Is This Their Legal Defense? (ACORN)

I saw this on NPR just today and find the entire legal defense rather troubling. I consider myself a champion of fair play and if ACORN and its employees have been wronged, I would be the first to speak up for them. But I don't see it here. If you haven't seen the vid posted all over YouTube, CNN and other places, you might want to check it out.

[[[Part 2 of 2]]]]]

The journalistic methods used were sound, not necessarily professional like CNN or NBC, but they did the one important thing that the big guys do: visit multiple places to gauge whether the first was a anomaly or the tip of the iceberg. So kudos to Hannah Giles and James Okeefe.

Back to my point... NPR reports that ACORN not only fired these two ladies who gave the "pimp" and his "prostitute" advice on how to skirt the law, but ACORN also filed a lawsuit against Giles and O'Keefe for - now get this - it 'damaged ACORN's reputation'. EXCUSE me? Your employees willfully aided and abetted a hypothetical criminal enterprise, but the people who filmed it damaged your reputation? Dang. Talk about shooting the messenger!

Now the funny part....

The story goes on to say that ACORN wants all distribution of said video stopped. This the age of the Internet, man! Ain't no stopping that train! There's people like me that the courts cannot stop, and even if they did - it's too late. Do they not live in the same sphere the rest of us do? All the important people (i.e. the people who can bring down ACORN) have already seen it. Congress is investigating too and ACORN wants it to stop? Funny stuff. I guess it doesn't hurt to ask.

And for more funnies....

The issue ACORN is using to bring this embarrassing situation to an end is the old Johnny Cochran trick: "If you can't refute the evidence then refute the one who brings the evidence" (okay, the late JC didn't actually make up that trick, but you get the point). The NPR story says that ACORN is suing using the Linda Tripp Law - the one that says both parties have to know the conversation is being recorded. True enough, but NPR quotes their attorney as saying -

While everyone, including them, agrees that some of the things they said were dumb, in Maryland we have a right to say dumb things in the privacy of our homes and offices without fear of being taped and without fear of being splashed all over the Internet."

---Andrew D. Freeman — an attorney for ACORN

If that's not attorney speak, I don't know what is. I mean, does it really make sense to you that I'm free to say stupid stuff to a prospective client without fear of repercussions? If that's the case then the two ladies shouldn't have been fired. They should be free to say whatever they want without fear of losing their jobs!! We should all behave like we are being taped - because you are... Did I mention this is the age of the Internet?

Bringing It Down and Keeping it Real

I genuinely feel bad for these two ladies the former employees of ACORN. We could pick them apart all day, but I won't do that. It is hard for me to accept their fate in a way because I have seen ACORN at its best. They do a legitimate service - sometimes. Unfortunately, they have come under a lot of fire for a number of indiscretions - both real and perceived - so something like this was bound to occur. Particularly in this environment (some of the more cynical conservatives even blame ACORN for the landslide election-day loss).

My take from this video? There are several... One, I find it mind-boggling that the ladies in this video didn't seem to pick up on the fact something was wrong. No pimp uses the word "prostitute". I don't care how "classy" he may be. In fact they had to tell him to stop using the word "prostitute" and call Giles a "performing artist". That should have been a red flag.

Two, ACORN's mission is the help the indigent, less-represented members of society. I'm sure they deal with such unsavory characters as Giles and O'Keefe all the time, but I doubt any of them were as white (er, I mean 'eloquently spoken') as these two. Judging from the employees' reactions, I can't tell if they caught on and were playing along, or if they genuinely thought they were actually helping someone in need. If they were following ACORN protocol, then they should not have been fired. ACORN should have been reprimanded (which they were, later, by Congress no less).

Three, which is obvious - ACORN should always try to uphold the law, regardless of the circumstances. The video made its point for the anti-community organization crowd.

That's my hit for today. It has been a while, hasn't it?

The New Chrysler and the Fenton, MO Plant

Senator Claire McCaskill Meets With Chrysler

You know how much it hurts to say this, but it must be said - again..... My friends who work at the Fenton, MO plant are being let go, possibly permanently. Much has been said and much is known about the Chrysler restructuring. And I cannot conceiveably blame McCaskill for going to bat for my fellow Americans who just completed their last day at Chrysler. However, I can point out that her "talks" with Chrysler not only won't do much good, but it political grandstanding at its finest.

