First Amendment Follies

I’m a big fan of the First Amendment.  You know the one — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition the government.   The Founders were admittedly fairly intelligent gentleman, but putting all of these together . . . were they short of paper?  Guns get an amendment all their own, but the right to dance naked under a full moon in homage to the god of grapevines doesn’t seem all that closely connected to writing a letter to your senator.   (Or does it . .  . ?)

Free speech, in all of its assemblying, praying, and petitioning forms, was a stroke of genius on the part of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et.al.  And putting it FIRST . . . pure brilliance.

But, our freedom of speech has its limits.  We know you can’t scream “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater.  Making reference to the bomb in your shoe at Laguardia would probably not be advised either.  And for goodness’ sake, don’t threaten the life of the President unless you want Secret Service agents camping on your lawn.

Generally speaking, however, we can say whatever it is we want.  We can claim the sky is orange.  We can start a website which offers ample scientific “proof” that the world is flat.  We can advertise that we make you a bejillionaire from the comfort of your own home (for just three monthly payments of $49.99).

The problem really isn’t in what we say; the problem is that a certain number of people will actually believe us.

This is the first law of politics.  The economy needs a boost and you want to loosen the regulatory grip on the military-industrial complex?  No problem.  Just claim that an arch-enemy has weapons of mass destruction and worry about evidence later.

Always hang the (insert one: economy, war, tax burden, environment, etc.) on whoever is in office regardless of any facts which may point to someone else bearing some of the responsibility.  (Second law of politics — You must build a strong immunity to facts.)

Need a scapegoat to divert attention away from doing what you know no one will like?  Piece of cake.  Just grossly exaggerate the impact of (insert one: immigrants, gays, Muslims non-Christians, the other political party’s platform, etc.) on the Amurican way of life.

Don’t concern yourself with accuracy.  A considerable percentage of the population will believe the sky is orange if you just tell them with a smile and the Capitol steps as your backdrop.

This is the way of American politics, and I accept it as such.  It’s part of what makes the whole thing so damn interesting.  In fact, I probably wouldn’t pay attention at all if Sarah Palin was required to speak only the truth.

But, now perhaps we see the reason for jamming all those things into the First Amendment.   What is said and what is believed have such an inextricable relationship.   The preacher must have the congregants.  The politician must have the constituents.

Those constituents just need to remember the petitioning part of the Amendment.  We don’t have to believe what you say.  We can question and snarl and even mock.   We can walk away from your political altar unrepentant.

Most importantly, we can see for ourselves.  The sky is blue.

Which One Is The Elephant?

Lately there has been a debate going on in the media over who is the “de facto” leader of the Republican party.  The two people in the running are Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee.   Talking heads and various other people in the know are spinning this back and forth and up and down, but I have yet to hear any of them ask the really pertinent question.

If Rush Limbaugh is even in the running, if this is enough of a contest to demand debate, if there is even the slightest possibility that he could be the guy . . . then doesn’t that tell us all we need to know about today’s Republican Party? 

In the same way that John McCain tried to walk a tightrope during his campaign by kowtowing to the ignorance that often found its way to a microphone at his town hall meetings, the Republican power brokers have to allow Limbaugh to run amok because shedding the light of truth on his ridiculous ranting would cost them a huge chunk of their base.    Michael Steele attempted it a few days ago, and today I saw the announcement that he is apologizing.   The head of the Republican Party apologized to Rush Limbaugh for calling him an “entertainer” and his talk show “incendiary.”   What’s next?  Are the Republicans going to hold a press conference to announce that the earth is flat?  The election made it clear that the Republicans are out of touch with reality.  This latest Limbaugh flap screams it from the rooftops.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, and the Republicans have chosen intercourse with Rush Limbaugh (which is a picture that should make ANYONE a Democrat).  I’m just afraid the baby they make out of that liaison will be a teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy Republican Party.

M(i)LK

On Sunday, Susie and I drove across town to the one movie theatre within probably 150 miles that will show “controversial” films.   We had made the trek back when Brokeback Mountain was in theatres and would have done so for Religulous, but apparently the latter was too much even for the Green Hills Regal.   This time we went to see Milk, and I was impressed enough to actually blog my first movie review.

This is the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to political office in the United States.  He was assassinated while serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1978.

I had written a paper when I was in college on the gay rights movement for my persuasion theory class.  It just so happened that an entire section of my paper was about Harvey Milk, and so most of the details in the movie were familiar to me.  I knew to expect his failed runs for office and his ultimate success after the redistricting of the Castro.  I knew to expect his death, as well as the death of Mayor George Moscone who was killed by the same gunman.  I knew that the gunman was Dan White, a fellow San Francisco Board of Supervisors member.  (Dan White, by the way, served a total of only five years for the double murder after his attornies claimed the famous “Twinkie Defense” which essentially stated that he was on such a sugar high from a junk food obsession that it affected his behavior and decision-making abilities.  No.  I’m not kidding.)  I even expected the candle light vigil attended by over 30,000 people who marched through San Francisco in Milk’s honor.

What I didn’t expect was what makes this movie a must-see.  I did not expect to see the well known hyper-sexual culture of the Castro District in the 1970s portrayed so honestly and yet, by the magnificent direction of Gus Van Sant, not hampering empathy for the main character in any way.  I did not expect to be so completely overwhelmed by the brilliance of Sean Penn in the title role.  For two hours I didn’t think of Sean Penn once.  He WAS Harvey Milk.  And, most importantly, I did not expect to cry.

Harvey Milk was a civil rights activist of immense importance in our nation’s history.  He accomplished remarkable things, and he did so honestly, openly, . . . yes, even flamboyantly.   One of the things Milk spoke about often in speeches was hope, and I couldn’t help but think about how pertinent that message still is for a nation so hungry for hope that we elected a President to try to get some back.  Harvey Milk was a man ahead of his time, and those kinds often have to pay for being out of step.  He knew what he was doing might get him killed, but he did it anyway to prove “You are not sick.  You are not wrong.”

The fact that Harvey Milk is not remembered as vividly as other slain civil rights leaders says a lot about our country.  Perhaps we’re ready now to give him at least a portion of the credit he deserved 30 years ago.