NOTE:  The BBC filmed a series of documentaries about the formation of the choir which can be viewed in its entirety on YouTube.  You will find links to the series on the YouTube page where the video is found, HERE.

My family, Easter 1956, on my grandparents' farm. That's me in my dad's arms. Behind us is the coal shed and, beyond that, the wash house where we did laundry.

Climate alarmists can’t catch a break these days, it seems.  First, about 5,000 more of those pirated emails that launched what’s commonly referred to as “Climategate” were released just before the United Nations convened its most recent climate conference in Durban, South Africa.  In the Hollywood spirit, publication of this most recent spate of damning emails was dubbed “Climategate II.”  Like sequels of the Hollywood variety, Climategate II seems to have failed to live up to its predecessor, at least in terms of the amount of media attention it’s managed to grab.  But before global warming enthusiasts breathe a sigh of relief, the lack of media splash is most likely due to the confirmatory nature of the newly-divulged material.  Same song, second verse, if you will.  And, let’s face it, with the world-wide economic meltdown, global climate change is no longer a pressing issue that concerns anyone but the most militant greenies.  Unfortunately, you can count Lisa Jackson, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in that group.  But I digress.

My grandparents and "Boy Dog" on their front porch. My dad tore down the barn behind them and used the wood to begin building a house of our own.

The U.N. soldiered on with their climate clambake in Durban in spite of the renewed scandal.  But the attendees from the developed countries are no longer so willing to play ball with what is, essentially, a scheme to redistribute wealth from those developed countries to the third world in the form of yearly payments totaling $100 BILLION.  There was no agreement to extend the Kyoto Protocol.  In fact, Canada went the other way — announcing its withdrawal from the original Kyoto accord in which it had agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent relative to its 1990 levels by next year.

The U.S. would have been wise to follow Canada’s lead.  Our country’s commitment under the Kyoto agreement would require us to cut back greenhouse gas emissions to levels not seen in this country since 1910.  A little research into what life was like in the U.S. in 1910 gives new meaning to the word “austerity.”  Here’s a list of just a few of the modern conveniences that were not common in the America of 1910:

• electricity
• running water
• indoor plumbing
• automobiles or other motorized forms of personal travel
• central heating and cooling
• telephones

My grandparents' house circa late 1940s or early 1950s.

Anyone waxing nostalgic for those good old days?  Not me, and I speak from experience.  I actually spent a large chunk of my childhood (mid ’50s through the mid ’60s) living with my grandparents and seven other of my closest relatives in a five-room farmhouse.  We did have electric lights and my grandfather owned an old car, but we lacked all of the other conveniences on the above list.  Been there, done that, have the t-shirt.

In fact, since my carbon footprint was so very small in my formative years, according to the logic of modern climate orthodoxy as pronounced by the U.N., you city folks probably owe me some real money.  I’ll get back to you with the P.O. box number where you can send your donations.  Heck, maybe I should look into that new thing — you know — I think it’s called Paypal.

While I’m waiting for all those cards and letters and electronic payments to start rolling in, I’ll spend my time listening to what I hereby nominate as the theme song of the climate change movement.  Who knew that John Fogarty was so far ahead of his time?

Since we had already planned to point out problems we’ve discovered in City of Lincoln Attorney Rod Confer’s explanations for City policy, we decided to address OL members’ comments about the legality of the group’s encampment at the same time. (Much of Rod Confer’s explanation was heard on Coby Mach’s October 20 Drive Time Lincoln show – a full transcript of which we published with links to the audio file).

City officials’ credibility is now in question, due to their actions, inaction, and the incomprehensible justifications. This damage is entirely self-inflicted and necessarily has resulted in persisting questions regarding past decisions and the precedents that have been set for the future.

It is difficult to analyze present policy other than as follows: Rather than City officials and the Lincoln Police Department acting in the traditional and duly constituted role of equal protector of all citizens’ rights, the message now being conveyed is that the rule of law in Lincoln will be applied in a wholly unpredictable and discretionary manner. Private property may or may not be protected¹ and public property will be available to certain groups and individuals under discretionary and limiting terms. Conversely, public property might be open for use by other groups and individuals in ways that violate long-standing laws and policies. All of these applications of law are being and will be based on some nebulous, mysterious, and ultimately, highly suspect paradigm.

I stress again here that most of the material we’ve published about OL has been focused on the actions of City officials. Why? Because City officials formulate policy, implement those policies in the form of City ordinances and regulations, and then enforce them as law.  When in doubt, Lincoln’s citizens must look to City government to answer their questions and concerns about what is — and what is not — legal and then conform their behavior to their understanding of the law.  The City has failed to live up to that responsibility with respect to the OL group.

As a result, members of Occupy Lincoln have convinced themselves of a number of fallacies…

1. The Occupy movement is speaking for “the 99%”, and by extension, therefore, Occupy Lincoln is speaking for “the 99%”.
2. Those opposed to the Occupy movement are part of “the 1%”.
3. The Occupy movement people are the first to discover the Constitution and the first ten amendments to the document (a.k.a “The Bill of Rights”), and are just plain smarter than the rest of us in figuring out how to avail themselves of the rights contained therein.
4. Camping is speech which cannot be in any way regulated or prohibited by government under the First Amendment and, so, Occupy Lincoln has “a right”, legally, to their encampment on the Centennial Mall. Tents are equivalent to people and are, therefore, equivalent to the right to free speech.
5. The Mall is not a City Park, it’s…some kind of public space.
6. Occupy Lincoln’s presence on the Mall is not in any way problematic to the City and the group is obeying all ordinances, but even when one is violated here or there, that is an individual’s fault, not the responsibility of the group.
7. Critics of City officials’ handling of the whole affair, including GiN and Julie Schmit-Albin, are purely politically motivated and are just trying to get the group evicted from the Centennial Mall.

Likely, there are more fallacies, but I will limit myself to those which I’ve identified in the above list.  Even then, it will be necessary to devote more than one article in order to cover them all.  I’m taking up the first three of the seven listed in the following remarks and saving the remainder for another day and at least one more, perhaps two, articles.  I’m spending so much time on this whole subject because I want to ensure that OL members will not continue to cling to the fallacies listed due to any failure on GiN’s part to be absolutely clear. Apparently, our prior articulations have failed to penetrate.

A secondary purpose is to make something very clear to readers who generally appreciate what we do here – particularly those readers who are skeptical about this subject’s importance. We’ve learned much about how our City government is being run and that insight is more important than specific recent events.

1. Occupy Lincoln is not speaking for the 99% – the ENTIRE Occupy movement doesn’t even represent 1% of the U.S. population.

First, let’s just deal with facts.

By the most generous constructions available, participation in the Occupy movement by Americans is less than 1% of the population.

One of our commenters, “JrOLOM” stated that he supports “the more than 1600 Occupy groups”. In the spirit of generosity, I’ll use a larger figure cited in a November 17, 2011, article in the New York Daily News, which reported a total of 2,427 Occupy locations. Although the article doesn’t specify whether that’s in the United States, or worldwide, let’s, for the sake of argument assume it’s in the U.S.

Using the more generous figure of 2,427, let’s presume participant number of 10,000 per location, which quite amply accounts for any large turnouts, whether on-going or one-time, in any larger cities such as New York.

So using those numbers, the total number of Occupy participants, nationwide would be…

2,427 x 10,000 = 2,427,000

According to the 2010 Census², the total population of the U.S. is:

308,745,538

Percentage of the population participating in the Occupy movement nationwide?

0.8%

And no, that’s not a failure to appropriately format or convert a decimal number to percentage. That IS the percentage³.

Again, the participation figure I selected was generous. According to one statistical analysis, incredibly so; estimated participation in Occupy protests nationwide was 70,000 – 100,000. I won’t do the calculations based on those figures, because, is it even necessary?

What about Occupy Lincoln specifically? Does that group speak for 99% of Lincolnites?

No, actually; Occupy Lincoln, again, by the most generous assessments, does not represent 99% of even the City’s population.

According to the 2010 Census, Lincoln’s population is 258,379.

The most generous figures reported for Saturday march participation has been in the hundreds, according to the previously cited analysis, 475 on October 15. In the event that figure is way off, we’ll round up to 1,000.

Percentage of Lincoln’s population participating in the Occupy Lincoln group, at its peak?

0.4%

And no, again, that’s not a failure to appropriately format or convert a decimal number to percentage. That IS the percentage⁴.

So, on a factual basis alone, Occupy, either nationwide or in Lincoln, doesn’t represent anything remotely resembling “the 99%”. But OL’s “JrOLOM”, goes even further:

“The 99% are fighting for more citizen control over our future as Americans.“

In addition to the blatant factual inaccuracy of claiming to represent 99% of the people, it’s arrogant and presumptuous. It’s not even credible to claim that “the 99%” are doing anything. How could such a small percentage of the population claim to know the minds of so many other people?

Even when these presumptions are well intended, as in OL member, Betty’s comment, below, it is condescending. In this case, this too, is also inaccurate (more on that later).

“The occupiers are there standing up for your rights as well even if you don’t see it now.” – Betty

I have a recommendation. Try doing what other groups do who are trying to gain a following; organize events, meetings, whatever, state what you stand for, invite people to join you. See what happens. When you speak about who you represent, avoid an overreach. It diminishes your credibility.

2. Those opposed to the Occupy movement may be opposed simply because they think the Occupy movement is wrong – wrong for any number of reasons.

• Considering that “the 1%” is such a very small number of the population, the statistical probability that an opponent is even “part of the 1%” is unlikely.
• People may not agree with your assessment of the country’s ills. They may think there are different reasons for our problems than you’ve stated.
• People may agree with your assessment of the country’s ills, they may just not like your tactics (i.e. public protesting, marching, sign-waving, camping, performing a play in a bank, etc.).
• People may agree with your assessment of the country’s ills, they may disagree with you on your proposed solutions (i.e. income redistribution, prohibiting certain campaign donations).
• People may not agree with your assessment of the country’s ills, they may not like your tactics, and they may not like your proposed solutions.
• People may not have a clue that the country has any ills and think you’re crazy.
• People may not like who you have representing your group in the media, online, or who you have standing by the tents when they walk by or walk up to talk

Classifying everyone who disagrees with you as part of the class you have labeled as “the problem” is not likely to win them over.

People who disagree with you are not necessarily ignoramuses whom you must educate.