I don't care much for Claire McCaskill, and this latest stunt is just one more example why. First of all, Chrysler is no longer an American car company. Everyone who's read the newspaper or listened to tv or radio knows by now that Chrysler is now an Italian car company who's parent company is Fiat. Being a senator, I must assume she knows this. Fiat's first priority is not to keep Americans working. In fact, the status of the American work force, particularly at Fenton is of no concern to Fiat. It's primary mission is to get new, exciting cars to market as quickly as possible. If Ms. McCaskill has any sense, she should know that too.

Fiat is keeping some American plants open, but not all. They can't afford to keep them all open just to keep people employed. They have to restructure and that requires some very, very difficult decisions. Everyone at Chrysler knew such decisions were necessary.

So what's the purpose of this "meeting"? So that when it comes to her re-election bid, she can say she tried. But why raise the hopes of so many people - including people like me who have no connection to Chrysler? Congress gave Chrysler an ultimatum which included the Fiat deal. Now that the deal is done, and the economics didn't work out in your favor, McCaskill is crying foul? Talk about hypocrisy!

To my friends at the Fenton, MO plant, I'm very sorry that your company is in such deep trouble. In spite of my rhetoric, I do hope that McCaskill or any other government official can help each and every one of you through this difficult period. I may not work there, nor work in any related industry, but like all workers in all industries - our livelihood depends directly upon our customers being employed, with steady incomes and able to purchase our goods and services. Whether you know it or not, some of you are my customers. If you're unable to continue buying my products, I will struggle as well, and in fact already have. My point is, it is imperative we keep the work flowing for all those who want to work.

Goodbye, Mr. Jackson

As everyone knows by now Michael Jackson, a person who's life and work I admired greatly, passed away yesterday 6/25/2009. My condolences to the Jackson family and friends. Like all of his millions of fans, I'm deeply saddened by his departure. My only wish is that the haters and naysayers who dogged him since 1987 will give him, the Jackson family, and all of us devoted fans the peace we deserve.

As I listened to the radio today, the DJ was asking people to call in to tell everyone what Jackson hit meant the most to them and why. Well as a fan, I have several, but the one that hit home the most was a somewhat obsure song that never made it to the clubs or even on most radio stations - Leave Me Alone from the album Bad. The song was the first of several songs telling people to get out of his business.

At the time I was in college and in my social circles I had people all up in my business too (although no where near what MJ was dealing with), so the song really resonated with me. Leave Me Alone fit my mood perfectly. Also I liked the fact he fought back negativity in the best possible way, through his music.

Farewell Mr. Jackson. As I listen to "Keep the Faith" on my PC now, I wish you well in your new resting place. Thank you for showing us the Man in the Mirror for that is the only way We Can Change the World.

United Says You're Too Fat to Fly

From Marketplace: Heavy Passengers Must Buy Two Seats

Audio of Story

I prefer to fly first class, but can’t afford it. Although most people looking at me wouldn’t conclude I’m overweight, the fact is I’m very tall, of athletic build, and the airline seats are atrociously uncomfortable. So I would gladly pay an extra $100 more for a comfortable seat. However just paying extra doesn’t buy me more comfort (unless I go first class for $1000 more). The airline wants the fat passenger to pay them for lost revenue since they cannot fit another passenger on board. In return the fat passenger gets what? Nothing. The seats don’t suddenly become comfortable simply because no one is sitting next to them. On some planes the armrest is fixed so the wide-body passenger has the same discomfort, same issues as if they had paid less and sat next to another passenger.

I understand the airlines need to draw in more cash. But I don’t understand their methods. They should know by now people don’t like to be nickeled and dimed to death. This “fat surcharge” is just another nuisance charge. What’s next? An extra charge for people whose legs are too long that prevents the person in front of them from reclining or the person next to window from getting out to the restroom? How about charging wheelchair-bound people for the extra space, time, and weight they bring to the plane? Oh, and charge extra for crying babies too - they make flights memorable, to be nice. They could charge old people who walk too slow, or young people who refuse to turn off their radios when told to.

Sorry I can’t get behind this rule at all. Fortunately I don’t fly that often because the seats are so uncomfortable. I drive or take the train or a boat virtually everywhere I travel. You small people can enjoy your flights.

Good Morning and Happy Easter

I will probably not go to church today, although I know I should. I've become quite disenchanted with the entire religious experience over the years. Not that I don't love God or Jesus any less, not that I don't believe in the lessons Jesus and his disciples teach, but rather that church has become disturbingly passive and/or hateful. I no longer find peace in church, even in happier churches - the ones that gleefully celebrate God (as opposed to the monotone drone of other churches).

