Vets portrayed as "Christian soldiers" at Tigard High

Bruce Adams, president of the local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, sent members and supporters (count me in!) this modern parable.

He writes:

Recently, a controversy arose over two videos that were shown for a Veterans Day Assembly at Tigard High School on November 5. One of the videos was of a speech by Oliver North to the National Rifle Association in 2009. Approximately a third of North's speech is about how religious the troops are.

The real controversy, however, is about the other video — a series of powerful photos of soldiers. There are pictures of death and mourning. It is accompanied by the song “Heaven Was Needing a Hero.”

As the song, about death and resurrection, ends, the screen turns black. Then a final picture appears and is frozen in silence. It is of a gauzy Jesus embracing a transparent soldier in the clouds.

After Willamette Week and then The Oregonian ran short articles, local Americans United members contacted Bruce, who, in turn called the Tigard District spokesperson and the high school principal. Both assured him they "understood the problem" (in Bruce's words) and said there was no intent to violate the principle of separation of church and state.

The principal explained that student leaders run the assembly and he did not know they were planning to show the videos. The presentation was "simply an oversight" (again, those are Bruce's words).

In Bruce's letter to members and supporters, he wrote that when he investigates such violations, he is often told, 'It is no big deal. Besides, no one complained about it.'

But some Tigard High School teachers did complain to the principal. And an anonymous person filed a complaint with the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission.

If you too are moved to complain, Tigard High School's principal is Mark Neffendorf and his e-mail address is mneffendorf@ttsd.k12.or.us.

After seeing the videos, I'll add that, beyond the question of the religious references, I am troubled at the dramatic glorification of war and fighting. Whatever happened to "Love your enemy"? Didn't that guy in the clouds have something to say about that?

Let's call these videos what they are: thinly disguised recruitment ads shown to their prime (and vulnerable) target audiences.

More for the "dot list"

Aaron Corvin, a former student, has weighed in on the "dot" list.

More questions (and a thought or two):

What is the difference between information and knowledge?

How does the public become "informed" or "knowledgeable"? How do you know the public is either of those things? By what measure, if any?

Which vehicles media ((the medium is the message))) does the public use to obtain information and/or knowledge? Increasingly the Internet? Newspapers, print or online mostly? Their neighbors? Television? Radio? Video games?

When they obtain information and/or knowledge, do people act? Or just talk? Or forget it? Or ignore it? How do people use information? What information is useful?

My thought: I recall talking with Rick about Sarah Palin (yes, I know, this is a tired subject, but ...). I think his comment was that she isn't stupid. Maybe she's even smart. But what was her education? Rick said he recalls Palin saying her First Amendment rights were being violated because people were criticizing her. Huh? Hello? The First Amendment doesn't work that way.

How is it possible for a major candidate for a major national public office to fundamentally misunderstand the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? (Palin demonstrated this again in her debate with Biden when she remarked that the vice-president presides over Congress !?) What happened where Palin went to school? Or, better yet, what didn't happen?

My guess: No civics lessons whatsoever. No sense of what the country was founded on. No teaching of US history and of the Bill of Rights, beyond perhaps scratching the surface. Do you need these things to become the governor of a state?

To carry this further, go back to "Idiocracy" (the film): If all you're concerned about is where you're going to get your next box of Cheez-Its, and whether Channel 8 will have reruns of "Friends," then why shouldn't media (newspapers, too) give "the people" what they want? Paris Hilton, a slogan or two about America, and a 12-column inch story about a neighborhood shooting with no answer as to whether crime overall is actually up or down.

Who's to blame here? What happened to us as Americans? Why so much candy and so little broccoli?

Or am I off my rocker, and things are better than I think? Sarah is, after all, back in Alaska cooling her Jimmy Choos.

Questions, questions ... perhaps the dots will begin to connect ...

Press ignores Palin's First Amendment Ignorance

Let the record show that I can find no reference on-line to a major newspaper's reporting directly on Sarah Palin’s frightening ignorance regarding the First Amendment.

(On Friday in a radio interview, Palin suggested that press criticism of her was a violation of the First Amendment. Anyone who has taken middle-school civics knows that the right to voice and print such criticism is precisely what the First Amendment protects.)

I am reminded of the truism that our freedoms of speech and the press only have meaning if we use them. Why is the press refusing to use its freedom to inform the public about Palin’s appalling ignorance of the Bill of Rights?

How could it be that it is no longer newsworthy when a major party candidate for the second highest office in the land twists beyond recognition a basic principle on which the nation was founded?

Could it be that editors believe that most of the public doesn’t care about the First Amendment and whether Palin understands it?

Could it be that the majority of the American people themselves don’t understand or value our very first freedoms?

If that is the case, we are a nation in deep, deep peril. When the press doesn't call our leaders on matters as grave, we all will ultimately pay the price.

It is noteworthy that Palin’s comment is all over the blogosphere. New Media trumps Old. Incidents like this suggest that the death of newspapers may not be that great a loss.

Sarah Palin: First Amendment "Maverick"

Sarah Palin, who graduated from The University of Idaho with a degree in journalism, no less, must have been skinning a moose when they covered the First Amendment in class.

Memo to our would-be vice president: that’s the one that says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press or freedom of speech. It also guarantees your religious right to be blessed and protected in your church by a witch hunter — should you feel the need.

Sarah got the First Amendment terribly, frighteningly wrong in a radio interview on Friday:

Here’s what Sarah told the conservative radio host:

“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”

Hello, Sarah! The First Amendment guarantees the media, and anyone else for that matter, the right to criticize government officials and political candidates who are engaged in fear mongering, praising Boy Scouts, defending torture or extolling apple pie.