“Once the 99% understand their power, we can work together to change this country for the better.” – JrOLOM

Occupy might even <gasp> be wrong.

3. There are people who do not agree with the Occupy movement who have been aware of the Constitution and the natural rights articulated in that document’s first ten amendments for some time.

There are people who know about Constitutional rights who believe the Occupy movement’s tactics and strategies are actually a perversion of the law, because others’ rights have not been respected and all citizens are now being imposed upon.

GiN, for instance, is a group that was founded in March of 2009. Our original Mission Statement, only slightly “tweaked” since, mentioned the Constitution, right off the bat. Our leadership embraces the original meaning of the Constitution and the natural conclusions that follow; government’s number one job is to protect people’s God-given rights. But they need to be protected equally.

As I stated at the beginning of an article on October 26:

“Whatever disagreements I have with the Occupy Lincoln group, I do agree, of course; they have a fundamental right to speak their minds. Because I know they have that right and, also, the right to peaceably assemble, I was, if anything, ambivalent about their Saturday, October 15, event on the Mall and at the State Capitol. It didn’t even occur to me that the group landed on downtown Lincoln that day with plans for a contingent to literally occupy the Centennial Mall.“

In other words, it is actually logically and philosophically consistent to support Occupy groups’ God-given rights to speech and assembly, regardless of agreement or disagreement on the political philosophy, AND ALSO strenuously disagree with the strategy and tactics that involve the seizure and indefinite occupation of public property.

It’s also important to point out a key difference in political philosophy.  There are many other Americans who understand their rights as articulated by our Constitution who acknowledge violations of them in the way laws are written and/or carried out. What sets these Americans apart from the rapacious Occupy movement people is that they subscribe to a very important concept:

People who disagree with a law, even if they believe it is a violation of their rights, still obey such laws. Why? Because to do otherwise is a step down the road to mob rule.

The U.S. is a Constitutional republic, which is a nation of laws, not of men. If there are laws on the books which we believe constitute the perpetration of a grievance – a violation of our rights – we should use the duly constituted processes that are available. Those include bringing the matter to the attention of the elected officials who make and execute laws, or, if in more pressing circumstances, seeking relief through the courts, and beyond that, through the electoral process. Civil disobedience should always be the last resort.

Occupy groups have done none of the things noted above; they addressed bureaucrats, and according to many reports, cited the prospect for legal action if their plans were not accommodated. These actions were not undertaken for the purpose of broadly addressing grievances that affected all citizens, they were done simply to achieve their own goals – which was to build indefinite encampments on public property.

In justifying their actions, spokesmen for Occupy groups, including a spokesman in Lincoln, make such statements as the following, employing very contorted logic:

“Fortunately, Americans in civil service tend to value our constitutional right to openly protest, so the notion that they would unlawfully do anything against the folks on Centennial Mall, should cause us all to pause and think. The laws have been carefully researched and are understood.“

Considering what is known about JrOLOM / JrOLM’s prior statements on this subject as a whole (more of them to come), we are, at best skeptical that such statements are genuine. Is it truly that “Americans in civil service…value…constitutional rights”, or is it they didn’t want legal trouble? We will return to this point in #7.

Another OL member, a fellow using the handle “Sir Reverence” made many statements which we respect and appreciate. Sir Reverence attempted to be reasonable, thoughtful, and, we believe is sincere and genuine in his efforts to dialogue with us, such as in the following:

“To a certain extent, members of Occupy Lincoln have been surprised with how well we have been treated by the city and by police. The asymmetrical enforcement of the law as regards Ms. Schmit-Albin’s group and others is concerning to us as well, and it also reflects poorly on us by making it appear we are receiving favoratism from the city.“

Sadly, some participants in the Occupy group, either past or present, want to do only what is legal and right, but we believe some of them have been misled by local politicos in their own midst and by City officials, both of whom have their own agendas — agendas that don’t necessarily square with what the majority of OL members consider the group’s ultimate goal(s). The members of Occupy who genuinely want all citizens’ rights protected have yet to realize that what they are doing necessarily requires a subversion of existing laws.

It’s time for the Occupiers to ask themselves a question:

If government’s primary purpose is to protect God-given rights, at what point does the exercise of your rights infringe upon others and what is your obligation regarding that infringement – even if public officials allow it?

Image Credit & Copyright Notice

Government “Demotivational” poster concept inspired by design HERE

Lincoln City-County Building photo by Tarah Dawdy

Corruption “Demotivational” poster concept inspired by design HERE

Occupy Lincoln photo through the GiN Tip Jar

Footnotes, References & Citations

Watchmen on the wall, sounding the alarm - hitting the right note?

Members of the Occupy Lincoln group noticed our recent article, “Occupy Lincoln Tipi Smokes and City Ordinances Burn, Officials Fiddle” and left a number of comments there.  Because we’ll be referring to some of those comments in the body of this article, we’ve linked directly to them so those who wish may see a particular remark in its original context.

We think it’s very important to note something the Occupy Lincoln (OL) members who commented here totally overlooked: The majority of our attention has been focused on the actions of City of Lincoln officials, not on the Occupy group itself. Since OL members have apparently not read other articles on our site and since they raised a number of issues which we have not addressed to date, we decided it was more efficient and potentially interesting to GiN’s regular readers to respond to the comments in a couple of articles. This article focuses on political philosophy and policy issues raised.

We do appreciate comments from OL members who say they wish to engage in a dialogue, along with a couple of sincere invitations extended to visit the encampment, but will defer serious contemplation of such an idea for the moment. Since OL members are not likely to be familiar with GiN, in addition to providing the links to basic information about us, we are expanding the articulation of some principles here, directly. GiN’s Mission Statement, Principles, Policies, and Operating Philosophy, all laid out with much contemplation, are our guide, including regarding how we interact with other groups.

Do OL and GiN have a number of common concerns? Yes.

Are our principles similar? That’s the question.

OL members referenced “Democracy”…

“…join in our quest to get a Democracy of the people and for the people back into America.” – Betty

“…the Democracy that our forbearers worked so hard for.” – JrOLOM

It’s impossible to overlook the irony that exists in Occupiers’ calls for democracy for two reasons:

1) The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Our forefathers did not work hard for democracy, rather, they explicitly spoke against that form of government.

Perhaps one of the more concise articulations for why is contained in the following quote from one of those very forebearers:

“In Federalist No. 10, James Madison, often referred to as “the father of the Constitution,” said, ‘[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.‘”

James Madison - "Father of the Constitution"

James Madison’s remarks, in articulating the reasons to support the Constitution, not only provide evidence that there was deliberate avoidance of democracy, there were sound reasons for it. A political movement that, at its core, calls for “income equity” – and indeed, outright class warfare – does seem incompatible with rights of property.

But Mr. Madison is not the only founder with a dim view of democracy. For other quotes, cited to their original sources, we refer to two GiN articles, written by Linda, which address this subject comprehensively, :

A Republic If You Can Keep It

Majorities Don’t Always Know Best

2) It is, in fact, more than a century’s long march straight towards democracy and away from republican (note the small “r”) government which has laid the groundwork for the increasingly corrupt political system we have today.

It is not that our founders didn’t believe that our system existed for the benefit of the people, in fact, the opposite was true. They chose a representative government precisely because it struck a balance between what they perceived history had proven wrong with democracy — the undue influence of temporary public passion — and what they had personally experienced living in a monarchy — the tyranny of absolute power coalesced in an elite ruling class (the noble aristocracy) and personified in the form of a king or queen elevated (supposedly by God) from within that narrow elite.

An examination of amendments to the Constitution proves that more elements of democracy have been injected into our system over time, and it can’t be said that it has resulted in a government closer to or more representative of the people¹. At least not if we accept the mutually agreed upon idea that there is too much corruption in government at present.

The promotion of  democracy in America (and increasingly, around the world), especially for the last century, has really been about fomenting the populace for or against ideas of the moment. If politicians can just get a large enough number of people worked up, they can win the issue. We don’t think it’s a coincidence that the words “popular” and “majority” are synonyms.

Beyond “winning” an issue, politicians also foment populist sentiment to deflect responsibility.

And that brings us to what we see as a set of inherent flaws in the Occupy movement’s philosophy and in the statements, both those made in the comments on our site and others reported since OL’s founding in mid-October, by local members.

It seems patently obvious to us that the Occupiers’ core set of complaints is strikingly similar to a set of policies, phrases, and ideas that have been recycled over and over again for the past century:

• Big bad corporations, Square Deal – Teddy Roosevelt
• Big bad bankers, Federal Reserve – Woodrow Wilson
• Tax the rich / redistribution as part of “Relief, recovery, reform”, New Deal – FDR
• New Deal extension and expansion, Fair Deal – Harry Truman
• War on Poverty, Great Society – L.B. J.
• “Fair share” , “inequality hurts democracy”- Barack Obama

Very specifically, citing to the last item in the list above, it also seems patently obvious to us that Occupy adopts rhetoric long used by the President and by Democrats generally; which contradicts claims that “all are welcome” and the OL group is “post-partisan”.

"Everything old is new again" - Time Magazine cover in 2008

Occupiers everywhere might wish to claim that President Obama stole their ideas for his December 6 speech, because those remarks are so very similar to Occupy groups’ core issues and statements. However, the President’s advocacy for increasing taxation on “the wealthy” or “the affluent” definitely predates the movement’s existence, as evidenced by many resources, including a February 26, 2009 article in the New York Times. We don’t know just when the President first used the phrase “1 percent”, but this, too, predates, at least by months, the Occupy movement, such as in April of this year when he said:

“The top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each.”

In addition to the several events cited above, we’ve written on this subject several times, including one article HERE. We hope the OL members can see why such evidence leads us to draw such parallels, and to see why we seriously question just how “post partisan” the entire endeavor could possibly be.

It seems to us that the Occupy movement generally, and the OL group, specifically, is serving the interest of one half of the Ruling Class about which the members complain by repeating talking points taken directly from their strategy book. Noting #2 above about democracy and politics in this country for too long, there are some obvious conclusions to draw.

Times are tough in the economy, it seems we all agree, and politicians have been fomenting class warfare and advocating for increasing “new” government interventions as solutions to distract people away from the primary cause for those tough times.

WHO writes the laws, promulgates the rules, and enforces the laws that sets the stage?

