A Free Press

A free press is one of the foundations of our country. It is imperative that we have a free and responsible press. Thomas Jefferson once said that if he had the choice of government without newspapers or newspapers without government, he would take the latter.

The idea and ideal behind a free press is to have informed citizens. However, when the press begins to shade the news and coverage thereof to promote a point of view, a party, or an ideology it ceases to be a free press. Everyone in this country has the right to free speech and to have their voices heard. When our 'news' reporting entities become mouthpieces for the people they are supposed to be covering, our right to a free press has been violated.

This is what has been happening for years. There have always been instances of this, but it has gained momentum and corporate control has increased since the mid 1980's when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. From that point to this there has been an increase in the ownership of news outlets by corporate conglomerates. This ownership has changed the news and how it is presented. It has in fact become the news at times.

It is my belief that we have a crisis in our news at this time. We have people who lean left (philosophically) listening almost exclusively to left wing speakers. We have people who lean right listening almost exclusively to right wing speakers. Most of the country lies in the middle and leans one way or the other. We do not have many outlets that report news in that manner any more. If we are to bring our country back together, we must get more of this type of reporting.

As with most important things in history, this will likely be led from the grassroots up and not from the top down. The top likes to have control of all information. They can then sway opinion to support what they have already decided. The people are the ones that suffer when there isn't a fair and honest dialogue in our country. We should talk with our local papers, our local radio stations, and our local television stations to enlist their help in presenting all sides to discussions. And we must continue to use alternative media to get that message out.

We have many important issues to face in the coming years. There will be hard times and there will be good times. If we are to survive those hard times, we must decide to work together for the common good of our citizens. We must decide to start a dialogue that addresses issues honestly. And we must demand fair treatment for all from our press. It will not be easy, but it is impossible if we do not try.

Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is a term that has had a lot of use over the past several years. It is a sound bite used as a effort to convince voters to vote a certain way. Sound bites have become a common method of trying to influence opinions. In many cases those sound bites have been very effective, even when they are giving an erroneous view of what policies actually are being advocated.

Exactly who or what constitutes judicial activism, and who decides. The answer to that question depends a lot on which side of a particular issue you are standing on. The inference we hear most in regard to this term is that the activist judges are those that have a liberal leaning. It is inferred that they are trying to change the constitution. Those making the accusations like to refer to themselves as 'originalists'.

The term originalist is a calculated attempt to convince everyone that they are interpreting the constitution in the same way as those who wrote the document. They want us to believe that they are neither adding anything to or taking anything away from this basic document of our republic. However, when you look at their opinions it seems somewhat out of line with the freedoms and rights that our founding fathers promoted for our new country. Those founders of our country left room knowing that times would change, opinions would change, and events would change. They wanted a document that gave some leeway while still protecting our most basic rights and the tenets we hold dear.

This country was established with the power of governing to be shared between three branches of government. The executive branch was the President and Vice-President, the legislative consists of the senate and house of representatives, and the judicial of the various federal courts ending with the Supreme Court.

The duties of each branch can be basically explained as follows: the Executive carries out federal laws, recommends new ones, directs the national defense and foreign policy, commands government, and does ceremonial functions. The Legislative is charged with passing new laws, originating spending The judicial branch was charged with intepreting the laws and insuring that they adhere to our constitution.

There are ample instances of each branch overstepping the bounds of their constitutionally prescribed duties. The Executive has often stated their own interpretation of the constitution in regard to laws passed. Sometimes this has been upheld by the courts and other times it has been overturned. The legislative has attempted to go around the judicial by prescribing not only the laws, but the mandatory punishment - without regard to all circumstances. And the judicial has at times been too strict or too lenient in their sentencing. And all have at one time or another crossed the other two branches.

The fact is that we have an imperfect form of government. It is only better than everything else out there. We, as citizens, are charged to protect this government. We must keep it in check and make sure that it responds to the needs of it's people and that it follows our constitution. We must not give up our hard fought freedoms, and we must not let those freedoms lead us to become a country of scoundrels and scalawags.

We have a system to protect our courts. The judges are appointed and the district judges and above must be confirmed by the senate. They can also be impeached if found guilty of wrongdoing. We need to remove judges that are incompetent. However, we must not base this on political opinions. This needs to be based on the best facts we can find. Don't change our government and constitution, change those that need changed within the government.

And don't use soundbites to subvert what should be a serious discussion.

Our Environment

The idea that anyone would be against a cleaner environment is foreign to me. It has been proven that clear air, clean water, and pristine lands make us healthier. More pollution leads to more illnesses for us, our parents, and especially our children. I do believe that in the hearts of everyone there is a desire for a clean planet. However, many get sidetracked by issues they believe to be more important at the time. Issues like money. They will address it as other names such as jobs, services, lifestyles, or the economy, but it boils down to money. And not money for everyone, but for a select few.

