Dr. Bruce Barry will conduct the presentation at 2 p.m., Tuesday, March 31, in the Woodward Library. Barry is the Brownlee O. Currey Jr. Professor of Management and a Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University.
Barry’s presentation will address restrictions on freedom of speech and other civil liberties faced by adults at work, the law’s lack of protection for basic civil liberties in workplaces and the complexity of free speech rights on university campuses.  Barry’s talk will also deal with related aspects of free expression inside organizations and develop an argument that more expansive rights to free speech in workplaces and universities need not conflict with the pursuit of organizational goals.

Barry joined the Vanderbilt faculty in 1991 and was director of the Owen School’s Ph.D. program in management from 1998-2004. He has taught at the University of North Carolina and Duke University and has been a visiting professor at the Melbourne Business School and the Queensland University of Technology in Australia. He is president of the board of directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and is a contributing writer on political, economic and social issues for the Nashville Scene and its blog on politics and media, “Pith in the Wind.”

Barry’s current research explores intersections between ethics and emotion and connections between social identity and judgments about unethical behavior. He studies the psychology of motivation in situations where individuals pursue long-term goals, spanning not just years, but decades.  Additionally, he is examining free expression and workplace rights from legal, managerial and ethical perspectives. His book on this subject is “Speechless: The Erosion of Free Expression in the American Workplace,” published in 2007 by Berrett-Koehler.

For more information about this and other Library Athenaeum events, contact the Woodward Library, (931) 221-7346 or visit, library.apsu.edu/events/athenaeum.htm.

The format for the debate will consist of policy and platform questions concerning the economy, foreign policy, health care, the environment, civil liberties, the federal budget, reproductive rights, international trade, gun rights, campaign finance reform, immigration, education and race and gender.  Each candidate will be given two minutes to make introductory statements and then one or two minutes per question to answer policy and platform questions.  The debate will end at 8:30pm with a candidate’s reception to follow in the lobby of the Stephenson Center.

For more information about the Presidential Candidate’s Alternative Debate visit their web site.

Attending this event will be Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party, Brad Lyttle of the US Pacifist Party, Frank McEnulty of the New American Independent Party, Brian Moore  of the Socialist Party, Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party and  Gloria La Riva  of the Party for Socialism and Liberation.  Bruce Barry  will serve as moderator for this event.

Debate Format:

7:00 PM:    Introduction and Opening Statements (2 Minutes Per Candidate)
7:15 PM:    Policy and Issue Questions (1 or 2 Minutes Per Candidate)
8:20 PM:    Closing Statements  (1 Minute Per Candidate)
8:30 PM:    Debate End and Candidate’s Reception

Ground Rules: Candidates are encouraged to keep within time limits announced. A time keeper will present placards to candidates showing time limits of response. Once over time moderator has discretion to close comments and move on to next candidate.  Moderator has discretion to clarify candidate’s response and encourage dialogue between candidates.

Topic List: (Data Source: Project Vote Smart)

The Economy: Americans are concerned about the safety of their retirements, pension and ability to obtain a mortgage.  The value of the dollar is dropping and investor confidence is at an all time low, what will you do to improve our nation’s economy?  What will you do to reduce our national indebtedness and in doing so restore world confidence that investing in America is a good option?  What is your solution for the thousands of Americans who are facing foreclosure or have lost their housing? Do you support increased funding for national job-training programs that retrain displaced workers or teach skills needed in today’s job market?  Would you support an increase in the federal minimum wage?  What are your feelings about the rights of workers to form unions?

Federal Budget: Americans want to know where their candidates stand on the federal budget.  The allocation of funds for federal programs is one of the most important roles the president plays in shaping public policy.  How would you have voted on a federal bailout of Wall Street?  What conditions would you attach to such a bailout?  What are your budget priorites on federal issues such as defense, education, the environment and health care? Do you support requiring the federal budget to be balanced each year?  Please indicate your plans for the social security system?  Would you work to ensure the viability of the social security system?  Would you raise the retirment age for individual eligibility to receive full benefits?

