Congress may actually pass an economic stimulus bill this week, which is good news for the short-term needs of the country. There is no question the economy is tottering, and could easily tip over from recession to depression, so a bill that focuses on saving jobs and creating jobs is desperately needed. The good news is that the bill will definitely help achieve some of those aims. The bad news is that it will lay a crushing debt burden on taxpayers for the future, which can only be addressed if government becomes far more efficient in the use of tax dollars than it has in the past. That could very well force, down the road, what many of us have wanted for years, a smaller, more efficient government. But somehow, that doesn't seem likely. Because Congress hasn't figured out that the model for government is, and should be, changing. And the best example is the stimulus package. Despite billions of dollars in cuts, it still contains way too much pork. And some of the cuts (to make way for that pork) seem to make no sense, such as dropping $40 billion to help keep schools from having to fire teachers. That's counter-productive. The bill is supposed to save or create jobs, not leave them threatened. Both sides of the aisle bear the blame. The Democratic leadership rolled over on way too many pet projects among its members, losing sight of the long-term goal of the bill. And Republicans kept insisting on sticking to the same failed policies of the past, and playing the same old games where personal and party political power carried more weight than the needs of the nation. One GOP leader actually admitted his goal for the bill, and the amendments he introduced, were designed to divide the Democrats and make them look bad. So much for caring about the people of this country. Both parties should be ashamed. It is time for Congress to look up from its myopic and petty party power games, and its proclivity for pork, and look at the desperate state of the nation, focusing solely on programs that stand a good chance of meeting the goal of keeping people working. Making things work should be a bipartisan issue. This bill should be about America, not the Republican or Democratic parties. -- Kelly Everitt

Right to privacy needed

Posted Wednesday, October 13, 2010, at 4:01 PM

The Supreme Court will take up the issue this term of the funeral protests of the nuts from the Westward Baptist Church.

These ultra-homophobic wackos believe every combat death is God's "justice" for a nation that "allows" homosexuals to exist. They are more concerned with pushing their not-quite-on-this-planet agenda than caring about the grieving families whose sons and daughters died defending the very freedoms that these people abuse.

Make no mistake about it, this is a clear abuse of the First Amendment. But you cannot legislate common sense and taste, and these people lack both -- to the nth degree. What they do is disgusting and beyond belief.

And probably legal.

It would be interesting to see if the court can frame some kind of argument that would prevent such a terrible misuse of perhaps the most important freedom Americans have (for without it, all other freedoms would soon be in jeopardy). But it seems unlikely. Sometimes our freedoms require that we put up with such highly inappropriate behavior, no matter how revolting it is.

It would be nice if there were some constitutional right to privacy that would protect these families from the intrusion of political/religious activists like this. But there isn't. Not yet.

In a world in which less and less of our lives are private, where people like the Westward Baptist Church followers, cyber bullies, voyeurs and others can intrude on the private lives of decent people, perhaps the time has come to begin developing a constitutional right to privacy, although framing it in the kinds of simple "core principal" language that makes our Bill of Rights so valuable would be very difficult.

But it is time to try, and once that language is properly developed and thought out to its logical conclusions, the process of approving it should then begin. If you have some ideas about that language, send it to our editor, and we'll see if that process can begin here.

Maybe, just maybe, we can keep our existing freedoms and still keep families shattered by the loss of a son or daughter who served our nation from having to put up with crazy, tasteless people like the Westward Baptist protestors.

Comments

View 3 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I think this seems very reactionary. The WBC will be in north Idaho soon and I have debated driving up to Coeur d'Alene to counter-protest them. What they do is wrong, but they very much should be allowed to do it. The first amendment is, in my opinion, the most critical amendment but also the least resilient to change.

The church is also called the Westboro Baptist Church. That's what made me say this is too reactionary, the name isn't even known and someone is already debating whether or not they want to change the constitution.

-- Posted by SeanDSP on Wed, Oct 13, 2010, at 1:58 PM
Beautifully spoken.

-- Posted by Lil Miss's Mom on Fri, Oct 15, 2010, at 9:30 PM
I think that these people from that church have every right to protest as do any of us. However, if they are so cruel and aggressive in nature to protest at a funeral, they should be stopped in their tracks. A peaceful block is the best way to stop them. Those who oppose their tactics, should stand firm and block them from getting anywhere near the funeral. Perhaps a human fence will be effective. And if this peaceful stand-in was soiled by this church with aggression, then the police should be called out to protect them. The church members, so-called Christians could be shamed into backing down, using their own religion against them. As long as these people are blocked from the funeral, the family can grieve in peace.

-- Posted by kimkovac on Sun, Oct 17, 2010, at 11:18 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register