GOVERNMENT

In order for “Wall Street”, a.k.a. the banking and mortgage industry, to operate in the ways they did that resulted in an industry-wide meltdown, isn’t it curious that the entire climate, so heavily controlled and regulated as it has been for so long, both ensured that disasters would occur and that “too big too fail” creatures like AIG would ultimately be bailed out?

Who encouraged that climate, created the entities that regulated and set interest rates, and passed a flurry of legislation that set the stage? Government, through elected officials and bureaucrats, of course.

Who engineered, approved, and carried out the bailout? Government.

Yet, all of the solutions the Occupy movement proposes look to the very people who set the stage for all of these things to happen. That is inherently illogical.

• In order to bring about “income equality”, then government would have to take from some people and give to others.
• In order to prohibit campaign contributions by individuals or corporations, then government would have to violate rights to free speech.

Government is already picking too many winners and losers, so we cannot understand, of course, why Occupiers would look to that same place to provide solutions when there is provable history that we’ve seen this “movie” before. Again, we reference back to the historical fomenting of public discontent about problems in the country, noted above, and a long list of the continuing slate of “solutions” proposed by politicians to use government to solve them. History proves that the increasing interventions by government, in purported efforts to solve problems, have only compounded them.

So, beyond “winning” an issue and deflecting responsibility, politicians foment populist sentiment in order to increase the number and volume of calls from “the people” to “do something” to solve the perceived problem(s) of the day.  Those politicians respond to such calls for action by making more laws, by promulgating more regulations, and, ultimately, by increasing the size and consequent cost of government and the degree to which it intrudes in the lives and appropriates to itself the property of each and every citizen.  Of course, at the same time, the power and influence enjoyed by those same politicians increases as well.

(As an aside, we’re reminded of something Benjamin Franklin said – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.“  So much for seeking government solutions to the country’s problems.)

Another common thread running through the Occupiers’ comments is the desire for some unspecified “change,” presumably to abolish “injustice,” and/or economic or income “inequality”:

“[W]e know there is one thing that needs to change and that is our political system. Is there injustice? Everyday! Thats (sic) what we are there to talk about.” - Betty

“Economic equality and representative government are the civil rights issues of our time. . . . . Once the 99% understand their power, we can work together to change this country for the better.” - JrOLMO

“I would like to find some common ground between the left and the right on issues of income inequality . . . ” - Sir Reverence

We are incredibly skeptical that transformation of our system into a democracy, something it was never meant to be, would actually result in positive “change”.  (And we note this mantra’s similarity to a historic election campaign three years ago, which often used this phrase.) In fact, there are very good arguments that the sort of democratic government the Occupiers contemplate would only accelerate the decline our nation is currently experiencing.  Collectivism as a political/economic system — whether it be in the form of social democracy, socialism, communism, fascism, or, interestingly, corporatism — has proven itself a failure every time and everywhere it has been implemented.  From the former Soviet Union (for some reason, this reference always reminds us of the “Artist formerly known as Prince“) to the European social democracy/welfare states that are imploding before our very eyes, where is there or has there been a successful, long-lasting, collectivist government in which its economy and its people thrived?  There are none.

And, contrary to popular belief, collectivism has been tried in America.  William Bradford, the governor of Plymouth, recounted the Pilgrims’ failed experiment with common ownership of land and “income equality.”

“The failure of this experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, — that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort.” (at p. 115-116)

According to Bradford and the experience of the Plymouth Colony, collectivism works injustices of its own.  Primary among those injustices is the assumption that all men, regardless of merit and effort, are entitled to the same rewards.  The young men objected to being forced to spend their time and strength working for other men’s wives and families without recompense.  The strong and the resourceful among them received no greater share of food, clothing, etc., than did the weak and the apathetic.  Wives who were obliged to cook, sew, wash clothes, etc., for men and families not their own were likened to slave labor.  “This was thought injustice,” Bradford informs us, and “if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved amongst them. Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself. I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw that another plan of life was fitter for them.” (Id at 116.)

But, this aspect of “communal service” is what is commonly referred to as social or economic justice, and that’s what we understand the Occupiers to be referring to when they speak of economic or income inequality. (Incidentally, why is diversity the penultimate goal in all areas of life EXCEPT income distribution?  Inquiring minds really want to know.)  According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, “Dr. [Martin Luther] King’s dream was not to put one black family in the White House.  The dream was to make everything equal in everybody’s house.”

But history has shown that, contrary to collectivists’ utopian fantasies, man simply will not work as diligently or as effectively for the benefit of others as he will work for himself and his own.  It was true in Plymouth Colony in 1623, as William Bradford’s statements describe, and it is equally true today, because it is, quite simply, human nature. Man’s nature is such that we all work best when we are pursuing our own self-interests. There, is of course, a name for this system – capitalism.

Many allege that “greed” is inherent in the capitalist system, as if greed is somehow miraculously eliminated from the human psyche via collectivism.  We can think of no more accurate and concise defense of capitalism from this charge than was given by Milton Friedman during a conversation with Phil Donahue on Donahue’s television show in 1979.

What Friedman said in the above video is true today.  America’s history of capitalism and largely free trade has resulted in a population where, in 2005, the average poor person lived in a household with…

“a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.”

As Friedman indicated, there are no “angels” to organize society for us.  As James Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary[, and] if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary”.  Since men are NOT angels and never will be, anarchy is obviously not a practical alternative to our present system, but neither is some collective utopia in which all injustice and inequality among and between men magically disappears.  However, as Friedman argues, the record of history is crystal clear that the byproduct of capitalism and largely free trade has been improvement in the lot of ordinary people, in contrast to the grinding poverty experienced by the poor in the countries of the world where collectivist systems prevail.

In short, we do not believe we need “change”, we believe we need restoration of the constitutional republic, according to its original meaning. That means LIMITED GOVERNMENT, functioning to protect the natural rights of the people, of all of the people, equally.

Which brings us face to face with a fundamental problem we have difficulty overlooking; Occupy Lincoln talks about equality, but we can’t see it. To pick winners and losers is to treat people unequally, and in order to bring about what the group wants, government would have to pick winners and losers.

Are some Americans more equal than others? Apparently the Occupiers think so; that idea is inherent in the strategy of demonizing “the 1%” and claiming to represent the remaining 99%:

“The idea is that too few people hold too much power. Once the 99% understand their power, we can work together to change this country for the better.” – ILOVELINCOLN / JrOLOM

But is it really true that “the 1%” are “the enemy”, that as a result of their “greed” and their desire to not contribute “their fair share” that the economy melted down and is failing to rebound? We can’t see it. This concept of “eat the rich” is not at all new to us, and, from the very beginning, we were definitely put off when we saw the Occupy Lincoln group use as its logo, imagery that disturbed. It’s an allusion to violence – what else are such images intended to convey?

We point to a video that illustrates, quite starkly, that even if we did “eat the rich”, at least by confiscating all their wealth, we’d not get far at all in solving our nation’s problems. Note before watching the video, that we acknowledge there might be too much partisan humor for some within the video, but if viewers are interested in an actual illustration of what total confiscation would actually accomplish and are willing to overlook such humor, it might be informative – click HERE to view.

We have that video embedded, along with a good amount of additional information regarding “eat the rich” as public policy and that policy’s failure to solve these perennial problems:

Soaking The Rich: Why Warren Buffett Is All Wet

Debt Ceiling: I Laugh Because I Must Not Cry – That Is All!

In addition to calls for “income equality” and a targeting of one segment of the American population, Occupiers everywhere reference repeatedly the many ills caused by corporations. OL members’ comments, indeed, included such references, as follows:

There are fundamental problems with corporations running our government and it needs to stop. You may not agree with the tactics, but the message is hard to dispute. - Betty

That is why I protest the notion that politicians be allowed to take unlimited campaign donations, from the hugest corporate interests in the world, essentially destroying the Democracy that our forbearers worked so hard for. - ILOVELINCOLN / JrOLOM

We actually do take issue with the message about “corporations running our government”, “hugest corporate interests” (and certainly do not agree with unconstitutional limitations on speech) as standing alongside “the 1%” as the root of all evil.

Occupiers seem to be unaware that the concept of incorporating has been around for a very long time, and was, in fact, key in the settlement of America, as noted in the 1917 essay “Corporations in the American Colonies“:

“It was a corporation to which Sir Walter Raleigh, in 1587, entrusted the colonization of Virginia. The first permanent English settlements, both in Virginia and in New England, were made on the initiative and at the expense of corporations modelled after the contemporary joint stock companies for foreign trade. For over a century before the Revolution the colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island were each governed by a “Governor and Company,” incorporated by charter from the English crown. The colony of Georgia was founded, and for twenty years had its destinies directed, by a group of charitable English gentlemen who constituted a typical English eleemosynary corporation. The London and Edinburgh missionary societies, incorporated, were important factors in promoting the religious development in several colonies…”

Note the missionary societies, in addition to the business interests, and governing bodies which were corporations. The practice of incorporating, the formation of a corporation for all sorts of purposes has existed for a long time. There have long been debates regarding whether or not various entities in Ancient Rome were more or less similar to what became known as corporations; they at least constituted relationships between partners and among small groups and businesses, and governmental entities.

It seems ironic to us that a group which has formed its own corporate entity would point fingers at other corporations. Readers will note that Occupy Lincoln apparently filed as a non-profit corporation so it could raise funds to pay the expenses of its operations. We are not denigrating the group for making the choice to do this – although we decided from the beginning to avoid this path for many reasons – we simply point out that in order to raise money on an ongoing basis through the acceptance of donations, Nebraska law requires some sort of filing status. Most of the time, such groups choose non-profit status to avoid taxation of the donations as income.

It is a fact that under whatever construct, whether 501c3, 501c4, 527, or any other type of non-profit filing status available, such an entity is indeed, a type of corporation. We can only presume that if the concept of corporations, in and of themselves, were indeed so odious, then the group would not have decided to become one. We are only left to wonder…

Is it the profit motive then, that is the root of all the evil?

Is it the sheer size? In asking this, we harken back to JrOLOM’s remark about “hugest corporations”.

Earlier in this article we referenced “creatures” like AIG, underlining that we clearly took a dim view of the government policies that paved the way for “too big to fail” – we clearly believe such monstrosities have only come about because of government policies. We might agree that such artificially inflated creatures are signs of ill health in our economy, but we do not believe that for-profit corporations, in and of themselves are evil, nor that size alone is necessarily any indicator of inherent evil or purity.