Foreign Policy: What is your foreign policy agenda for the United States?  Would you support an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan?  What would you do if elected President regarding US relations with Iran?  What are your feelings about pre-emptive use of military force as an instrument of national policy? Do you support long-term use of National Guard troops to supplement the armed forces in assignments overseas?  Should the United States provide leadership in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?  Should the United States support the creation of a Palestinian state?  Do you support greater economic and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea?  Finally, should the United States be involved in peace keeping activities in countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia and Burma?  Do you support the United States granting aid to countries when extraordinary circumstances cause disaster and threaten civilian lives?

Health Care: The issue of access to quality, affordable health care is a concern for many voters.  Nearly fifty million Americans do not have access to health care but at the same time some people advocate that the United States has the best health care system in the world.  What are your thoughts on the issue of access to health care?  Do you support universal single payer health care? What would you do to reduce the costs of prescription drugs for Seniors? Do you support the legalization of medical marijuana?

Education: Please indicate your policy platform on the issue of education. Would you support increased funding of our nation’s k-12 public schools. What are your feelings about mandatory standards and testing requirements for students?  What are your feelings about the use of vouchers?  What will you do regarding federal funding and support for our nation’s public college students? Do you support increased or decreased funding for pell grants for college students?

Abortion and Reproductive Rights: Many Americans have strong feelings about issues related to reproductive rights and abortion. Do you feel that abortion should always be legal, should only be legal within the first trimester, when the woman’s life is endangered, in the case of incest or rape, or should always be illegal?  How do you feel about federal subsidies being used on abortion procedures? Do you support federal funding for research on existing embryonic stem cell lines?  Do you support federal funding to create lines of stem cells from new embryos?

Same Sex Marriage: What are your feelings regarding the issue of same sex marriage?  As a candidate for federal office, do you believe that same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions?  Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry or do you support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman? Should sexual orientation be included in federal anti-discrimination laws?

Crime and Punishment: More Americans are incarcerated now than at any point in our history, what role do you believe the federal government should play on issues of crime and punishment?  Do you support programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills and job-placement assistance when released?  Do you support mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs?  Do you support programs to provide prison inmates with drug and alcohol addiction treatment?  Would you support the decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of marijuana? How do you feel about reduced prison sentences for those who commit non-violent crimes? Do you support the elimination the use of the death penalty for federal crimes?

Race and Gender: Race and gender continue to be defining issues in federal policy.  As a candidate do you believe the consider race and gender in government contracting decisions?  Do you support affirmative action in public college admissions?

Campaign Finance Reform: As you know, campaign finance reform has continued to be an issue of importance to voters.  Currently seven states have adopted some form of campaign finance reform which involves the allocation of public dollars for candidates.  On the federal level one candidate has said that the current system of public campaign finance is broken, while another candidate has accepted campaign finance limits.  How do you feel about the issue of campaign finance reform and elections?  Do you support campaign finance reform of the current election financing system? If elected would you support public taxpayer funding for candidates who comply with spending limits?  Do you support instant runoff voting or election day as a national holiday?

The Environment: What would you do regarding the environment and energy policy?  Please indicate your policy issues regarding offshore oil drilling and drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.  What will you do to move America towards a clean energy future?  Do you support strengthened fuel efficiency standards on all gasoline and diesel powered engines?  Do you support the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel?  What will you do to increase development of alternative energy?  Do you consider nuclear energy to be an alternative energy source that needs to be developed for national energy security? Do you support international mandatory emission targets to limit global warming?

Gun Rights: Please indicate your position on the issue of the second amendment.  Do you believe that Americans should be allowed to carry conceal weapons?  Should current enforcement and restrictions on the purchase of guns be strengthened?  Should individuals be allowed to carry guns on college campuses?  Do you support a ban on the ownership of handguns except by law enforcement or other government officials?