First of all, western Christian churches in particular behave more like corporations vying for market share than holy entities saving our souls. During the American slave era, American churches weren't united on the evils of slavery. Quite the opposite. Southern churches preached to the enslaved, even attempting to interpret the Exodus as proof that slaves shouldn't run away from their masters. Northern churches didn't exactly put themselves on the forefront of abolition, some did, serving as stops along the Underground Railroad, but most sat on the sidelines. Now, virtually all churches in the North and in the South acknowledge slavery for what it is. Why couldn't they do that during the height of the slave trade? Did God suddenly change His ways? The Bible hasn't changed, so what gives?

Following the slave trade, churches again had the opportunity to lead and failed to do so. Racism became the next challenge with Jim Crow laws being passed at the beginning of the 20th century. Again Southern churches in particular embraced it - barring blacks from attending the same church as whites. One of many stories that came to me is about 4 little girls - all of whom were black - decided to go to the closest church which was a "white" church. They walked in and the congregation gasped. The pastor came up to the girls and told them they can't come in. "This church is for people going to 'white heaven'", he said in a decidedly Southern drawl. " Your church down the street is for people going to 'colored heaven'". Now, in 2009, that same church has black and white members. So what happened? Why is it that in 1950 it was exclusively white, but in 2009 it now accepts all people? I didn't realize God was subject to equal housing laws.

Women in America were long held down - not allowed to hold positions of power or do certain things that were considered "manly work". The church followed suit, not allowing women to become pastors, ministers, deacons, etcetera. But they could organize bake sales, work in the kitchen and teach Sunday School - jobs considered women's work. It wasn't until AFTER society began accepting women as 1st class citizens that the church began to allow women in more high profile roles. The one exception is the Catholic church, but even The Vatican is under intense pressure to allow female priests. Again, if women weren't good enough to be ministers or deacons then, why now? Is God subject to fair hiring laws too?

Even now in the 21st century, Christian churches face the same opportunity to lead and have already stumbled. Gays in the clergy is a hot-topic, just as slavery and racism were. Unlike racism which isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, homosexuality is stated and called an "abomination". So churches have used this point as a way to keep gays out of the clergy and other church roles. But society is changing and is becoming more accepting of gays and lesbians. And just like the issues before, the church will eventually cave-in, but only after gays and lesbians earn respect in secular society. The churches who have already accepted gays can and have pointed to the New Testament where Jesus accepted all people - including a known prostitute. Church again will follow, not lead.

Churches have used religion to justify virtually anything that is explicitly against the 10 commandments. War of any color should always be vigorously opposed by any church, synagogue, or mosque that is true to itself. The war in Iraq was supported by Christian churches, just like World Wars I, II, the War of 1812, and most other conflicts where America was attacked first. Yet the sixth Commandment says: "Thou shalt not kill". It does not say "Thou shalt not kill except in self-defense, or in case of war, or on behalf of Jesus, or by accident". OUR laws may say that, but that isn't church law. In Mathew 22:36-40, Jesus himself explains that second greatest commandment is to love thy neighbor as thyself. Yet, many of the pastors I listened to in 2003 made no distinction between peaceful Muslims and Islamic terrorists. They used the actions of a few to justify attacking a sovereign country and a peaceful religion. It's as if Christians don't have their own terrorist groups (i.e. Ku Klux Klan, Skinheads, Neo-Nazis), only Islam. It's bad enough that those of us who attend church can't follow the 10 Commandments. But if the church can't serve as an example - what hope does the individual have?

This issue goes way, way, back to the Middle Ages where Christian churches justified attacking Muslims in order to wrest the holy cities of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth away from them. There's many other examples of this same contradictory behavior on the part of churches in other parts of the world.

I know full well why Christian churches behave in this manner. They are trying to attract and retain their flocks. The pastor from the white church I mentioned would have lost his members if he spoke out forcefully against segregation. Much as the pastors I listened to in 2003 would have also lost members if they vehemently opposed attacking a Muslim nation. There's the rub. These churches are concerned about losing market share. They don't lead society, they follow. And in doing so they simply justify our behaviors (good and bad) all the while leading us to believe that "God is on our side", when in fact he is not. There's a saying, "God don't like ugly". And since war is ugly - God doesn't like war and therefore he's not on the side of either participant, but on the side of the peacemaker. The same logic can be used for slavery, racism, sexism, or other ugly -isms you can think of.

I am Christian. I believe and love Jesus Christ and always will. I also follow his teachings to the best of my ability. However, I need assistance at times, and unfortunately that assistance cannot be found in any Western Christian Church. I admire and immensely appreciate the sacrifices Jesus gave us, but just because he died for us, doesn't mean we're off the hook. We have our own sacrifices to make and it is His example we should follow. Why can't my church lead by example?