We agree with much (but not all) of Sir Reverence’s statements about the problems with money influence in politics:

“I would like to find some common ground between the left and the right on issues of income inequality and the undue influence of money in politics, as I don’t see these as strictly left or right issues. We are frustrated with both parties and all three branches of government because they seem to have all but stopped listening to those who don’t “contribute”.  -Sir Reverence

We’ve already registered our disagreement with OL regarding “income inequality”, but we must also note disagreement about the “all three branches of government”; the judiciary should not be affected by who contributes and who doesn’t. We would say that out of all three branches, whatever its flaws, the judicial system is the least problematic. We believe the judicial branch, due to its inherent differences from the other two branches, must be considered separately from the legislative and executive branches.

Beyond that, however, Sir Reverence speaks of undue influence of money in politics – a problem found within both major political parties – and points out that people in government don’t answer much to those who don’t contribute. We definitely concur and appreciate this broader view.

And what about that money influence? Some questions -

Besides corporations (as in, those presumably indicated as the problem, those seeking profits)…

• Do non-profit corporations necessarily stay away from efforts to politically influence?
• What about “small” non-profits which operate, albeit in a limited way, but for the express purpose of influencing politics?
• And what about those entities which are associations and totally unincorporated who influence politics?

We ask about these types of groups, because an examination of campaign contributions to specific candidates from corporations, individuals, and all sorts of entities, to and from certain entities like Political Action Committees (PACs), from one political campaign to another, etc., would show that the Occupiers are far too limited and, in fact, partially inaccurate in focusing their ire at for-profit corporations.

We have included a snapshot here from the Open Secrets website, listing the top campaign contributors for the past 23 years at the federal level (Open Secrets obtains its numbers from the Federal Election Commission):

Click to view on Open Secret's site (individual links not clickable here)

Here is the same image again, this time annotated:

Click to view information on Open Secrets' site

In the annotated version of the image, it becomes very clear that 12 of the top 20 “Heavy Hitter” contributors are labor unions; meaning 60% of the heaviest contributors. That seems a stunning number to us, considering the most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which report that just 11.9% of the workforce is unionized. The statistics also show that the number of unionized workers is on the decline. Those concerned about “undue influence” might ponder this lopsided equation² We point to contributors number 3, 5, 6, and 11 on the list. AFSCME, SEIU, NSEA, and AFT are all public employee labor unions. In real terms, that means taxpayer dollars are literally being used to fund some of the most powerful money influences in politics – a taxpayer funded lobby. (Taxpayer dollars pay the wages from which the union dues come.)

We don’t have further space to devote to explaining just how huge a problem the power coalition of labor unions are in influencing public policy at the federal, state, and local levels. For OL members and all Americans who opposed the idea of bailouts, all should be outraged, in fact, to learn that the February 2009 “Stimulus” Bill and at least one other bailout (August 2010) were actually, in part, bailouts for states to rescue their public employee retirement funds. See the Footnotes³  for a list of some of the articles on the subject of cost of public employees and the impact of this political power coalition on Nebraska’s budget and public policies.

We do believe that unions actually constitute a greater threat than do for-profit corporations.

But we do not ignore that there are corporations on the “Heavy Hitters” list and, in fact, it is no surprise to see Goldman Sachs in such a high position. We are quite sure that GiN and OL would agree; Goldman Sachs is a problem. We believe Goldman Sachs is actually the poster child for the true problem when it comes to for-profit corporations and their influence in American politics today.

It is not the corporate form that is the problem.  When corporate interests levy undue influence on government, it is CORPORATISM, the unholy alliance between government and private business interests, that threatens our republic.  If you refer back to our first mention of COLLECTIVISM in this article, you will see CORPORATISM is one of the forms it takes.  So, in the final analysis, COLLECTIVISM is not the solution, it IS the problem.

We agree with Occupy Lincoln that there are too many of the wrong influences on government, but we must ask…

At the end of the day whose fault is it, really, that the elected officials we put into office allow themselves to be influenced?

For now, we’ll end with the following song, noting that we are all Americans. We think it’s appropriate; written by American Toby Keith, with traditional ideals but who has a mind of his own.  When asked, he’s said that he’s a conservative Democrat, but not all that “political.”  He engages in dialogue, regularly, with people from both political parties:

“The essence of Government is power; and power,

lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

~ James Madison, 1829

So, all quiet on the health care front?

Definitely not. There were recent news reports about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to consolidate and hear several health care law cases in Spring 2012 with a ruling expected in June. Immediately following that development, there were calls for newest Justice Elena Kagan, to recuse herself from the case due to her involvement within the Obama Administration during the passage of legislation. Controversy over Kagan’s pro-health care “reform” law email exchanges were followed by calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because of his wife’s political activism¹ and his own speaking appearances.

But in stating that all is definitely not quiet when it comes to the subject of health care reform – I’m not actually referring to the pending litigation.

Health care reform is being implemented right now, by Democrats and Republicans alike, within almost every state. And many of the very same Republican officials who promised to stop the implementation of  “ObamaCare” are actively assisting in that implementation.

Some lawmakers are even attacking activists who are sounding the alarm.

Since 2009, Republicans’ “we’re fighting for you!” mantra has been coupled with “our hands are tied” (i.e. “we’re the minority party…wait for the 2010 election…wait for the 2012 election”). That has now morphed into “we’re still against this thing!” but “we’re getting ready to implement it”…”just in case”…”we really don’t mean it – we’re really trying to protect you!”.

Please note the graphic at the top of this article. It was most deliberately chosen – Americans are not being told the whole truth about “health care reform”. Time is running out. As long as the majority of people continue to believe the half-truths – and outright lies – that are being told, what actually needs to happen to truly stop implementation will not occur, and it will be too late.

WHY aren’t elected officials, candidates, pundits, and think tank people telling the whole truth? First, many people, even some well-intended elected officials (a shrinking number, I recognize), don’t understand all of the many complex aspects of “health care reform” and are very mistakenly relying on what they’ve been told by others.

But, ignorance is only one of several problems.

We’ve already written a great deal about what Angelo M. Codevilla called “The Ruling Class”, and even launched a series about Nebraska’s version. Of course too many “R’s” are part of the big government team so they are going to go-along-to-get-along, even on “health care reform”. So they just pay lip service to action and even attack those point out that they’re losing the fight.

But that doesn’t explain the rest of the Republicans in federal and state offices, the pundits, and the think tank people. Too many people on “the right” are too often terrible fighters – they seem to give up before the battle even begins. And rather than acknowledging the need for improvement or looking around for support, they “settle” or just throw up the white flag.

And that’s just the Republicans. I know most people think there’s no mystery about “the left” when it comes to the issue of “health care reform”. My head already hurts from pondering the reasons for silence, inaction, and worse, the action from Republicans, so I’m not going to attempt to sort out too many details about Democrats.

Except one thing; many on “the left” understand all the details of “health care reform” and understand the VERY few options for getting out of its implementation.

I think a general review of three conversations I’ve had in the past year with people involved in state governments will likely do the best job of illustrating some of the problems I’ve noted. Since two of these conversations were private in nature, I’ve left out names. I will only say that one of the state legislators is a Nebraskan and one of them is not.

NONE of these positions are actually acceptable, are they? Of course not.

People who truly do not want “health care reform” implemented need to realize just what we’re up against here – the real solutions are simply not politically palatable. Think about the majority of elected officials we have in office everywhere. How many of them are willing to do what is politically unpalatable?

For those reading here wondering whether I’m saying – give it up! – we’re all doomed – THINK AGAIN. If we are ultimately doomed when it comes to this monstrosity that is being called “health care reform” it is only because there were not enough people who knew the truth, not enough people willing to do what was right, not enough people willing to sound the alarm, and not enough people willing to demand appropriate action from elected officials.

So – the first thing that is required is to STOP being credulous about what political types – at BOTH the federal AND state levels – tell us about these subjects.

BE SKEPTICAL.

“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” ~ James Madision

Don’t trust, VERIFY.

IF you are capable of a necessary healthy skepticism, here is what else is required:

• Get informed about the full truth – yes it is mind-numbing detail – sorry, I didn’t write the bills!
• Be willing to invest some of your time and talents
• Pull together with others who know the truth
• Work to inform as many people as possible
• Demand answers and action from elected officials
• Be prepared for criticism and push back
• Advocate for REAL solutions

I understand how unpalatable the “to do list” above may sound. It requires much more than showing up for a rally or sign wave, listening to a speaker who is running for office or selling a book, or even opening up a checkbook and writing a donation.

This article is actually the beginning of a series going over a number of important facts about “health care reform”, including recent developments. The entire series is nearing completion and for those who wish to “preview” it immediately, you can visit a page – HERE – which I’ve created here on the GiN site. (Note it is truly a “preview”; some changes, additions, and editing is still required as well as links that should be added.)

So – what is all of the activity I’ve mentioned?

While I will mostly focus on three states here, there is ample evidence, available from many sources, that Michigan, Oklahoma, and Nebraska provide much insight into what is going on in the rest of the country.

Michigan

Joan Fabiano of Grassroots in Michigan has been reporting recent events in her State Legislature – which has been energetic about “gittin’ ‘er done” on the whole health care implementation thing. The State Senate voted to approve the setup of the health insurance exchange in Michigan – a HUGE step – and the exchange bill has now moved onto the State House, which has scheduled public hearings on January 12.

Oklahoma

Some of our friends in Oklahoma, OK-SAFE (Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise), a group I’ve mentioned before, are tracking activity in their legislature. The only saving grace in Oklahoma at the moment is that the State Legislature is not yet in session. Recent activity has occurred, however, in off-session committee meetings in advance of the session (in the same way Nebraska has Interim Study activities between sessions).

One of them convened for the purpose of studying the implementation of the health care law. OK-SAFE Director, Amanda Teegarden, gave a presentation to her the Joint Committee on Health Care Reform on November 3, which I will reference again, several times throughout this series.

But the OK Legislature’s “studying” implementation has not been the only activity in the state. Earlier this year, the state’s newly elected Republican Governor, Mary Fallin (a former Congresswoman), announced she would accept a $54.6 million “early innovator” grant for which the previous governor had applied. Fallin had to retract her decision, however, when she received unexpected blow back from citizens. But Gov. Fallin, with the help of legislators, did not really stop working to implement the law – they instead opted for a “compromise” that moves Oklahoma towards setting up an exchange anyway, just in a different iteration.

