John McCain's reason for voting for a flag desecration amendment

From a letter to me dated August 11, 2006, in response to a letter I sent him criticizing his vote:

Thank you for expressing your views about the issue of flag desecration. I share your concern in this matter.

I believe we have an inviolable duty to protect the right of free speech--one of our most precious inalienable rights and the linchpin of a healthy democracy. I do not believe, however, that guaranteeing respect for our national symbol by prohibiting "acts" of desecration impinges on political "speech."

As long as citizens are free to speak out on any matter and from whatever point of view they wish, as our forefathers intended, it does not seem burdensome to me that we accord some modicum of respect to the symbol of those precious freedoms for which so many of our countrymen have laid down their lives.

Some view these efforts to protect the flag as political demogoguery or empty symbolism, unworthy of the attention it receives. I see the issue differently. The flag represents each and every one of us, regardless of race, religion or political point of view. It is a point of unity in the midst of our great diversity. Tolerating desecration of the flag is silent acquiescence to the degeneration of the broader values which sustain us as a free and democratic nation--the ramifications of which are far more profound than mere symbolism.

For these reasons, I have support [sic] a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. I voted for such language in previous Congresses, but unfortunately, the tally has always fallen short of the 67 affirmative votes necessary for approval. Additionally, I have cosponsored legislation to statutorily provide protection for the flag in a manner that will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Again, thank you for your interest in this important issue. I hope you will continue to share your views with me on this or any other matter of concern to you and our nation.

Sincerely,
/s/
John McCain
United States Senator

Senator McCain states that "Tolerating desecration of the flag is silent acquiescence to the degeneration of the broader values which sustain us as a free and democratic nation." But this completely ignores the fact that it is not only possible but certain that voices will loudly speak out in criticism of flag desecration--that's not silent acquiescence, that's fighting bad speech with good speech, which is the whole point of the First Amendment.

McCain explicitly recognizes that the flag is a symbol. It's a symbol that can be represented in art, language, binary data, and a Penn and Teller illusion. (Penn & Teller's illusion raises the question of whether the symbolic desecration of a symbol is any different from an actual desecration of a symbol.) To place limits on the contexts that symbol can be placed in or on transformations of that symbol is to place limits on free expression, and to place limits on the principle of freedom of speech that lies behind the First Amendment.

By his willingness to make a special exception for this symbol, McCain is doing damage to a constitutional principle. His position on this issue is just as wrong as his position on trying to protect government from the consequences of violating the First Amendment in his vote for the PERA Act, and just as contrary to his oath of office.

Latest Skeptics' Circle, #44

The latest Skeptics' Circle, #44, is hosted at Salto sobrius.

Arizona Representatives' Votes on the PERA Bill

The U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 2679, the "Public Expression of Religion Act," which denies plaintiffs the ability to recover legal costs in a challenge against government violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. The effect of this bill is to make it more difficult for anyone to fight cases where the government violates the U.S. Constitution by instituting mandatory religious practices, by making those legal cases different from all others. In other words, any Representative voting in favor of this is implicitly advocating that governments be able to engage in unconstitutional religious activity and avoid the consequences and penalties that currently can result when they do. It seems to me that a Congressman who supports a bill to make it easier for government to get away with violations of the Constitution is a Congressman who is acting contrary to their oath of office.

Arizona Representatives who voted for reducing penalties and deterrence for unconstitutional theocracy by voting for the PERA Bill:

Jeff Flake (R-District 6)
Trent Franks (R-District 2)
J.D. Hayworth (R-District 5)
Jim Kolbe (R-District 8)
Rick Renzi (R-District 1)
John Shadegg (R-District 3)

Those who voted consistently with their oaths of office by voting against the PERA Bill:

Raul Grijalva (D-District 7)
Ed Pastor (D-District 4)

That's a partisan vote, and the Republicans continue to express their disregard for the U.S. Constitution and religious liberty.

You can find the full House roll call here.

For further information on this bill, see Ed Brayton's commentary at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Proposition 107: Protect Marriage Arizona Act

Proposition 107, the "Protect Marriage Arizona Act," is billed by supporters as an act designed to protect the institution of marriage in Arizona. The supporters' website says:

This proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution preserves “marriage” as only consisting of the union of one man and one woman, and prohibits creating or recognizing any legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to that of marriage.