Alas, Palin, who is clearly no dummy, is astonishingly ignorant. Talk about a child, student and American citizen left behind.

While this little radio episode is all over the Internet, it will be interesting to see how the “mainstream media” cover it, if at all.

It’s an embarrassment to the political system and American education that a politician so ignorant of the First Amendment could have risen so far — even to be governor of Alaska or mayor of Wasilla, let alone candidate for the vice presidency of the nation.

Meanwhile consider, in full, the First Amendment, a cornerstone of our democracy.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

DA OKs ripping signs from utility poles

A week ago I wrote Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk an open letter asking whether I would be in violation of the law for my dogged, civic-minded tearing down of commercial signs ("1-800-Got Junk," "College House Painters," "Jobdango" etc.) posted on utility poles in the public right of way. An Oregonian story had reported that Schrunk's office questioned the constitutionality of a city ordinance prohibiting posting such signs in the public right of way.

Today I got a interesting response from Schrunk. Bottom line: I'm free to rip these little blighters off the poles. Unanswered: What exactly are the constitutional concerns that the DA's office and the Portland City Commissioners have?

Here's what Schrunk wrote:

Dear Mr. Seifert:

I have reviewed the questions you posed in your email regarding
signs on utility poles. I understand and appreciate your concern for the
blight caused by numerous signs being posted or attached to utility
poles in your neighborhood and others. Pursuant to Oregon law, my office
has been given responsibility for prosecution of Portland City criminal
ordinances. However, in this case, the Portland City Council has
expressed concerns about this ordinance and a desire to rework its
applicability from a constitutional perspective. The ordinance you cite
in your email, Advertising on the Streets, was enacted by the Portland
City Council many years ago. However, in 2002 both City Council and the
Portland City Attorney's office expressed concern about the
constitutionality of the language in this ordinance. At that time, the
City Council stated that they would be discussing this "controversial
item" with the intent to propose new language that they believed was
constitutionally supportable. However, as of this date, that apparently
has never been done.

In regards to your specific questions regarding whether you are
guilty of theft if you remove signs placed on utility poles, which are
indeed private property. My office would not prosecute a person for
taking signs off a utility pole that were not placed there by the owner
of the pole or placed there with the owner's permission. It would be
necessary for any person intending to remove anything from the private
property of another to ensure that the removal was with the permission
of the property owner.

The same reasoning applies to removing graffiti found on public
property. My office would not prosecute a person for removing graffiti
that was placed on public property as long as the owner of the public
property-i.e. the City, the County, or other governmental agencies-had
not granted permission for that graffiti to be placed on that public
property. Again, however, given some of the precarious places that
graffiti can be found, a person seeking to remove graffiti from the
property of another should first check with the property owner for
permission.

Again, I do appreciate your concern for what you describe as
"massive signage blight," and I hope this response addresses your
questions.


Very truly yours,

Michael D. Schrunk

Letter to the District Attorney

Following up on yesterday's post regarding the constitutionality of "illegal" signs on utility poles, I sent the following e-mail to DA Michael Schrunk's office today.

One question is whether it is worth the taxpayers' money for Schunk's office to respond. We'll find out. My money is on no response. How about yours?

Here's what I wrote:

I read the C1 Metro story in yesterday's Oregonian with particular interest as I regularly remove signs placed illegally on utility poles in our neighborhood of Hillsdale. In my car, I carry a long pipe, which I use to swat down signs placed beyond normal reach. As a courtesy, I often phone the numbers on the signs to inform sign owners that their signs are illegally placed on the poles and that I have taken them down. I also ask that they cease putting them up in our neighborhood, adding pointedly that because of the ordinance forbidding the signs, there could be a penalty associated with the postings. In other words, I may report repeated postings to the authorities. Then appealing to sweet reason and civic pride, I further note that if every business posted signs on our utility poles, the entire city would be a blighted maze of signs. Hence the anti-posting ordinance. I "personalize" the issue with this question: How would you like every pole in your neighborhood were covered with signs? Now, if I read The Oregonian story correctly, your office questions the constitutionality of the ordinance and has decided not to prosecute violations of it. Obviously that undercuts my argument to violators. Indeed, it may serve as an open invitation for hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses, to post all shapes and sizes of signs on Portland's utility poles, which, if I am correct, are actually owned by the utilities (Does that make them private property?) So here are some questions? If I remove these signs, which you seem to deem constitutionally legal, am I guilty of theft? Or are they considered "abandoned property" like litter in the public right-of-way, which I can legally remove? Why did the City Attorney not alert the council to the constitutionality issue when the council passed this measure? Certainly someone must have raised "First Amendment" questions. Is graffiti written on public property also protected? Are those of us who remove it guilty of some crime? If graffiti were written on a placard and placed in the public right of way, would it be legal? Would obscenity make a difference? Portland may be weird, but is it THAT weird? And what about the small stand-alone signs on wire frames which are often put up at important intersections by 1-800-Got-Junk and JobDango? (I remove those as well, using the arguments mentioned above.) If the ordinance is indeed unconstitutional, what is to prohibit the kind of massive signage blight I am describing? I do not want to get into the content of the (anti-police) message in question in the Oregonian story, but it is easy to see that a back and forth between contentious groups would add immensely to the signage problem. Finally, and as an aside, I voluntarily remove these signs to protect the neighborhood from blight. I have often thought that the city should fine and bill the owners of the signs for removal with the money being contributed to the neighborhood association affected and whose volunteers have removed the signs. I look forward to a response from your office regarding this matter.