SO – What about NEBRASKA?

• In August 2010, Nebraska’s Governor, Dave Heineman, applied for a $1 million ($999,999) federal grant to study a Nebraska insurance exchange set up

• In October 2011, Governor Heineman told the Omaha World-Herald he wanted to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule before setting up a Nebraska insurance exchange. A story in the Lincoln Journal Star reported that a health insurance exchange would not be set up until the Court ruled².

• The Nebraska Department of Insurance (an executive branch agency) applied for a $5.48 million grant to plan to set up the exchange and received the funds at the end of November.

What does this mean?

Regardless of particular details, the information above can be summarized very simply; Michigan, Oklahoma, and Nebraska are all working towards implementation of “health care reform” by engaging in any of the activities noted.

Hundreds of Millions in Health Insurance Exchanges Grants

Considering our level of debt as a nation, WHY are we spending money to…

STUDY

then

PLAN

then

IMPLEMENT

?

What are the costs – so far?

STUDY

The fact is, that all of the states except Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, and New Hampshire accepted $800,000 – $1,000,000 (most were $1 million) just to STUDY health insurance exchanges. Note that several of these states received the grant funds and then later decided to return them.

Total cost = $46.8 million

PLAN

Twenty-nine of the fifty states have now received some kind of grant to PLAN for health insurance exchange implementation. The smallest amount was $1.6 million for Tennessee and the largest was $63.8 million for Rhode Island.

Note that there are apparently two levels of grant funds for exchange planning, so the total amount for planning grants will significantly increase as states pursue implementation.

Total cost (to date) = $439 million

IMPLEMENT

“Early innovator” states – the states who the Federal Department of Health Human Services has called “States who are leading the way”, decided to embrace “health care reform” implementation and go full steam ahead. As noted above, the State of Oklahoma had originally decided to be an early innovator state, but, those funds were returned.

Total cost (to date) = $155 million

Two Questions To Ponder:

1. Considering all of the money spent so far, just to study, and plan, and only a small percentage of the possible total to implement, and JUST for the insurance exchanges, not other parts of the program, HOW is “health care reform” going to DECREASE the cost of health care?

2. Would YOU be studying and planning to implement something you weren’t going to implement?

This is just the tip of the iceberg and, without appropriate action soon – we might as well all be on the Titanic.

Stay tuned for the next installment, or click HERE to preview the working draft of the whole series.

Image Credit & Copyright Notice

“Health Care Truths” graphic, Copyright 2011 Grassroots in Nebraska and Shelli Dawdy, All Rights Reserved

Permission granted to re-publish or re-use WITH conditions:

1) Copyright notice must remain on the image.

2) When used online, a link back to our site is required.

Health Care planning grants map from Kaiser Family Foundation, as linked, see note, below.

Footnotes, References & Citations

Note regarding linking to Kaiser Family Foundation: While KFF provides a great amount of data, visitors to that site should regard the entity with skepticism. KFF has long been an advocate for increased government intervention in health care, and has long listed a single payer system as one primary option. I am linking here to KFF because the data sources are transparently listed on the relevant pages and are not based on studies and projections, which are the most problematic types of data they provide.

NE Constitution - Click for PDF version

One of GiN’s readers has kindly offered to share his letter written to the NU Board of Regents about President Millken’s proposal to extend medical benefits to domestic partners of University System employees. The letter appears below, and thanks to Michael for sending it in. I’d also like to report that this subject has garnered more attention, both in amount of traffic to the article we published and in the discourse ongoing in the comments. At the very least, it’s a hot button issue.

Michael raises an excellent and important point not mentioned in the original article we published or any of the comments; Nebraskans passed – by 70%, reportedly – an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Nebraska in 2000:

Sec.29. Marriage; same-sex relationships not valid or recognized.

Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized inNebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union,domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not bevalid or recognized in Nebraska.

Source: Neb. Const. art.I,sec. 29 (2000); Adopted 2000, Initiative Measure No. 416

Click HERE to read in Nebraska’s Constitution (found on p.7), HERE to see voting results.

LETTER

November 29, 2011

To the University of Nebraska Board of Regents:

President Milliken has recently proposed extending medical insurance coverage to unmarried domestic partners of University faculty, staff and students, if I correctly understand his proposal. His justification is to make the university system more competitive in recruiting faculty. On the surface, it looks to me like an end run around the recent constitutional amendment to recognize only heterosexual marriage and to give no legal standing to civil unions or domestic partnerships. In my opinion, he is flaunting the expressed will of the voters of Nebraska, and proposing to do so at their expense. His Fourteenth Amendment equal rights argument makes sense only if marriage has neither meaning nor significance. But of course marriage has always been given enough legal recognition to enable permissible discrimination, if you will, to be exercised between married and unmarried individuals.

Furthermore, President Milliken bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that Nebraskans’ rejection of gay marriage and civil unions has caused at least several irreplaceable potential candidates to look elsewhere: how significant is this problem? Also, can it not be solved by offering a higher salary to offset the added medical insurance cost? This does not seem to have prevented, for example, the Nebraska Medical Center from having hired a sufficient number of talented researchers to rise to the top tier of medical research institutions. Finally, is it not a buyers market: are there not far more Ph.D.’s looking for faculty positions than there are positions to fill?

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Michael [last name withheld]

Omaha, NE

[A Bachelor's degree graduate and current graduate student at UNO]

District 4 Regent: Bob Whitehouse

Still need to round up contact information for the Board of Regents and find your regent’s name? Click HERE to view the previous article which includes links and information.

Job endured many trials

We here at GiN have been focused a lot on the City’s handling of the Occupy Lincoln issue, first and foremost because of the need for justice – the need for justice for all. Since it’s Sunday, a day of rest and reflection seems appropriate. In considering what I might share here, I wondered what a few “tried and true” sources might have to say on the subject.

But before citing any of those sources, I must point to a recent article by Linda, which is on the same subject, only with slightly different approaches. If you haven’t read “Is It Heartless or Just Lawless? Right and Wrong in a Whatever World”, yet, then I highly recommend it to everyone.

Regarding my consultation of sources on the subject, I’m sure those much better studied, better versed, more wise, and more prayerful could find better examples from one of them in particular, for sure, but when I found a reference to justice in the Book of Job, it seemed fitting to me. Job, of course, endured many trials. It seemed fitting to me because I have the sense that people of rational sense feel like they understand Job’s plight too often today – at least from the perspective of the assault on rational reasoning. Obviously, a sense that one has some understanding of Job’s trials does not mean that any of us are enduring anything resembling them.

Job 8

“1 Then answered Bildad the Shuhite, and said,

2 How long wilt thou speak these things? and how long shall the words of thy mouth be like a strong wind?

3 Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?

4 If thy children have sinned against him, and he have cast them away for their transgression;

5 If thou wouldest seek unto God betimes, and make thy supplication to the Almighty;

6 If thou wert pure and upright; surely now he would awake for thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous.

7 Though thy beginning was small, yet thy latter end should greatly increase.

8 For inquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers:

9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow:)

10 Shall not they teach thee, and tell thee, and utter words out of their heart?

11 Can the rush grow up without mire? can the flag grow without water?

12 Whilst it is yet in his greenness, and not cut down, it withereth before any other herb.

13 So are the paths of all that forget God; and the hypocrite’s hope shall perish:

14 Whose hope shall be cut off, and whose trust shall be a spider’s web.

15 He shall lean upon his house, but it shall not stand: he shall hold it fast, but it shall not endure.

16 He is green before the sun, and his branch shooteth forth in his garden.

17 His roots are wrapped about the heap, and seeth the place of stones.

18 If he destroy him from his place, then it shall deny him, saying, I have not seen thee.

19 Behold, this is the joy of his way, and out of the earth shall others grow.

20 Behold, God will not cast away a perfect man, neither will he help the evil doers:

21 Till he fill thy mouth with laughing, and thy lips with rejoicing.

22 They that hate thee shall be clothed with shame; and the dwelling place of the wicked shall come to nought.”

Job 8 seems intended to remind and reassure about ultimate justice from a just God.

It made me think of a particular song: (Email subscribers, click HERE.)

But what is justice and can it only be found the hereafter?

The Wikipedia article on the subject begins, thus:

“Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics; justice is the act of being just and/or fair.“

In both the ancient philosophy of Aristotle and Christianity, justice is considered a virtue. Here is one definition from Christianity of justice as a virtue:

“Justice is here taken in its ordinary and proper sense to signify the most important of the cardinal virtues. It is a moral quality or habit which perfects the will and inclines it to render to each and to all what belongs to them.”

Luca Giordano's painting of Lady Justice

Aristotle’s articulations about justice take into account a need for the interwoven relationships of specific virtues in the pursuit of generally virtuous behavior . Further, he articulated differences between theory – justice employed under ideal conditions (general) – and application in the real world (particular). Aristotle’s articulation of justice is often associated with the concept embodied in the image of Lady Justice, blindfolded, because his “real world” (practical) application theory noted the requirement of impartiality. Of course this icon of justice pre-dates Arisotle in the form of the Greek Titan Goddess Themis (also known in Roman mythology as Justia).

But what of our government and justice? A statue of Lady Justice, is of course, featured at the entry area to the steps of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. The building also bears the inscription, “Equal Justice For All” over the main entrance.

The first President, George Washington, wrote of justice this way:

“Impressed with a conviction that the due administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good Government, I have considered the first arrangement of the Judicial department as essential to the happiness of our Country, and to the stability of its political system; hence the selection of the fittest characters to expound the law, and dispense justice, has been an invariable object of my anxious concern.”

And in Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote:

“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally [sic] induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”

U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. - click to view larger image

A word about the “majority” and the “minority”. I have no statistics or figures on the relative political sentiments within the City of Lincoln, but if the composition of our local government would be considered any indicator, it would seem that advocates of Constitutional, limited government, fiscal and social conservatism comprise a minority in this city. I alluded to that in a recent article about the Occupy Lincoln issue in noting amazement about one Occupier’s statements that she believed the tipi now in place on the Centennial Mall is a symbol of oppression (for the first peoples in America and now the Occupiers themselves, presumably). I was amazed because, I noted, the group is anything but oppressed. I concluded my thoughts on the topic by noting that the tipi is a symbol of oppression, yes, indeed, but not in the way the member of the Occupy group believes.