Immigration: Please indicate your policy platform on the issue of immigration.  Would you support amnesty for undocumented workers who are already working in the United States?  Do you believe that undocumented workers should be offered a path to citizenship?  Do you support harsher punishments for employers who knowingly hire immigrants who are not in this country legally?  Do you believe that people who are not here legally should be returned to their countries of origin, even if it means breaking up their families?

International Trade: Please indicate your position on matters of trade?  Do you support economic globalization and free trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT?  Would you work to withdraw the US from international free trade agreements?  Would you support the continued participation of the United States in the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and World Bank?  Do you support the United States imposing economic sanctions on China for human rights abuses?

Civil Liberties: Civil liberties are of the utmost concern to many Americans.  The Bush administration has argued that there must be a balance between respect for civil liberties and the need to fight the terrorists.  Should law enforcement agencies have greater discretion to monitor domestic communications?  Do you support a repeal of the patriot act?  What role should the department of Homeland Security play in national affairs?  Would you support the creation of a federal level Department of Peace?

For more information contact Chris Lugo, 615-593-0304, ; Elizabeth Barger, 931-964-2119, ; or Eric Schecter, 615-414-4572, .

I amuse easily. Which is why I tried hard to hold back a smile, a chuckle (at the irony), when I read of GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s hacked e-mail.

The intrusiveness of that act, the back-door sneak attack on personal privacy is exactly what this Republican administration is doing to the American people every day: screening e-mails for “trigger”words, tracking travel of ordinary citizens, tapping phone lines,  seeking access to library records … the list of civil liberties and privacy issues invaded and run through the shredder by our government (which is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people) is endless. “Government hacking” is the crude term for citizen surveillance in the guise of homeland security.

Because we are “just ordinary people” that’s supposed to make it okay? I don’t think so. As we learned this week, when it comes to internet and computer hacking, rank doesn’t have its privileges, nor does legislative rank and file offer immunity from such attacks.

Perhaps if Palin or John McCain get back a bit of what their party and their President has been dishing out, they may think twice (I doubt it, but there’s always hope) about the ramifications of the laws and the bill of rights that the government and their President are systematically shredding, the undermining of civil liberties and free speech they increasingly enable, propose, and support. That persistent undermining of our basic rights erodes our faith in government, and most certainly in their party in power.

The hacker in question rooting through Palin’s e-mail is not of the government, he’s just a guy. With a business. With a certain set of skills, which he puts to questionable use.  And he hacked Sarah’s e-mail (and face it, hacking isn’t nice, it’s downright nasty), an account that she promptly closed. She’s ticked. Justifiably so. But I do wonder what he found (I haven’t looked), given that she has refused, among other things, to respond to a subpeona for records related to her political/ethical problems in Alaska. Given that she has put herself in the public eye, available for ethical, political and moral dissection under the public microscope, she has opened herself up to scrutiny.

Now granted, I shudder to think that my e-mail could be hacked, that my personal writings could be read by others. Like Sarah, I’d be really ticked. But there’s nothing there that I wouldn’t, or haven’t already said, out loud, in public, often in print.  It’s just how I am. I would, however, be infuriated by the audacity of a stranger peering into my personal business and figuring out that I want another shot at visiting The Three Windows and honoring the grounds of the Goddess (does that make me Wiccan, Pagan maybe?) at Machu Picchu (Sarah’s Wasilla church won’t like me).

Okay, Sarah. Time to look through that Republican lens and know firsthand a bit of what it feels like when our government hacks us.

Those who warned of the civil liberties issues with these cameras were 100% correct that they could be used to track and database the movement and associations of law abiding citizens. Why is this dangerous? Let’s say one day the government does something that you don’t like. Then, lawfully exercising your right to free speech and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance, you protest it. Suddenly you have popped up on the government’s radar screen. The government can then check the voluminous records they have already started keeping on Americans, such as travel and flight records.

The government can go back and go through your call logs, Internet traffic, movement logs, and other electronic traces with a fine tooth comb looking for things that woud allow them to harrass or intimidate you.