Arizona statutes already prohibit gay marriage, several times over. ARS 25-101 (C) says "Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited." ARS 25-112 says that marriages in other states are valid in Arizona, except for those that violate ARS 25-101--so Arizona refuses to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts, for example. ARS 25-125 (A) says "A valid marriage is contracted by a male person and a female person with a proper marriage license who participate in a ceremony conducted by and in the presence of a person who is authorized to solemnize marriages and at which at least two witnesses who are at least eighteen years of age participate."

Now, I think it's absurd to argue that gay marriage harms marriage, but let's leave that claim aside. Look at the latter part of this proposed constitutional amendment--it says that "NO LEGAL STATUS FOR UNMARRIED PERSONS SHALL BE CREATED OR RECOGNIZED BY THIS STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS THAT IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF MARRIAGE." This is a very vague and potentially very broad statement--"similar to" is a comparative, it comes in degrees. But no degree of similarity (even supposing that it came in easily measurable units) is defined here. The advocates of this kind of legislation have already demonstrated elsewhere that they mean to include civil unions and domestic partnerships in this, whether they involve same-sex couples or heterosexual couples. They could also use this wording to fight against benefits for domestic partnerships, custody contracts, wills, guardianship agreements, and so forth, where unmarried couples are involved. And no doubt they will--this amendment is backed by people like nutty theocrat Len Munsil (his organization drafted it), who opposed the 2001 repeal of Arizona's law that prohibited unmarried couples of the opposite sex from living in the same house or apartment, even if only as roommates.

The exact same battle is occurring in Virginia.

Scottsdale formalizes ban on helicopter commuting from residences

Scottsdale's City Council passed a zoning ordinance prohibiting private helipads in residential neighborhoods, forcing wealthy helicopter owners to fight street traffic like everyone else.

Munsil's lucrative 501(c)(3)

Len Munsil's Center for Arizona Policy (you can find their Form 990s on Guidestar under "Arizona Family Research Institute Center for Arizona Policy Inc."), though a tax-exempt nonprofit, has been personally quite profitable for him (and a few other people).

In 2004, the group's Form 990 shows $1,441,177 in revenue and $1,380,839 in expenses. Of that, Munsil, as president, received $209,250 in salary, $30,430 in benefits, and $7,450 in expenses. Executive VP Gary Paisley received $82,060 in salary and $6,660 (interesting amount!) in benefits. Director of Policy Cathi Herrod received $100,986 in compensation and $1,680 to benefit plans/deferred compensation. Director of Research David B. Frese received $59,380 in compensation and $16,848 to benefit plans/deferred compensation, and Legal Counsel Peter Gentala received $50,000 in compensation and $18,528 to benefit plans/deferred compensation. The Form 990s are only required to list compensation over $50,000, but the above adds up to $583,272, or over 40% of the group's revenue (and over 42% of expenses) for the year. Munsil alone received over 17% of the group's revenue (and nearly 18% of its total expenses).

In 2003, the Form 990 shows $1,127,825 in revenue and $1,085,812 in expenses. Munsil received $181,925 in salary (which means he got a hefty 15% salary increase from 2003 to 2004), $25,942 in benefits, and $3,817 in expenses. Paisley received $80,486 in salary, $5,988 in benefits. Herrod received $87,448 in compensation and $1,548 in deferred benefits. Frese received $52,250 in compensation and $14,472 in deferred benefits. The total here is $453,876, or just over 40% of revenue (and almost 42% of expenses), with Munsil receiving nearly 19% of the revenue (and over 19% of the expenses).

In 2002, it was $1,067,417 in revenue and $1,001,277 in expenses, of which Munsil collected $156,402 in salary (which means he got a 16% raise from 2002 to 2003), $22,708 in benefits, and $4,500 in expenses. Paisley got $77,000 in salary and $5,296 in benefits. Cathi Herrod got $62,090 in compensation and $1,116 in deferred benefits, and "Lit Counsel" Gary McCaleb got $63,083 in compensation and $9,764 in deferred benefits. That's $401,959, or just over 36% of revenue (40% of expenses), with Munsil taking over 17% (over 18% of expenses).