For many years, it is now evident, an entire system of laws (ordinances) governing the convening of events on public property (parks and otherwise) have been applied to citizens. Those laws, by the City Attorney’s own admission, are not in pursuance of the Constitution, yet no action was taken to correct these flaws. Further, much evidence exists that the law has not been administered or applied equally to all citizens. And now, the law has been thrown out.

Sadly, we are witnessing injustice in Lincoln.

And, that, ladies and gentleman, in considering first, our system of government under the Constitution, as articulated by just two of the men who were central to its formation, is the reason we’ve been focused on the subject. The articulations about justice from both Washington and Madison, could be joined in together as follows, I think:

“The due administration of justice is the most firm pillar and the first end of government and civil society”

My ponderings bring me to this conclusion…

Justice has long been prized as a virtue in individuals throughout the history of western civilization and by its core ethical systems, including that of Christianity.  The administration of due justice is vital to the health of a society and the first object of the American system.

Any government that fails in its primary functions, and indeed, reverses its power to perpetrate the opposite on its citizens, tears away at the fabric of civil society, violates the natural and actual law, and undermines its own legitimacy.

We leave the many troubling questions such ideas bring, however, for another day. For the moment, we ask ourselves, to whom shall we go? When we do not find justice in the world of men, there is a higher “court” to which we can appeal, not only for comfort, but for intercession. It is possible that we may not see justice before us, in the immediate term, but it will ultimately and perfectly be carried out by a power much higher than mere men.

And of course, the ultimate conclusion is, for me at least, that God is the only perfect being; He is good, He is great…

E-mail subscribers, click here to watch / listen to the song.

Ms. Kemmet is a newer reporter and clearly energetic. I must say, her thoroughness in verifying facts and doing research was something I don’t recall experiencing in dealing with the media very often, especially in the last couple of of years. I don’t compliment Ms. Kemmet because I think her story was biased in favor of our point of view, because I don’t think it was, I just want to be sure to point out something positive whenever I have the chance. All I really would like from members of the press is some investigative reporting, fact-checking, and thorough questioning of both sides of an issue. I spoke with Ms. Kemmet three times and at length during two of those conversations. She actually went back to several parties several times, reporting information obtained and requesting responses.

Note that there is one error in the story; Nebraska Right to Life has not attempted to obtain a permit for an event on the Centennial Mall; the annual March for Life event is held at the Capitol and permits are obtained from the Capitol Commission and the City of Lincoln for street closures and a march from the Capitol to the UNL Student Union.

Click to read the Omaha World-Herald Article

The OWH story exposes some additional flaws in City Attorney Rod Confer’s logic. But, the “back and forth” with Ms. Kemmet revealed a number of statements by Confer that were rather…amazing. Not all of those statements found their way into the article. Fortunately, I found an additional source; on October 20, Mr. Confer was interviewed about the whole subject by Coby Mach on Drive Time Lincoln. I have provided a link to the podcast file as well as a typed transcript.

IMPORTANT NOTE: At this point, dear readers, I’m just flat-out fascinated with this subject, not, I’ve realized in the past week, because there is any way to find an explanation for the inexplicable, but because it is explaining some things to me about the operations of government. It seems like I’m literally watching the way the levers and gears move inside the minds of bureaucrats. Astonishing stuff. I recommend considering this “big picture” when listening to the podcast / reading the transcript.

Beyond this “big picture thinking”, though, it seems important to remind, once again why this issue demands scrutiny. It’s not complicated.

The FIRST object of government is to protect our God given rights to life, liberty, and property.

Included in our liberty is our right to speak and assemble.

Government does not have the right to pick winners or losers and it needs to protect those rights equally.

Elected officials and those who work for them in the executive branches of government are duty bound to execute and enforce law, not to chuck out some laws and make up others as they go along.

See how these fundamental principles square up with the explanations and thinking of Mr. Rod Confer, Lincoln City Attorney.

Drive Time Lincoln

October 20, 2011

Audio file link HERE

Transcript:

Coby Mach: 5:40 on Drive Time Lincoln, great to have you here.

Time to bring you the latest on Occupy Lincoln. It’s my understanding that more tents have gone up on Centennial Mall in downtown Lincoln. Also, we posted on our Facebook, a, about, a twenty-four, or a twenty foot billboard that has been erected by the Occupy Lincoln folks, uh, down in downtown Lincoln. Joining us to talk about this tonight is the City Attorney, Rod Confer. Rod, welcome to Drive Time Lincoln, good to have you tonight.

Rod Confer: My pleasure.

Coby Mach: Rod, first of all, the huge, the huge billboard, I’m calling it that for lack of anything better to call it, um, is that sign in compliance with City rules?

Rod Confer: No it’s not, and uh, the uh, the Chief of Police has instructed the Occupy Lincoln people to remove that as a structure in the right-of-way, which is not permitted by City ordinances, and, uh, so we expect that to be taken down.

Coby Mach: At, at this point, it’s still up, or you don’t or you’re not sure?

Rod Confer: I’m not sure, I can’t see from here.

Coby Mach: Rod, (laugh) I understand. Rod, why are the Occupy Lincoln folks being allowed on Centennial Mall for free? We learned last night that others, that, well, others have been charged a $125 day fee. Uh, we learned last night that the Occupy Lincoln folks are being allowed to occupy Centennial Mall at no charge.

Rod Confer: Well, uh (pause)

There (pause)

We learned a, a while back that we had some problems, constitutional problems with our exclusive use ordinance, uh, I think that, last night on your program, you spoke to a man from the Republican party who said that in, uh, April of 2010, uh, they paid the fee and sometimes if you don’t complain, uh, then, you don’t – you know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

That same month, we had another applicant who came in and wanted to use Centennial Mall, this was for, a, medical marijuana, and, uh, when they were asked to pay the fee, they objected and their counsel cited to us a Supreme Court case, which made it appear that there were some grounds for challenge – to our ordinance under the First Amendment, and since that time, uh, when the City Attorney’s office has been consulted by Parks and Recreation, we’ve advised them not to press the issue and not to charge the fee. Here -

Coby Mach: Ok, now wait –

Rod Confer: you have a –

Coby Mach: Well, now, wait just one second, because when I talked with Parks and Rec. last night before the show, they said that, that, uh, the Occupy Lincoln, uh, that this was the first time that we had not charged a fee. But you’re saying that since, since April of last year, if someone has claimed a First Amendment right, that we have actually waived that fee?

Rod Confer: That’s true. Uh, for example, I think in September we had the Americans for Prosperity, uh, come through town and they were utilizing Centennial Mall, and, uh, objected to obtaining a fee, and we were consulted in our, uh, the law department, and we advised the Parks and Recreation Department that was protected, uh, speech under the First Amendment and for political purposes and that they shouldn’t collect they fee and we didn’t collect the fee.

Coby Mach: So is the City then automatically accepting the liability for injury or, or something even worse then, on this Occupy Lincoln?

Rod Confer: Well, no, uh, under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claim Act, when a, uh, a person is engaged in a recreational activity, then uh, and they don’t pay a fee, for engaging that, in that activity, for example, in the use of the park, then the City is not liable for that situation if they’re, if they’re injured unless the City is grossly negligent and, uh, so there shouldn’t be a – any liability issue there.

Coby Mach: Rod do worry at all as an attorney that we’re setting a precedent here? That now, moving forward, I mean, we might have, God forbid, we might have a racist organization, like the Ku Klux Klan, we don’t want them here, but what if they were to come and decide they were going to camp there too?

Rod Confer: Well, uh, unfortunately (laugh) or, or fortunately, I guess, depending upon your point of view, uh, we’re not allowed to determine which messages we like and which ones we don’t like. When we’re the government, and people want to express their opinions, then the government can’t say well, we’re going to allow this person to express his opinion because it’s an opinion we agree with and we’re not going to allow this person to express their opinion because it’s an opinion we don’t agree with.

Coby Mach: The Republican -

Rod Confer: So -

Coby Mach: The Republican Party last night, who said they were expressing an opinion back in April of last year, said they’re going to be applying for a refund. Will the City be giving them a refund?

Rod Confer: We, uh, we would consider it if they submitted a claim, but, uh, if – if it’s been a year and a half, they’re probably too late. They have to submit a claim within a year in order to get a refund.

Coby Mach: Let me ask about -

Rod Confer: Under, that’s under state law.

Coby Mach: Let me ask about this public right-of-way, which, apparently under this, this ruling that it is a public right-of-way they are allowed to stay there, and to camp and to live there. The space that is in between the sidewalk and a street, in front of your house, the space in between the sidewalk and the street is public right-of-way. Uh, could someone go and camp out in a tent there as well?

Rod Confer: Well, that’s a good question and one that I hadn’t really thought about. We have, uh, ordinances that protect, uh, that prohibit you from camping in streets or in, on sidewalks or from obstructing them and I think that that’s probably the way we would interpret that, that that would that that would not be allowed. Here we’ve got a different situation where it’s not a street or a sidewalk, it’s public property.

Coby Mach: Well, but the, but the, but the, it’s, it’s in between streets and sidewalks, it’s public property, and so, I mean, theoretically in the, in the grass, I’m talking about in the grassy area in between the street and the sidewalk, in front of the mayor’s house, you could go set up a tent.

(pause)

Rod Confer: We, you know, uh, I -

You hit me cold there, Coby and, and I’m not sure how we would, uh, interpret that, but my inclination would be to say that it would fall within that uh, ordinance that prohibits obstruct- obstructions. We’ve got some rules about, ordinances about what you can have in the – in that sidewalk space, and a tent isn’t one of the things that’s allowed, so we’d probably enforce that ordinance.

Coby Mach: Ok. Uh, there, there’s been some talk that they are – are using electricity down there. That there are outlets on Centennial Mall. Rod, do you know is, is that true, and if those are, are City outlets, uh, are we, are we paying for the electricity?

Rod Confer: I do not know, uh, whether, whether there, whether we have – whether they’re using it, or whether they’re paying for it. I know any – I don’t have any information on that.

Coby Mach: What, what about -

Rod Confer: I do know, I think you mentioned, you mentioned the obstruction, the structure that was being built. I do know that has been prohibited.

Coby Mach: Do we know are, are – is the City going to have expenses from this? Are we going to be paying for any clean up? Or are they hauling out their own trash?

Rod Confer: My understanding is that they have agreed to, uh, take care of that. We’re monitoring the, uh, situation closely, the police are making certain that there isn’t any littering going on or other violations of any city ordinances. My understanding is that they’re in compliance with all ordinances at this time and that and we’re expecting that they’re going to clean up after themselves.