There are millions of laws on the books, many of them complex and hard for the average person to understand and follow. How many of these laws are you aware of? How many of them have you inadvertently broken? How many others exist that you don’t even know about!

Tracking movements and associations is especially useful when turning the power of  government against it’s citizens.

In order for cyberspace to be policed, Internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with ( Michael “Top Spy”) McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer, or Web search. “Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation,” he said. Giorgio warned me, “We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.’” – Wired Magazine: NSA Must Examine All Internet Traffic to Prevent Cyber Nine-Eleven, Top Spy Says

For example, after checking on your life, they may find out that your best friend is a member of several environmental groups, one of them suspected of links to environmental terrorism. You or someone you know were in close proximity to a drug dealer, or that mafia guy, or while at the local convenience store you spoke with a guy who recently got busted for breaking into homes.

Even though you are a law abiding citizen, can you be sure that every single person you ever have come in contact with is, or was, as well? That is the true danger of this: guilt by association or proximity.

It is time for the Clarksville City Council to rescind their red-light camera program and not install these spy cameras in our community.

Vendors plan to add spy technology to existing red light camera and speed camera installations.

Private companies in the US are hoping to use red light cameras and speed cameras as the basis for a nationwide surveillance network similar to one that will be active next year in the UK. Redflex and American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the top two photo enforcement providers in the US, are quietly shopping new motorist tracking options to prospective state and local government clients. Redflex explained the company’s latest developments in an August 7 meeting with Homestead, Florida officials.

“We are moving into areas such as homeland security on a national level and on a local level,” Redflex regional director Cherif Elsadek said. “Optical character recognition is our next roll out which will be coming out in a few months — probably about five months or so.”

The technology would be integrated with the Australian company’s existing red light camera and speed camera systems. It allows officials to keep full video records of passing motorists and their passengers, limited only by available hard drive space and the types of cameras installed. To gain public acceptance, the surveillance program is being initially sold as an aid for police looking to solve Amber Alert cases and locate stolen cars.

“Imagine if you had 1500 or 2000 cameras out there that could look out for the partial plate or full plate number across the 21 states where we do business today,” Elsadek said. “This is the next step for our technology.”

ATS likewise is promoting motorist tracking technologies. In a recent proposal to operate 200 speed cameras for the Arizona state police, the company explained that its ticketing cameras could be integrated into a national vehicle tracking database. This would allow a police officer to simply enter a license plate number into a laptop computer and receive an email as soon as a speed camera anywhere in the state recognized that plate.

Such programs would be fully consistent with existing law on searches and seizures. In the 2003 case Washington v. William Bradley Jackson, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that police could not use a physical GPS tracking device to monitor a suspect’s movements without first obtaining a warrant. No warrant would be needed or restrictions applied to license plate tracking systems which do not require any physical contact. Instead, individual police officers could monitor the movements of suspected criminals or even their wives and neighbors at any time.

In the past, police databases have been used to intimidate innocent motorists. An Edmonton, Canada police sergeant, for example, found himself outraged after he read columnist Kerry Diotte criticize his city’s photo radar operation in the Edmonton Sun newspaper. The sergeant looked up Diotte’s personal information, and, without the assistance of electronic scanners, ordered his subordinates to “be on the lookout” for Diotte’s BMW. Eventually a team of officers followed Diotte to a local bar where they hoped to trap the journalist and accuse him of driving under the influence of alcohol. Diotte took a cab home and the officers’ plan was exposed after tapes of radio traffic were leaked to the press. Police later cleared themselves of any serious wrong-doing following an extensive investigation.

In the UK, officials are planning to dramatically expand the use of average speed cameras that track cars over distances as great as six miles. Records on all vehicle movements taken from a nationwide network of cameras will be stored for five years in a central government Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) server, allowing police to keep tabs on criminals and political opponents. Work on the data center in north London began in 2005 and officials expect real-time, nationwide tracking capability to be available by January.

