Rob Schneider can say whatever idiocy he wants to

How many times do we have to say this?  The First Amendment does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.

Friend and scientist Yvette d’Entremont (read her guest blog here!) started a new Facebook page called “Science Babe” a month ago.  Recently, she pointed out that “actor” Rob Schneider was doing insurance company commercials while arguing against vaccinations. Rob-Schneider_Hollywood_USA Others picked up on this and soon Schnedier was fired as a spokesman, because insurance companies like vaccinations — they save lives and save insurance companies lots of money.

Of course, people who do not understand how the Constitution works are screaming that his rights were violated and blah blah blah.  It happens every time some celebrity loses their endorsement or, as I blogged about recently, when a bank teller was fired for lecturing customers about her religion during worktime.

You have every right to say whatever the hell you want to about vaccines.  You can spout nonsense about the world being flat if you want to.  No one has the right to stop you from doing that.  In fact, Schneider can continue to spout his idiocy forever if he so chooses.

What you don’t have is the right to a job or a platform for your speech.  A newspaper doesn’t have to print your opinion.  A TV show can fire you if you are saying things that they disagree with (especially if it hurts their ratings).   A school can fire you as a science teacher if you’re trying to teach your students creationism.   Your freedom of speech is not violated in any of those incidences.  You can continue to say whatever you want, just not with an audience provided by your former employer.

By the way, I’m thrilled for Yvette.    We first met at a convention where we were both guests on a panel about science and how it is used and abused in court cases.   According to various anti-vaccination blogs, she’s now part of the “pro-vaccine lobby”.  Not bad for a Science Babe.

Editorial cartoon: Beat it, nerd

The Military Law Zone

I had court today in the northern part of the county, where for the past two weeks there has been a massive search for Eric Frein, our own home-bred American terrorist. I expected road blocks and car searches, having heard from friends (and lawyers) who have been subjected to them, but there wasn’t much of anything. Police Car Lights I guess the search has narrowed.

The judge and DA wanted to talk about this lawyer in the area who put up ads telling people who had been inconvenienced by the police to contact him so he could bring a big class action lawsuit. We all agreed that this kind of ambulance-chasing was terrible and made all lawyers look bad.

I pointed out though that he had a point. Most of these police stops were done without a warrant of any kind. While searching for this killer, they were asking people to open their trunks, asking for IDs, and even preventing people from getting to their own homes. I haven’t heard of anyone who did not comply (after all, everyone wants the police to get this guy) but what if someone had? What if the police looked into the car and found marijuana or something?

You see the dilemma — the police do not have the right to stop every vehicle absent judicial approval, and only after justifying it with probable cause. The people who were stopped were not suspects in any way.

You can’t look at the severity of the crime investigation to justify ignoring Constitutional requirements. After all, we could really fight crime if we allowed the police to stop every car without cause or search through our homes without reason. Military Law works great in China were there is only a fraction of the crime we have here — but there’s also a fraction of our freedom.

We have to say “no” at the more serious violations before they start using the same tactics for the menial crimes.

Editorial cartoon: If FDR ran today…

Obama most popular president since JFK

Sure, Obama’s approval rating (currently 43%) is low.  But geez, stop believing the lie that it’s any different than any other President.  George W. Bush was at 42% at this same time in his Presidency.

Obama’s lowest score ever was 38% a few weeks ago.  Let’s compare that with other Presidents’ lowest scores ever:

Does this man look worried?

Harry Truman (22%)

Dwight Eisenhower (48%)

John F. Kennedy (56%)

Lyndon Johnson (35%)

Richard Nixon (24%)

Gerald Ford (37%)

Jimmy Carter (28%)

Ronald Reagan (35%)

George H.W. Bush (29%)

Bill Clinton (37%)

George W. Bush (25%)

Hmm.  Just using these numbers, it looks like Obama is the most popular President since John F. Kennedy. 😉

PS:  After writing and posting this, I realized some people may not get the subtle point I was trying to make with my smiley face, which is this:  You don’t look at one number to proclaim that a President is the “worst ever” or “most popular.”  George W. Bush’s popularity was tremendously high after 9/11 (as would any President’s be), but if you average out his term, it’s very low.

Better is to compare  based on similar periods.  All Presidents start off strong and drop over time.  Also, comparing poll numbers in the present day to those from Truman’s time where there was not 24 hour news coverage, lots of channels, the internet, and Fox News is probably not too enlightening.

Here’s a great link to a page where you can compare the Presidential ratings.

 

Editorial cartoon: How dare he

Republicans win Senate, vote to abolish medicare, reverse recent gains

You’ll see lots of headlines like that in November. The Republicans will be taking over the Senate and if you thought this was a do-nothing Congress before, just wait until they’re in charge. They’ll pass bills outlawing abortion, abolishing medicare and Obamacare, allowing for discrimination against gays and women, and otherwise work to reverse many gains we have made in the past ten years.

No, I’m not exaggerating. These are all things they’ve either said they’d do or they’ve tried to do over the past six years but have been unable to because they weren’t in the majority. vote-button

They can be stopped, you know. We Democrats outnumber them. Many of these races are very very close and winnable.

But we have to vote. We have to actually do the absolute minimum a democracy requests of you. And Democrats are terrible at that.

We vote in big numbers in presidential years and we win lots of House and Senate seats. Then in the off years we sit on our butts and watch while every gain we made is rolled back. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Whining and bitching about how things are when you have the ability to change them does not convince anyone. You want change? Do something about it.