Coby Mach: One, one final question, and I hope this one doesn’t put you on the spot, too. But, if, if KLIN decided we wanted to come down and buy a permit, pay the $125 permit fee, and have a listener appreciation event, because, because you can have non-political events on – on Centennial Mall -

Rod Confer: Mm, hmm.

Coby Mach: If we wanted to pay the $125 permit fee and and utilize that space next Thursday, could we? And could we be assured, or anybody else, for that matter, be assured that they would be able use it or is it off limits while the Occupy Lincoln people are there?

Rod Confer: Well, I think, I think that, uh – that they are there, and they are, uh, engaging in freedom of expression in an area that the United States Supreme Court has said is a traditional public forum where people are allowed to express their opinions, we’re, we would be hard pressed to tell them, ok, you’re going to have to move out so that we can have a paid event in here. Uh, I think that that would be opening up the City to liability under the Civil Rights Acts, and so we’d probably say, I’m sorry, but that space is not available, you can go down and use it along with the people that are already there, but, uh, we can’t give you a permit for exclusive use as long as, uh, it’s being used by someone else in a non-exclusive way.

Coby Mach: So, do you forsee that there would be, that the City Council would perhaps make a declaration at some point that this is a City Park because City parks get to close and people have to leave a City park at some point. Or to, to change the rules? Have you heard from any council members that want to address what’s going on down there?

Rod Confer: I haven’t, uh, I haven’t received any, uh, inquiries other than requests for information as to what is going on. The City could have some, uh, additional rules that aren’t designed to interfere with peoples’ right to express their opinions but have some restrictions on the time and place and manner in which they can express those and, and we can look at those in the future, uh, when, uh, we don’t have a situation, that people are currently engaged in expression, of their rights.

(inaudible)

Coby Mach: When it’s not being used

(inaudible)

Rod Confer: Pardon?

Coby Mach: When it’s not being used

Rod Confer: Yeah, that’s right. As long as, as long as, if we tried to enact something now, my fear would be that it would be perceived as, a, uh, an attempt to abridge their rights. So, I think that as long as it is in use, we’re probably not going to be moving forward. But, at some future time, we could look at some content-neutral rules that, uh, were not designed to abridge freedom of speech -

Coby Mach: Sure

Rod Confer: but all were designed -

Coby Mach: Sure

Rod Confer: – to protect some other governmental interest.

Coby Mach: Rod Confer, City Attorney, thanks for joining us tonight on Drive Time Lincoln, I appreciate you taking the time.

Rod Confer: You’re welcome.

Coby Mach: 5:53 on 1400 KLIN

UPDATED December 3, 2011

Keeping up with immoral Joneses via public policy is a descent into hell

Nebraska’s Board of Regents is apparently poised to approve a provision that would extend the University systems’ employee benefits to same sex and unmarried cohabiting partners. Reportedly, the rationale for extending those benefits is to ensure that Nebraska’s “institutions of higher learning” —– YES I use that term VERY loosely —– remain competitive with peers in the ivory towers of the upper crust elites known as universities and colleges. The pressure to be competitive, I now read, has increased since Nebraska became a member of the Big Ten.

Geez. Making football the center of a state’s universe actually has consequences, huh?

UPDATED: Thanks to the very helpful Glen Flint for giving us more information on this subject.

The new benefits offering, proposed by Board of Regents President James B. Milliken, has a name; it’s called “employee plus one”. Included in the sales pitch by Milliken was the following…

“Nationally, more than 300 higher education institutions offer partner benefits, including public universities and systems in at least 30 states and most of the highly ranked research institutions. In the private sector, more than 80 percent of Fortune 100 companies and almost 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies offer health insurance benefits to employee partners. In Nebraska, a number of major companies offer such benefits, including ConAgra Foods, Union Pacific, Mutual of Omaha, Ameritas, HDR and Kiewit.“

As a couple of commenters have pointed out, this may not be so much about keeping up with the Joneses, as the title of this article states, considering how many of these institutions there are in the country. Only a small percentage offers these kinds of benefits. According to one link, also provided by Glen, there are over 7,000 “institutions of higher learning” in the U.S. Another figure, provided by UNESCO (a U.N. institution) via Wikipedia lists 5,700+.

Even if the figure were 3,000, according to Milliken’s report, that means only 10% of these entities are offering the benefits he proposes. Not a very convincing when using a “get on the bandwagon” appeal.

Milliken’s report also informs of the overall cost of such benefits currently, and the proposed increased:

The university estimates that extending health insurance benefits to employee partners would cost about $750,000 to $1.5 million, based on an estimated increase of 1 to 2 percent, or about 100 to 200 new employee sign-ups. Total costs for the university’s health insurance plan today are more than $120 million.

Translation? The expenses for this proposal are just a drop in the bucket!

And finally, from the report:

Individuals such as an employee’s parents, grandparents or other relatives would not be eligible for “plus-one” designation.

Wow!

Sometimes those “selling” such this sort of social agenda, i.e. gay marriage, try to sell the softer version known as “civil unions” and explain that such legal arrangements would allow individuals to provide for a relative they are supporting, like a parent. But this plan excludes that option. Imagine if you are an employee of the University of Nebraska system and your mother or father lives with you because you are pooling financial resources or, as is more common, you are providing care for them. If this passes, your co-workers, who have another adult in their household, not related to them, get employee benefits, but you cannot! Yes, this is a very family friendly policy.

Click to read the report on the NU Board of Regents website

It seems that the NU Regents were scheduled to vote on the benefits provision on December 8, but have now delayed that action for an unspecified period, according to the Omaha World-Herald report on Thursday, December 1. The reason given was that not all eight regents will be able to attend the meeting.

Anyone buying that? Based upon the contents of my email inbox, I’d say that this information is not playing well in…Papillion (or Pawnee City, Pender, Peru, Pierce, Plainview, Plattsmouth, Ponca¹ or most other towns and cities except liberal bastions Lincoln and Omaha.) Readers will excuse my skepticism, but this delayed vote business seems suspect. For those who have not seen this particular politicians’ ploy before, note that it is S-O-P for boards, councils, commissions, and committees to delay controversial votes until people get distracted by some other bright shiny object. Americans following actions of government more closely in the past few years will recognize this tactic as identical to those employed to obtain Nelson’s cloture vote on health care and to pass the Stimulus in February, 2009.

But, it’s up to Nebraska’s taxpayers who see the moral and fiscal hazards here to not get distracted and to keep the heat on the Regents. According to the Omaha World-Herald, five of the eight regents were in support and the other three “want more information”, so I recommend voters give those three a particular kind of “information”. Since the Omaha World-Herald story doesn’t list which five and which three, seems like they all need “information”. Anyone else grown weary of political cover for politicians as brought-to-you-by Nebraska’s two largest newspapers? The stand of each of the regents seems like rather important information, doesn’t it?

Information about the Board of Regents:

Main website page HERE

To find your regent, see maps page HERE.

Meetings Schedule HERE

Board Members’ page HERE (clicking on the name will provide the individual board member’s page, including email address)

There is also a generic form (found listed under the Board of Regents menu) for Public Comment found HERE.

Finally, for those wishing to mail a “snail mail” letter to their Regent and/or to the Board instead of or in addition to an email, the main Board of Regents page instructs “Persons wishing to provide information to the board or to appear before it” should contact:

Corporation Secretary

University of Nebraska

Varner Hall

3835 Holdrege

Lincoln, NE 68583

corpsec@nebraska.edu

(402) 472-3906

If either Nancy or Rev. Shannon happens by this article before receiving an email I’m sending requesting to publish their example letters here, I ask that you reply via comment. Readers, too, are encouraged to provide example letters for others (of course, as long as they conform to GiN’s usual comments policy ).

I’ll try to get back here and update this with an example letter of my own as soon as I can.

__________

Of potential interest: Domestic partner benefits

__________

Note on the image: A depiction of the “money hoarders and wasters” found in Dante’s fourth circle of hell (avarice).  This is a deliberate jab at all of those people who call themselves conservative out there who think we can set “the social issues” on the shelf and only make fiscal arguments.

I’ve provided links to the podcast files for those who did not catch the show live. If you have difficulty with the files, see the footnote¹.

DTL 11/29 Grassroots in Nebraska

Following our appearance, Julie Schmit-Albin, Nebraska Right to Life’s Executive Director, spoke with Coby regarding her organization’s concerns.

DTL 11/29 NE Right to Life

What About Burning Ordinances?

As ordinances go up in flames – almost literally – it seems like a bit of an inferno, doesn’t it? Let’s have a nostalgic and very enjoyable musical interlude, shall we? I say, why not a “Disco Inferno”? (E-mail subscribers, click HERE to boogie!)

Why disco now? To quote Linda’s perfect articulation of the idea…

“I laugh because I must not cry, that is all.“

What about those ordinances, then?

For that, we’ll turn to some information revealed by a caller on Drive Time Lincoln following Julie’s appearance. The caller, named Jerry, said he works at the State Office Building, which faces west onto the Centennial Mall. Jerry listed a number of his own concerns about the Occupy encampment, starting with trampled grass; he wondered whether or not the Occupy group was going to be assessed costs of repairing the sod. Coby recited the response he’d received; the expense of a lawsuit by the Occupiers was greater than the expense of replacing the sod.

Jerry also mentioned that he’d noticed a Husky dog had been left leashed to one of the tents, unattended by anyone, and he about liability if the dog bit anyone. Since we cannot talk immediately to Jerry, who really knows the level of danger? Jerry’s pointing out of a list of actual and potential ordinance violations, while seemingly petty to some people, I’m sure, is actually a healthy and normal response from a man of common sense. Please hang onto this thought, as I definitely intend to return to it.

For the moment, let’s just focus on whether or not hitching an animal up and leaving them unattended is indeed, a violation of the law.

IF the Centennial Mall is a park, the answer is simple. An ordinance in Title 12 (governing City Parks) of Lincoln Municipal Code currently on the books, reads as follows:

“12.08.240 Fastening or Hitching Animals.

It shall be unlawful for any person to hitch any horse or other animal to any tree, shrub, fence, railing, or other structure, except such as are provided for that purpose, or to allow any horse or other animal to remain unhitched beyond the reach of the driver or attendant in any park. (P.C. § 12.08.160: Ord. 3489 § 30-116 amended by Ord. 5775 July 12, 1954).”