Source: The Newspaper, Photo Ticket Cameras to Track Drivers Nationwide

About The Newspaper

The Newspaper is a journal covering motoring issues around the world from a political perspective.

Denominational: a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.

“When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual’s decision about whether and how to worship?Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs.” ~~ Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

In downtown Clarksville on Thursday, September 11, congregants and legislators from varied Christian churches across the county gathered. The implied purpose of the gathering, part of a nationwide movement called Cry Out America, was to acknowledge the tragedy of September 11, 2001, an event that cost America the lives of 3,000 of its citizens on home territory, precipitated the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cost this country thousands of live lost or irrevocably maimed, and dug a deep hole of nearly insurmountable debt that our children will have to pay.

Thus people gathered “in the name of (their) God” to ostensibly honor the victims of 9-11, or so the advertising suggested; in fact it was a blatant effort at integrating the Christian faith into local, state and federal government, complete with out-of-context quotes by our founding fathers relating Christianity to the Constitution and the founding of the United States of America.

Cry Out America, sponsored by the national group, Awakening America Alliance, was billed as an interdenominational event, and it was; it was a gathering Christians of varying shades of Christianity. Baptists, Methodist. Presbyterians. Missionary sects. Evangelicals. Fundamentalists. All with deep and obvious roots in Christianity. It was also exclusionary of “non-Christians” who mourn 9-11 just as deeply as the Christians do. The term “interdenominational” refers to “between churches.”

Interdenominational: Interdenominational (also called transdenominational) Churches built for the purpose of bringing together Christians of different denominations are often referred to as united and uniting churches. This sometimes leads to doctrinal and stylist compromises, leading to the idea that there are “primary” and “secondary” issues in faith. Primary issues describe those about which there can be no disagreement, whereas secondary issue can be compromised upon. This is the ethos behind the Christian Union movement for instance (UCCF). Christian faith-based organizations which act independent of church oversight are called interdenominational or parachurch organizations (para, is Greek for beside, or alongside). They are typically Protestant or evangelical.

Given that 9-11 affected all Americans, religious or not, a non-denominational ceremony on this seventh anniversary of September 11 would have been more appropriate.

Cry Out America was a Christian “Praise the Lord” interdenominational prayer revival, not a true memorial service. I found that 9-11 ‘hook’ into something else to be offensive. Had this been a true non-denominational event, welcoming people of all faiths and beliefs, and those with no faith who also mourn on this day, I would have felt far more comfortable. Not because I have a problems with Christians. I don’t. Had this been held at, say, Madison Street United Methodist Church in their huge parking lot or hall, I would have found the entire thing absolutely appropriate.

I do have a problem with using the stepping stone of tragedy to launch a rally that was clearly aimed at putting God into government. (I can hear the angry letters pouring in already). I do have a problem with using the stepping stone of tragedy to launch a rally that was clearly aimed at putting God into government and promoting one category of faith over another on government property. Of course, organizers said it was held on “public property,” and yes, as taxpayers, we supposedly own it. I believe in this little thing with constitutional clout called “separation of church and state.” I feel the same way about the Ten Commandment signs on a public right of way, nativity scenes in city or state or federal holiday displays, and the many ceremonies that start or end with blatantly Christian-oriented rather than non-denominational prayer, an action that favors one category of religious beliefs over all others.

Had Cry Out America been a nondenominational, more ecumenical gathering with a solemn focus on the tragedy of 9-11 and the subsequent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, I would have been an agreeable and willing participant on public turf. Had there been the moments of silence and silent prayer, the ringing of a church bell, the reading of names, the reading of non-denominational or universal texts, I would have been much happier.

I was raised Catholic. I am now a Unitarian. I  have a strong tendency toward and interest in Bhuddism. I can, by virtue of how I live my life, be called a Christian. I treat my neighbors as I wish to be treated. I feed the hungry, help the sick, provide shelter at times, and often give without expectation of a return — all of which is rather Christ-like, or, yes, Christian). I am also involved in the ancient Goddess culture which predates Christianity, and with Wicca. And I have spent time immersed in Native American rituals and medicine too.