The Len Munsil Facts website points out that in 1997, the group's first year, Munsil's salary was more than half of its revenue. I don't have easy Internet access to the 1997-2001 Form 990s without paying a fee, but I suspect that's because the group's revenue was much lower. In any case, it is clear that Munsil has collected a hefty salary and generous annual raises from his nonprofit group. No doubt he now makes more as an attorney at Mueller & Drury, a firm specializing in divorce and personal injury cases, a firm which Munsil worked with to successfully appeal a ruling that permitted state funding for medically necessary abortions in the face of a statute that prohibited it (Munsil's group and Mueller & Drury were attorneys for members of the state legislature who filed amici curiae briefs in the case, Simat Corp et al. v. AHCCS).

Arizona Democratic Party funded anti-Munsil website

The chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party has admitted that the party gave $100,000 to the "Arizona Values Coalition" which funded the anti-Len Munsil website previously reported here. This comes after a denial by party spokesman Bart Graves on September 18. The site, which cost $1,250, has resulted in a payment of that amount to Munsil's campaign from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

Look, Democrats--use accurate information about Munsil to discredit him (of the sort that's on the Len Munsil Facts website), and do so openly, rather than using deceptively-named groups like the "Arizona Conservative Trust." If Munsil manages to come from far behind and win this election, the Democratic Party's actions will be partly to blame.

The Arizona Conservative Trust also paid for anti-Munsil pre-recorded telemarketing calls before the September 12 primaries.

Welcome, Church of Scientology visitors!

The stuff you're looking for is here (though looks like the Clearwater searcher, who may or may not be a Scientologist but certainly lives among them, found it already).

Scientology visits:
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 205.227.165.# (Church of Scientology International)
ISP Level 3 Communications
Location
Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : California
City : Los Angeles
Lat/Long : 34.1281, -118.2893 (Map)
Distance : 363 miles
Language English
en
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Opera 9.01
Opera/9.01 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en)
Javascript version 1.4
Monitor
Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Sep 21 2006 3:49:33 pm
Last Page View Sep 21 2006 3:49:33 pm
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://www.google.co...d&btnG=Google Search
Search Engine google.com
Search Words jim lippard
Visit Entry Page http://lippard.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page http://lippard.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time Sep 21 2006 2:49:33 pm
Visit Number 32,144

Domain Name rr.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address 68.200.46.# (Road Runner)
ISP ROADRUNNER-SOUTHWEST
Location
Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Florida
City : Clearwater
Lat/Long : 27.9617, -82.7368 (Map)
Distance : 1,773 miles
Language English
en
Operating System Macintosh MacOSX
Browser Safari 1.3
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/312
Javascript version 1.5
Monitor
Resolution : 1440 x 900
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Sep 21 2006 1:39:58 pm
Last Page View Sep 21 2006 1:39:58 pm
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://www.google.co...gy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Search Engine google.com
Search Words blog, scientology
Visit Entry Page http://lippard.blogs...ntology-sampler.html
Visit Exit Page http://lippard.blogs...ntology-sampler.html
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Sep 21 2006 3:39:58 pm
Visit Number 32,125

New Face on Mars images

The Mars Express orbiter has taken some new images of the so-called "Face on Mars" which were released to the public yesterday. Not surprisingly, they don't provide any support for the claim that this feature of Mars is an artifact.

(Hat tip to Dave Palmer on the SKEPTIC mailing list for the link.)

Mandating lower fuel prices is neither environmentally nor economically sound

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has a petition on her website to send to President Bush to ask him to ask Congress to take legislative action to mandate lower gasoline prices. This makes no sense. The best way to reduce dependence on gasoline and oil is for the prices to go up, not down. We're taxing imports of Brazilian ethanol from sugar in order to promote corn-based products raised in the U.S., at the behest of companies like corporate welfare pig Archer Daniels Midland--how about stopping that? The Economist has frequently argued (most recently in its issue this month on climate change) that the U.S. should follow Europe's lead by increasing taxes on gasoline as well as providing incentives to shift to alternative energy.

Ellen Simon, a Democratic Party candidate from Sedona running against corrupt politician Rick Renzi in Arizona's District 1, has "protecting the environment" on her list of issues, but she's also pushing Napolitano's "lower gas prices" petition. Why, Ellen? (BTW, thanks for the link to my Renzi/Hayworth post.)