Today is Register to Vote Day. So use the right. Register. Then vote.

Seriously, what do you have to do today that is more important?

Top Three Reasons Why Monty Python is Important

With their live reunion show done (I’m anxiously awaiting its airing), the members of Monty Python are once again in the news.

Monty Python can be compared to the Beatles — They didn’t invent anything;  they just took what had been done before, improved it, and made it their own.  (And, like the Beatles, they were never quite as great apart as they were together.)

I remember being astounded at their humor when PBS first started showing their TV shows in the US when I was in High School.  My friends would gather at the house on Monty Python night to watch. monty_python_01 Many of the skits I first learned from their records, long before I ever saw them performed on the TV show (so in my mind, the records are the “official” versions).  A group of us went to the afternoon showing of “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” on opening day, and the usher gave us all free coconuts as we left.  (Seriously, that was the promotion.)  I went back a few more times to see it in the theater after that, and practically have it memorized now.   The main character in my latest novel BLOODSUCKERS is a Python fan, and he quotes the show often (which usually confuses those around him).  I have lots of Python books and films.  You can say I am a fan.  If you don’t believe me, you can ask my cats, Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion.

Anyway, besides being tremendously funny, here’s why they are important:

1.  They broke the rules about TV comedy.  When John Cleese was given the opportunity to create his own show for BBC, he asked for complete freedom.  He was already a bit of a comedy star in Britain and could have easily made this “The John Cleese Show” (like his previous partner Marty Feldman had done — wouldn’t it have been interesting had he not, and had joined Python instead?) but instead he wanted a team effort.  Instead of a traditional comedy show where there would be a skit with a punch line and then the guest host would introduce the next skit and then someone would sing a song and so on, the Pythons decided to just do a comedy show, and screw those punch lines.  When the premise stopped being funny, just stop the skit and move on to something else.  For that matter, they’d often end the show in the middle, run closing titles, and then keep going.  Rules?  We don’t need rules!

2.  They never edited themselves for being smart.  “That won’t play in the boonies” was never an issue with the Oxford- and Cambridge-educated Pythons.  So what if half the country wouldn’t get their jokes about philosophers?  If it made them laugh, it went in.  (Which meant, of course, even if it was gross or childish.  It works both ways!)

3. They refused to take the easy way out. The easy thing to do if you are writing for a comedy show is to reuse characters.  You’d write a great sketch (Say, “The Coneheads”) and then, after it goes over, you rewrite the same sketch with a slight variation and run it again.  The audience is happy to see their favorite characters back again and it’s easy work.  The Pythons refused to do that.  Oh sure, there were minor “characters” (such as the Gumbys and the Pepperpots) but they were rarely used and when used, they were not just repeating the same old skit in a new way. There were also a few that appeared tremendously briefly (Palin as the “It’s” Man, Jones as the nude organist, Gilliam as the knight with a chicken, Cleese as the “And now for something completely different” announcer) but those were minor.  This decision to not take the easy way out with repeating skit ideas was a deliberate decision on their part.

4.  They took control of their own work.  I mean this in a legal sense as much as anything else.  Because the BBC assumed this would be just another comedy show that would appear for a few episodes and never be heard from again, they didn’t mind when the Pythons asked for the rights to the show.  In fact, when the BBC edited the show to give to American commercial TV, the Pythons sued — and won, establishing new precedents about what right a network has to change an artists’ creation.

5. There is no number 5.

So here’s to the Pythons.  Thanks, guys!

And now for something completely different.

Editorial cartoon: Here we go again

Megan’s Law Overkill

It is possible to hate Megan’s Law without supporting child molesters, you know.

Megan’s Law requires those convicted of certain sexual offenses to register where they live.  They get their face and name plastered all over the web and people in the neighborhood knows who they are.  It also restricts where they can live so that they cannot come into contact with children.  It’s like having to wear a big Scarlet Letter for the rest of their lives.  Vector illustration of a man lock up in prison

The problem is that legislators have made the law so expansive and added so many limitations that it can provide a punishment much harsher than the underlying crime.

I have a current case wherein my client, who was a good, upstanding citizen with no criminal record, copped a feel from a 14 year old girl.  That is absolutely wrong, and a crime, and he admitted to it and went to face his penalty.  He got a few months in jail for this.

But Pennsylvania recently changed its Megan’s Law, and now this crime — a misdemeanor — is included.  He finished his jail time and was ready to be released, but lo and behold, Megan’s Law won’t let him go back to the home in New York city where he’s lived for most of his adult life.  You see, he has an upstairs tenant and they have a four-year old girl.

So he found a relative to live with.  Nope, no good — Megan’s Law says you can’t live within a certain distance of schools or bus stops, and that distance means that there is practically no place in New York where you can live.  He’s now searching for someplace outside of the city, which means he has to rent a new place and commute a long distance every day.  (It also means he can’t use a computer because, you know, people can use it to look at child pornography.  In this day and age, not being able to use a computer is like not being able to watch TV or go to the library.)

This guy is no risk.  His evaluation showed that he was not a pedophile.  They checked him out completely and there was no child pornography anywhere in his home or on his computer.  He did not fit the profile of a child abuser in the slightest.

He copped a feel over the clothes of a mature 14 year old, and now he is on a list that everyone can see but not know what he actually did.  For all they know, he raped a child.  Megan’s Law doesn’t care or differentiate.

If he had punched her in the face, he would have gotten less jail time.

Once more, I am not against Megan’s Law in principle, but this is like treating a murderer and a jaywalker with the same harsh lifetime penalty.