IF the Centennial Mall is…property which is…something…”public” (we’ve now lost track of what City officials’ say it is this week)…whether it is a “public”"right-of-way”, “access area”, or “property”, the answer is also simple under yet a different section of ordinances, specifically, Title 6:

“6.04.330 Tethered Animals.

It shall be unlawful for any person to tether, chain, or fasten any animal in such a manner as to permit it to be upon any public sidewalk or street or to leave it unattended while tethered, chained, or fastened on public property. It shall be unlawful to tether, chain, or fasten an animal in such a manner as to cause it injury or pain or not permit it to reach shelter, food, and water. (Ord. 15515 §33; April 9, 1990: P.C. §8.71.330: Ord. 14955 §33; August 22, 1988).”

Jerry ended his list of concerns by reporting that a friend’s co-worker went out of the State Office Building and took a picture of a tent that appears to be used by the Occupiers as a toilet facility.

IF there IS a tent-toilet facility in the Occupy Lincoln encampment, seems like it might violate the following ordinance:

9.16.210 Urinating or Defecating in Public; Prohibited.

“It shall be unlawful for any person to urinate or defecate on a public street, alley, or any other property, public or private, open to or visible to the public.

This section shall not apply to urinating or defecating in any restroom facility in a manner for which that facility was designed. (Ord. 16119 §1; May 26, 1992).”

OR it certainly would at least violate Chapter 8.02 Safety Hazards – Generally, or Chapter 28.02 Regulations for Illicit Discharges.

A tent as a toilet facility on the Centennial Mall seems like a problem – I dunno – whadda ya’ll think? Maybe I’m just too dumb too understand why it’s not.

But wait – there’s more!

Back to the “breaking news” I noted above…

Last week Occupy Lincoln erected a large tipi structure within the encampment which reportedly emitted profuse amounts of smoke on Monday evening (11/28), prompting a call in to the Lincoln Fire Department. We’re only aware of this incident because on Monday evening, we were told by someone who was listening live to Drive Time Lincoln when Coby received the report off air. Unfortunately, that report was not part of Monday’s podcasts.

Fascinatingly enough, no other media sources have reported the incident to the best of our knowledge (we’ve looked, asked some others to keep their eyes peeled). We even predicted that this would be the case (downright prophetic, aren’t we?), so a few GiN folks² made a trip downtown about an hour after we’d been notified (wish it could’ve been faster, but hey, our lavishly paid evening crew didn’t get it in gear fast enough ). When that “crew” arrived on the scene, all was quiet, except – there was smoke lingering in the air.

LJS article about Occupy Lincoln tipi pubished @10pm Mon., Nov. 28

Why did we suspect there would be no news reports of the incident? History. Although there has been plenty of TV coverage for the Occupy group, our local “newspaper of record”, Lincoln Journal Star, seems the dominating media source in the City, and the one most focused on politics and government.

LJS has been covering groups in the same disparate way the City of Lincoln has been handling them. We’ve observed coverage of Occupy Lincoln since before their first event on October 15, and, we’ve observed coverage of other groups. Course, we, uh *cough*, know a great deal about the details of how of one of those “other groups” has been covered.

Are we whining? Absolutely not. We’ve just discarded the myth that there is any such thing as objectivity in this mix. The “we” is those of us at GiN. Speaking only for myself, I’d take it a step further: I don’t even think there should necessarily be any expectation of objectivity. Why? It isn’t reasonable and isn’t realistic. The Journal Star, is, after all a private enterprise, and its owners and management should be entirely free to publish or not publish whatever they like, however they like, whenever they like. The only problem with that idea, of course, is if too many readers cling to the myth of objectivity and tell themselves events are reported in full.

Such readers would have no idea that there was an incident involving smoke and a fire truck. LJS published a report about the Occupy tipi on their website at 10:00pm Monday, hours after the reports of smoke, yet the entire incident was not mentioned. Why? The story did report City officials were concerned about safety (past tense) and that, in fact, Occupy Lincoln had been “asked” to take down the tipi by Lincoln police.

Police asked? (Blow through a stop sign. See if the police ask you to not do that anymore.)

The Journal Star didn’t have room in its article to report about the smoke OR the fact that a wood-burning stove inside the tipi was the source of that smoke. Apparently, readers of the paper needed to be told an array of many other things, including how sturdy and stable tipis are and that it is very appropriate to have associated with the Occupy movement, because, we were informed, it is a symbol for the first oppressed peoples.

Oppressed? Can someone PLEASE tell me how these Occupiers are being oppressed?

For those who didn’t listen to the podcasts of Tuesday’s radio show, note that the group is not required to have a permit for the tipi because it is under 400 square feet (sounds like it was a close call on the measurement).

BUT, from WHERE did the City pull that standard? Do we all need to learn a secret handshake to have access to Lincoln’s hidden ordinance book that is now being used? Bizarrely, the group was actually cited for not properly venting the wood-burning stove. But, the City Attorney is still chewing on whether or not the wood-burning stove requires a permit or perhaps, whether it may have to be removed.

A WOOD-BURNING STOVE IN A FABRIC STRUCTURE?!

THIS IS A QUESTION?!

BUT – WHY all the citing of ordinances?

Remember I said, above, that caller Jerry’s citation of actual and potential violations was natural and common sense? Jerry’s not too dumb and neither am I, Julie Schmit-Albin, Linda, or anyone else presently scratching their heads.

Julie can’t put up a vinyl banner on two spindly metal stakes without being launched upon like white on rice, but Occupy Lincoln can place the eyesore, below, on Centennial Mall for as long as it pleases.  Does that make ANY logical sense? Is that JUST?

Occupy Lincoln's "community board"

When government officials decide that they are going to unequally apply laws in the cavalier and arrogant fashion we’re witnessing now, it’s frustrating. Government’s credibility is increasingly undermined and citizens are put on an enhanced level of alert, and concerns heighten as to just what else a selected, favored few might pull next and what they might get a way with. Citizens, already taxed heavily (and recently, increasingly) how much it might cost us and what might happen in the future.

Julie described how City officials are behaving, they are:

“…[C]oddling Occupy Lincoln, bending over backwards to accommodate them, either we are going to abide by the rules or we are not going to abide by the rules”

From my repetitive, extensive (mind-numbing) read of Lincoln’s Municipal Codes, it truly seems as if there is an ordinance, for virtually every activity imaginable. I wonder…am I violating any of them while I’m writing this? The probabilities are against me. I’m well aware, in other words, that we definitely have problems with our ordinances, and specifically, we have problems with the ordinances impacting free speech. Do I think that’s good or right? Of course not.  However, the answer was NOT to enforce bad ordinances in full on citizens who are law-abiding and respectful of authority, then, when problem ordinances are pointed out, throw out ALL the ordinances (and replace them from the secret handshake version), placing an entire section of downtown in some sort of no-man’s-land status, so anything goes for a selected group.

Especially this group. Occupy Lincoln, has definitely received and understood the message sent by officials that anything goes, and they are willing to push for anything. They have now set up a structure with a heat source that is reportedly somewhere near 400 square feet in size (that’s a 20′ x 20′ room). How many of the regular campers can fit in there?  Since we know there are not a large number of campers during the week, they could huddle in their warm tipi indefinitely; the warm tipi that we are instructed, is a symbol of oppression.

Occupy Lincoln’s tipi IS a symbol of oppression, alright. First, it’s definitely symbolic of suppressing sense. Beyond that, other Lincolnites’ rights have been oppressed. Occupy Lincoln has achieved their coddled status by grabbing, and they are now signalling, through their tipi, that that they will just keep on pushing. They have taken what belongs to everyone in the City, are making it their own, and expecting the rest of us to pay the bill.

This seems exactly like the DEMOCRACY Occupiers everywhere, and the Lincoln group specifically, has stated they want. Seems like mob rule, alright. May the biggest grabbers, and ultimately, the most brazen thugs, win.

GiN is indeed, a group whose mission, as long-stated, is “to promote a return to Constitutional, limited government”.  If anyone thinks we want MORE government, they are sorely mistaken. Our citing strings of ordinances and questioning the inaction of executive branch officials is entirely consistent with our principles and mission. Note that we start with CONSTITUTIONAL; it is the Constitutional duty of executive branch officials to enforce the laws on the books. If there are bad laws on the books, they should be changed, in an orderly manner, so that all citizens will know what the laws actually are.

But former Lincoln Journal Star reporter, Deena Winter, who now works for Nebraska Watchdog, took what seems like a side swipe at us in a November 29 report she dubbed “tempest in a tipi”:

“…city officials don’t want to infringe upon their First Amendment rights. That has angered Nebraska Right to Life and Grassroots in Nebraska (a proponent of limited government), which allege the city is giving the Occupiers preferential treatment compared to other groups.”

Hmm. So “we allege”? We wouldn’t want to talk to us about what we’re alleging, now would we, even though Ms. Winters talked to the members of the Occupy group? Maybe there is some there there. Ah, well. Let’s just let it hang and just take a swipe instead. If you’re remembering what I said about press and expectations, above, you’re thinking what I’m thinking. So, what’s the standard for a non-profit entity like Watchdog? My “private enterprise” paradigm doesn’t apply. Since absence of bias is not realistic, as I said, I guess in the case of a non-profit, the best thing to do is to look at  who is funding it, right?

A WHOLE lot of questions remain about this whole subject, so I’ll end for now with a brief list of them, all related to one topic. For a group talking about how they are representing the 99%, these folks sure don’t seem to care that some of that 99% have had their rights infringed and that there is a potential for that into the future. What is the Occupy Lincoln group’s responsibility? They want DEMOCRACY, right? Isn’t that a form of self-government? Are they governing themselves? Are they actually mindful of the rights of others?

I stumbled upon a very interesting, and I think, relevant Thomas Jefferson quote:

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” ~ Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (1819)

But, again, I dunno. Maybe the Occupiers and the City are just confused…because smoke from the wood-burning stove got in their eyes?

Email subscribers, click HERE to watch the video.

Can you help us find Jerry?

We’d surely like to have absolute confirmation of the…toilet tent? and the “art work” to accompany it. If anyone knows Jerry, we kindly request that you suggest to him to PLEASE get a hold of us. We don’t need to use a last name, we will consider such a tip as we do many others, via GiN’s Tip Jar policy.

__________________________