I was lucky enough that the time I grew up, and the place I grew up in, was a place that had more land than people, mountain beauty, clear skies, and clean water. I still live in the same general area. It is still cleaner than most, though not the same as what I grew up with.

Living in the mountains gives us the advantage of being at the headwaters, meaning the streams and rivers in the county originate in the county. The county I live in, and the counties surrounding it, has more US Forest Service land than private land. Because of that we are the source of many streams and rivers that eventually become major water suppliers and navigational streams. Here they are still very clean. They aren't as pure as they were before so many people built houses on small tracts of land, but still pretty clean. After they go past several cities and towns, the water is not quite so clean. In fact, many of the rivers become very polluted.

I was born in the 1950's and when I was very young there was not a lot being said about pollution or the environment, especially in my part of the world. In the 1960's there became an awareness of the problems, and some of the sources. Several books were written and many activists started making a stand. People that lived and worked in areas that the damage was most profound began to make noise for change. Still that change is hard to come by when those in charge of much of the pollution realize it will cost them to clean it up. It takes a while for some of them to realize that not doing anything will cost even more. The costs of cleaning can be passed on and recovered. The costs of not doing it can mean lost lives that can never be recovered.

There were many environmental laws written in the 1970's. As a result, our environment had made many recoveries, and in other cases was at least getting worse at a slower rate. There is always more that needs to be done, but any improvement is better than nothing. The mountains I live in are no longer as clear as when I was younger. There are days that they are crystal clear, especially after a good rain. And there are days that I cannot even see the mountains that are less than 10 miles away, especially in the summer. The air pollution comes into us from cities near and far, some from as far away as 500 or 600 miles away.

The current administration has dismantled or weakened environmental laws passed in the 1970's and over the 30 years since. When the law could not be weakened or removed, they simply put someone in charge that would not enforce the provisions of that law. What should be an American solution to a world problem has become a point of difference based on political affiliation. Not completely, but in many regards. The party that gave us Theodore Roosevelt as president has gone almost completely away from his vision. They have taken the stand that nothing should stand in the way of more profits for the corporations. Not even the costs of cleaning their industries so that our environment and our citizens can be healthier. It does not have to be a choice of one or the other.

Not everyone in the republican party feels this way and not everyone in the democratic party is concerned over the environment. As a general rule however, the policies of the democratic party during the last 40 + years have been more helpful to environmental concerns. I would like to see that equalized between the parties as it is a problem and an opportunity for all. The state of the environment should be important to you whether you are a tree hugging environmentalist, a gun toting hunter, a hard core fisherman, a hiker and/or a backpacker, a boater, a canoist, or just someone who enjoys the scenery as they travel about. It should also be important to you if you want your children and their children to enjoy the things we are able to.

The environment is very important to me. The outdoors is where I spent much of my youth and where I go to refresh and rejuvenate my mind, body and soul still. I had grave differences with the Reagan administration due to these issues. Even that administration did not hit the level of this administration. I did not expect George W. Bush to be overly friendly to the environmental cause, but I was completely surprised and disappointed in the adversarial policies he pursued. It became a full attack on our existing environmental laws, and by extension on our environment.

We have had proposals called "Healthy Forests Initiative" that calls for building thousands of miles of roads into wilderness areas to allow timber companies the opportunity to clear cut virgin forests at a loss to taxpayers. This is offered even though the companies are not losing money currently. Forests are a renewable resource that with stewardship many companies are able to supply our needs by regrowing trees on property already opened for the timber industry. We have a "Clear Skies Initiative" that allows thousands of tons more pollution (including the very dangerous pollutant of mercury) than is allowed in current laws and postpones enforcement of public health standards for smog. This administration has also tried to remove Clean Water Act protections from up to one fifth of our streams, lakes, and wetlands. It is already unsafe to eat the fish caught in many of our lakes and streams.

I believe strongly that we have the obligation to do all we can to protect our planet. I also know we have to be pragmatic and continue to be able to live and work. We must also protect our country. All these things are not impossible to do together. It takes time, thought, lots of work, cooperation, along with strong and creative leadership. It is critical that we work on this now. It is important for our citizens, our companies, our economy, our government, and our lives.

Torture is Un-American

Torture is something that I have always thought of as being done by other countries. There are some countries such as England, France, and Spain that have done so in the past, but have changed their policy to reject those activities. It is something that I was sure that America had moved beyond and I expect the large majority of Americans would say an emphatic no to allowing.

