Mr. Breitbart owes Ms. Sherrod an apology and he owes both Ms. Sherrod and his readers a retraction and a correction. He needs to ‘fess up and admit that he purposely altered the video with the intent to deceive his readers. The damage is done and cannot be undone, only mitigated.

I know that Mr. Breitbart doesn’t care about my opinion. I don’t care that he doesn’t care. He has compromised his integrity and in so doing he has diminished his credibility. If the rest of the journalists don’t call him out on this, as USA Today did, their credibility suffers the same fate.

I believe the word is Libel.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

22. February 2011 by admin.

I can’t remember when we last rode the ATV’s, it was long enough ago that the tires needed air tonight.

Before I go any further, have I ever mentioned that our Bulldog is crazy? She channels the boys, I think.

I have been wanting for a couple of weeks to get out and ride, but life got in the way, as it has a tendency to do. Tonight we put all the excuses on hold and went.

Primary lesson for the night: If you don’t carry the flashlight, stay with the one that does.

I stopped by the truck to get my sweatshirt. Even with a very pleasant 66 degrees, it can get cool when we’re in motion. That put the guys at the barn well ahead of me.

I knew the stump was there, I just didn’t know it was there. I don’t completely recall how I ended up on my back looking at the stars, but that’s what I was glad nobody saw. I’m quite sure that it involved something that, had I intended it, I would never have been able to pull off.

Dylan is a fair driver; but he has no fear. Furthermore, he thinks it great fun to try and toss me into the bushes. He has no genuine intention to do that, I’m sure. But having already suffered injury to both my dignity and my backside, it was with great earnestness that I –urged–him not to put too much effort into it tonight.

The stars were magnificent, even with the clouds rolling in, the diminished woodscape is still lovely, and I survived the bumping along, very happy to be out among nature again, and, all the same, very glad to limp back to the house after the ride came to an end. The halting gait after a back-splat is somewhat lacking in elegance.

I’m glad nobody saw that, too.

Posted in Life--mine in particular | No Comments »

16. February 2011 by admin.

When the Board of Supervisors for the City of San Francisco stands to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, one voice is silent. Jane Kim, who represents the Sixth District, stands with the rest of the Supervisors, but she refrains from the recitation and she does not place her right hand over her heart. (http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/01/san-francisco-supervisor-refuses-recite-pledge-allegiance)

If you know me well, it may surprise you to hear that I support her right to do that and I offer no harsh words of reproach. I fully support free speech regardless of my agreement or lack of agreement with the content. The reciting of any words must never be mandated, and Ms. Kim is acting on the dictates of her conscience, carefully considered over a number of years. This is not a rash decision to which she has come.

It is her reasoning with which I take issue, however. She explains that the Pledge represents ideals, but not reality, that we are not a nation that provides liberty and justice for all. Both halves of that statement are true. The Pledge DOES represent ideals, and we have NOT lived up to those ideals in every way. The mistake that Ms. Kim is making, though, is in believing that we withdraw or withhold our loyalty from entities that have disappointed us. Ms. Kim has a record of public service that demonstrates that she IS loyal to the republic for which it, that is, the flag, stands. The republic under which we live is governed by very fallible humans and will, from time to time, fail to live up to its full potential.

Ms. Kim, if this somehow finds its way to you, I ask you to reconsider you position.  The work you have done and continue to do clearly speak the words you feel reluctant to verbalize, and your continued service brings our republic closer to its ideals.

Powered by Qumana

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »