Unused and Probably Unusable

HB of How Appealing posts the following:

"The American Liberal Liberties Union: The ACLU is becoming very selective about what it considers 'free' speech." Today in The Wall Street Journal, Wendy Kaminer has an op-ed (free access) in which she writes, "One of the clearest indications of a retreat from defending all speech regardless of content is the ACLU's virtual silence in Harper v. Poway, an important federal case involving a high-school student's right to wear a T-shirt condemning homosexuality."
Posted at 08:47 AM by Howard Bashman

Well, I don't know Wendy Kaminer. I do know the WSJ, and its famous hostility (at least on the Editorial and Op-Ed pages) towards liberties of any sort other than economic or pro-conservative.

Wendy may be right. The ACLU's failure to act in this case may mean... something.

I'm just going to stop thinking there. I am going to bet otherwise.

People... in general... who comment on the ACLU's beliefs, tendencies, trends, or nature because of their SILENCE and INACTIVITY in a given situation are usually blowing smoke.

The ACLU is not a government. The ACLU is not a nanny. The ACLU does not owe you anything, and if you don't support it, then much like a job or a relationship, it will go away.

The ACLU takes on cases - not all cases - in which important considerations of constitutional liberties are at stake, and the case is either winnable, or should be hard fought.

If the ACLU thinks that a case is being adequately managed, it will generally not waste its (finite) resources. If the ACLU for whatever reason thinks a case should not be won, then it will do the same. If the ACLU is just too busy to work on a case, even an important case, because there are more important cases, the same.

If the ACLU fails to act... that says precisely nothing about anything other than the very fact.

In contrast, when the ACLU does act, speak, participate, or litigate, you can draw your own reasonable conclusions from their affirmative behavior.

Failure to get involved in a case pitting important 1st Amendment considerations against the rights of schools? I mean, they've done that case. Their position is known. Other people can argue that case. Would an amicus from the ACLU clarify something that wasn't known before? Should they be telling people that this involves free speech?

People who criticize the ACLU often have valid reasons. I always wonder, though, when the reasons they state, are not valid ones. What is it about liberty, free speech, or constitutional protections that these critics hate? Or is it just that they aren't paying attention, or being disingenuous, trying to win political points despite knowing better?

This is another way of asking, "Fool or knave?" Again, this isn't about Ms. Kaminer. For all I know, she's put her finger right on the big problem with the ACLU, and I'm not going to waste my own time reading anything in a WSJ op-ed criticizing the ACLU. Wake me up when it's a story in a reputable source ("having some integrity") about the same thing.

And with that, I'm done wasting my time about that post on HA, period.

Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III, coddler to corrupt cronies and all-around self-promoter, repeated his slur against Democrats tonight during the Republican presidential debate.

Keith Olbermann's already handled this one. I don't have to rehash Mr. Giuliani's pathetic record of preparedness before 9/11. I don't have to point out that RG, America's beloved mayor, championed a man, Bernie Kerrik, who wound up being a prime example of Republican promotion of friends rather than accomplishing the job. This is part of the Alberto Gonzales scandal, not just part of RG's own disastrous record for the time leading up to and following upon the attacks on us - on the American way of life. A way of life RG perhaps thinks he represents, being a mayor of America's greatest city.

All I have to do is link to Keith's delightfully frothing opinion, available on finer Youtubes everywhere: "Olbermann's special report on Giuliani's Fearmongering: How Dare You, Sir?" Hat tip to Crooks & Liars dot com.

Anyway, back to RG's ridiculous quote. "Back on defense" against terrorism?

Giuliani, and other anti-Christs (lit: those whose actions are in direct opposition to the words and deeds of Jesus, even while superficially extolling or acting in his name), get things a bit backwards. Perhaps naturally so.

Giuliani thinks that Bush is playing offense against terrorists. Is Rudy too dumb to know the names, nationilities, and sympathies of those who were aboard the planes on September 11, 2001? Does he think perhaps these were Iraqis?

Democrats have ideas about not being reactive. Not doing what the terrorists want, for a start. Not hitting back blindly at the wrong Muslims. Not giving the impression that we are at war with Islam, or indeed any country that poses no threat to us. Not alienating the world. Not sacrificing our civil liberties on the altar of - what? Patriotism? Jingoism? A stupid willingness to cut our own throats, lest someone else do it first? Let's stop doing what the terrorists would dearly love us to do first, and then start talking about who's being defensive.

Bush was not being proactive when he went to war against the wrong threat. Bush was being reactive. Bush was playing defense - badly. Bush has made us less safe. Bush is endangering our lives - continues to endanger our lives, because of his blunders.

Putting in office a Republican who supports Bush's presidency and Bush's decisions would mean that we are beyond playing "defense" with terrorism. It would mean we have lost.

That's right, I said it.

Vote Republican, and the terrorists have won. Because there is no Republican agenda to speak of beyond fear. Democrats stand for a social safety net, stand for social justice in greater measure than we have now. Democrats stand for an end to unnecessary and mishandled wars. Democrats stand for a check against rampant inequality leading to suffering for the poor, the different, the disenfranchised. Democrats stand for Christ's values. Don't take my word for it. Check in a Book.

Republicans stand for: lower taxes on the affluent and the superrich. Lower taxes on estates, because lord knows we don't want to discourage (economics: to tax is to disincentivize) people dying. No stem cell research. No right to an abortion - indeed, to integrity and control over one's own body. No hate crime laws. No laws limiting private ownership of assault weapons by felons - and no laws allowing felons to vote once their time has been served. No equality for blacks, women, gays, foreigners, or the disabled.

Republicans as a party stand against all that is good, all that is just, all that is right. All they have in their favor is that what they push for is what feels good (to some), what is easy (to deny others), and what has traditionally been the case.

It's weak tea for me, but then I'm more of a reform-minded person, at this stage in my life, than a fan of the past, the good times that never were, the glorious olden days. Let's let the past celebrate itself. We have a more just, a more (equitably) prosperous, and a slightly less evil future to build.

And that should be all I'll have to say about Ruddy Rudy until he's out of this race for good. Goodbye, bad man, and don't come around anymore. I'm glad you're pro-gay, but it would help if you had any integrity, any shame, and any fitness for the job you're running for.