It has historically been the position of the United States that we will not do it, condone it, or allow it when in our power to prevent. So why are we having a national discussion on whether we should allow torture, or allow one or two people decide what constitutes torture? What has changed in our country to cause normally merciful peoples to say it may be okay? Is it some great and widespread sales job that has caused many of our citizens to disregard their beliefs in human rights or to ignore their religious beliefs and not rise up in defiance of those that would change our national moral code. Torture is not some vaguely indescribable activity. There are many forms of torture from physical to mental. Some can leave permanent scars, injuries, or even end in death. All forms will affect the one receiving it, and often the one administering it, for the rest of their lives. Any reasonable person can decide pretty quickly when an activity of interrogation crosses the line from serious or aggressive to torture.

Our country has been a part of, and in fact been the main supporter and writer of, treaties that prohibit the use of torture. We have most likely always had some overly enthusiastic or even cruel individuals that would cross that line in an effort to get information quickly. History has proven that most information acquired in this manner is unreliable. And when those people conducting that type of interrogation were discovered, they were dealt with.

It is beyond my understanding that any leader in this country would even approach this subject as a possibility. For anyone to argue that terrorist suspects are not subject to the articles of the Geneva Convention and therefore can be dealt with in a manner less humane seems incompehensible to me. We have fought hard to set the standard of humane treatment for prisoners of any war. In the last few years, it seems we have given up that leadership in the name of protection. This is not protection or security, but a long term way to have even less security. This says much more about us than it does about those who are against us.

I do believe in protecting our country, our interests, and our citizens. I believe we must do everything possible to insure that protection. I do not believe that giving up the very standards that set us apart from the cruelty of evil nations or peoples is insuring us of any type of security. It is a step toward our own destruction.

There is ample proof in our history of times and peoples that conducted torturous activites. Yo can look at the history of slavery and the treatment of the indians or native americans for examples. Because of that we did write laws, create agencies, enforce treaties, and more to insure the safety of our citizens as far as possible and the humane treatment of all those we have held as our prisoners.

Whether we actually torture a person or allow other countries to do so, we are the ones that pay the price. We pay it in the respect we receive throughout the world and we pay for it in the loss of national morality. Lets stop the discussion about torture. Just say no and treat everyone we hold as we would wish our soldiers to be treated if captured. It is the American way to be better than those who would do us harm.

Blue State? Red State? Purple Nation?

I am so tired of hearing the terms 'blue state' and 'red state' in referring to different parts of our country. This has been going on for several years now and it is something that is completely false and irrelevant. It is a media and party driven division of our country, and there has been too much division of our country already. It needs to stop.

The only time this designation is truly valid is during elections, and basically only during presidential elections. It is a way to keep track of how the electoral votes are going. The rest of the time it is a false portrayal of our country and our states. Certainly there are states that tend to lean republican or democrat, but there are none that are exclusively one party states.

In my part of the country there are blue skies, blue ridge mountains, blue waters, green leaves in summer, red, gold and brown leaves in fall, red skies in the evening or morning, gray rocks, red dirt, and a myriad of other colors. Yet the media says I live in a red state. That is based solely on how the state as a whole has voted in recent presidential elections.

Georgia was a democratic state when I was growing up . In today's vernacular, it was a solid blue state. There was not a republican governor in the state until 4 years ago. But we did not call it blue. Even when it was so strongly democratic in it's overall vote, there were a large number of republicans in the state. Many of them were my friends and relatives.

Now the media, pundits, and political parties refer to Georgia as being a 'red' state. But I go to democratic meetings with large numbers of Georgia residents that claim to be democrats. Our local elected officials in Union County are democrats. Our state representative is a democrat. We have been outnumbered in recent state and national elections, but there are still a lot of us here.

If you go through the votes of the last several elections and mix the red and blue colors by the numbers voted, you will find something interesting. There will be pockets that are pretty solidly red and pockets that are pretty solidly blue. Overall, though you will find that almost the entire nation will look purple.

This color designation of states is certainly not the worst thing happening in our country. It is, however, another symptom of the divisions that have been promoted over the last 20 or 25 years. Those divisions are much older than that, but they have been exacerbated during this stated time. Our citizens are not one issue citizens any more than any party is a one issue party. Our country is also not a one party country. For our country to be its best, it needs a strong two party system.

The two parties have taken ever widening positions on a national level to rally what they consider to be their base. They need to reconsider what their base really is. When the majority of the country is moderate on most issues they need to look at them carefully. They should not abandon their core beliefs, but they should look for those areas where they can lean just a little less left or right without losing their integrity.

When the election is over, the sharpest divisions should also be over. Those elected are chosen to represent all the citizens of their district to the best of their ability. Naturally, some constituents will never agree with many positions of their elected official. However, they should feel that they could contact those officials about their concerns and have those concerns taken seriously.

The elected officials should spend more time on government of the people, by the people, and for the people and less time campaigning and raising money for their next election. Our media and officials can help by declaring all states in the country 'red, white, and blue'. At least for a day or two.