Passing of a legend

Rest in Peace, George Carlin

You've earned it.

I am planning a future post on this comedic genius' contributions to free speech. For now, here is the Seven Dirty Words video. WARNING! Your office is probably not a free speech zone, so play this at home when the kids are in bed.



Chris

Obama rejects public financing

Senator Obama announced yesterday that he will not accept public financing, and the spending limits that go with it, for his 2008 Presidential bid. He is the first major candidate to reject such funding since the system went into effect in 1976 in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

This is a reversal -- a flip-flop if you will -- from his previous position. Originally, he said he would take the money if his opponent does so as well. In this Washington Post article, Howard Kurtz notes that the late, great Tim Russert told Obama Feb. 27 "you may break your word" on public financing. Obama responded that he would discuss the issue with Senator McCain after the primaries. Now the McCain people are saying that those discussions never really amounted to much.

Kurtz continues on to criticize the media of largely letting this "reversal" slide. Just one example is the New York Times, which headlined with "Obama, in shift, says he'll reject public funding" (emphasis mine).

He then goes on to make the point, quite correctly on the surface, that Obama makes a fallacious argument. In his video, Obama make the point that Republicans have mastered the art of using largely unregulated 527 organizations as surrogate attack groups. That is a valid argument (remember the Swiftboaters), but the Democrats were fairly successful as well. I ended up as a member of MoveOn.org (mostly because I wanted Dave Matthews tickets). However, 527s have nothing to do with public financing other than they are completely independent of those funds. Furthermore, the blogosphere, both on the left and right, are doing the 527s' jobs largely for free during this election cycle. People who reflexively forward e-mails like this one are feeding the beast as well.

On the other hand, one always has to question how closely the campaigns (illegally) work with the 527s. Not accusing, just sayin'.

Interestingly, it was Senator McCain's 2002 reform act that prohibited the national parties from using soft money for issue advertising. The point of the reform was to limit the influence of large donors. The 527 exemption, of course, rendered the reform largely pointless as they were well financed and effective. The attacks and issue advertising still happen, they are just not blatantly from a particular campaign or party.

Regardless, I am tentatively supporting Senator Obama's decision on this issue. For one thing, a significant portion of the funds he has raised have come from individuals donating small amounts of money. He is rejecting lobbyist and PAC money, including small donations from non-profit lobbyists like this person.

On the other hand it sounds counterintuitive, but Obama has actually raised almost three times as much money as McCain. From CNN we learned yesterday that Obama has raised $272 million to $98 million raised by McCain. The public funding available later in the campaign amounts to a little more than $84 million. If Obama continues to raise money like this, the $84 million will be a paltry amount of money in comparison. Why take a lesser amount of taxpayer money that comes with spending restrictions when you can spend a greater amount of donated money without restriction?

One last point to make. Opponents of campaign finance reform frame this as a free speech issue. They think that contribution limits have the effect of limiting their influence on the campaign. Well, no s**t. For one thing, it is not like the lobbyists and political action committees don't already have plenty of influence already. For another, shouldn't the voice of the common person, the one who can only afford a $25 contribution, count as well? Does it sound more democratic to allow the wealthiest people to continue to have an inordinate amount of influence in politics? Not from the perspective of a poor person.

Chris

Update: Talking Points Memo is reporting that MoveOn.org has ended its 527 activities in response to Senator Obama's wishes that such groups not spend money on his behalf. The practical upshot is that the campaign gets to control the message. Of course, this does not apply to the blogosphere.

But it's okay to discuss ID

Today we have an edumacation twofer. For starters, here’s a dirty little secret for high school students: All of those high minded things you learned about freedom of speech are fibs. Those freedoms don’t really apply to you until you are clutching that diploma. The school’s discipline tentacles are long and unforgiving.

Exhibit A: Appeals Court Weighs Teen's Web Speech

To sum up the article, a high school girl in Connecticut was barred from serving on her school’s student council for *gasp* using a vulgar word to describe her school administrators. These “douche bags” (her words, not mine) cancelled postponed a concert she helped organize. She posted her comments on her blog. Predictably, the administrators in question were not amused when they discovered that they had been likened to a feminine hygiene product.

The student has sued the school for violations of her civil rights and a lower court has already sided with the school district. Schools do have the right to restrict freedom of expression if it is interfering with school work or discipline. The intent was to give schools the right to break up protests, protect against potential violence, and other disruptive behavior.

This young lady called an unspecified person a bad name on-line from a computer that was nowhere near school grounds. The school is whining that other students might actually read the student’s comments. They really do not specify what sort of impact this might actually have on the process of teaching in the school, though.

Honestly, I think that someone needs to grow a thicker skin and get over a petty insult.

Here’s two pieces of advice for high school students who actually want to criticize their schools.

First: Make it perfectly clear that your voice deserves to be heard. The public school is a government agency and therefore is subject to citizen criticism. Indeed, your voice is the most important because you are the ones most directly impacted by school board and administration decisions.

Second: Come up with a more creative insult. “Soul-crushing censorship-loving jellyfish” comes to mind. (Biology bonus: Jellyfish have no spines.)

Now we move from Connecticut to Florida.

The good folks running education in Florida are lining up for the predictable results that we have already seen in Kansas and Dover, Pa. A state senator has proposed legislation that would protect teachers who choose to ignore a century and a half of scientific study and subject their students to “intelligent design.” Specifically, the bill (called of all things) the “Academic Freedom Act” would protect the right of public school teachers to "objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding chemical and biological evolution" according to the Orlando Sentinel.

Basically, if the bill somehow passes and is not challenged in court, every single public school student in Florida is in danger of ending up with a “biology” teacher who refuses to teach evolution because that teacher cannot reconcile the “absolute truth” found in the Bible with a whole body of scientific research. Won’t those students be surprised when they take their first college biology class?

I’m not going to spend a whole lot of effort arguing the evolution point. This video sums it up pretty well.

And if you need to reconcile a belief in the supernatural and solid scientific theory, please look up the definition of “metaphor.”

“We don’t need no education”

Chris