Montgomery County has established a precedent by not only allowing this religious celebration to happen on county land, but supporting it by lending materials (chairs, electric power) for the comfort of participants. When I have a point to make (and my ’causes’ are universal and non-denominational) you will now find me on the courthouse steps, exercising my right to use this “public/government property” (I am one of the public, just as Christians are) to make my non-denominational case for peace, against war, or for a true commemoration service for those who have been killed or maimed on September 11 and its aftermath, and for all the soldiers of our country’s many wars. I hope they will graciously supply chairs for our attendees, who are no less American than those of Cry out America.

Cry Out America was, according to Beverly Blackard, Montgomery County coordinator for Cry Out America,  organized without the requirement of a permit or insurance fees; it was deemed by its organizers as an event for which “God opened all the doors.” Montgomery County has set a clear as crystal precedent and to deny any future group the right to assemble, no permit required, to state their case will guarantee a legal challenge.  Should any citizen use of that public space now be denied, the denial would be legally challenged.  Should a government body supporting one specific religion group via the use of public space and equipment  not provide equal access to other groups would be tacit support of a religion and a violation of church and state. Of course, I also believe that  any religious group that posts political signs, or preaches its collective politics to the pulpit by publicly endorsing specific candidates and issues, should lose their non-profit status and be taxed as a lobbying organizing.

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion. Some of the strongest language came from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurrence with the 5-4 majority, in which she said:

“Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”

“When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies non-adherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual’s decision about whether and how to worship? Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs.”

Justice O’Connor’s words echo her opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly, in which she observed that state endorsement of religion “sends a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.”

~~ American Civil Liberties Union

~~ Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005

~~ Courtesy of Theocracy Watch

Early in his first presidential term, Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” ~~ Thomas Jefferson

Allowing this clearly Christian religious assembly to happen on the County Courthouse steps has set the stage for allowing assemblies of other faiths, of political or civil liberties, of peace or anti-war actions to take place on the same site with the same amenities provided by the county government. To ban or suppress other faiths or organizations from equal access under the same terms of access as Cry Out America will become an issue of discrimination.

]]> http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/16/montgomery-county-sets-precedent-for-equal-time-equal-access/feed/ 0 http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/08/09/out-again-eternal-flame-extinguished-on-apathetic-election-day/ http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/08/09/out-again-eternal-flame-extinguished-on-apathetic-election-day/#comments Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:00:19 +0000 Christine Anne Piesyk http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/?p=7279 The darkened flame mirrors both voter ambivalence and the loss of a sense of honor.

The flame is out -- again!

Light’s out. Again.

Just when we thought the Eternal Flame was finally going to remain lit, its blaze was doused again — on election day.

Apart from being completely irritated and totally digusted with a city that can’t seem to get its collective act together long enough to keep one itty-bitty little thing ablaze (such as a monument that honors all American soldiers), there is another irony, one that I, as an American citizen, find disgusting.

The city seems to have no problem lighting the flame for commercial events. The flame blazed when the new downtown fountain was lit. It blazed during the last three Riverfests and Rivers and Spires festivals. It blazed when nothing was going on downtown but city government as usual. Because we (Clarksville Online) check every single day, we know when the flame is lit. And when it isn’t.

It was off on the fourth of July, even as the Vietnam Vets staged a striking ceremony honoring their fallen. It was re-lit after the 4th of July passed, and blazed right up until the eve of primary election day. It has been lit while the Legion Street-turned-Strawberry Alley construction is underway. Now the city managed to keep the new streetlights ablaze throughout the daytime hours this entire week. Water continues to flow through the lovely new fountain on Public Square. Only the flame, the best and brightest of our symbols, seems eratic.

It is primarily the holidays, the last two Memorial Days, Veterans Day, Flag Day, and days related to the rights our soldiers fight and die for (like Election Day and our right to freely vote) — that see the flame conspicuous by its darkness, a collective slap in the face to soldiers and their families.

Ever since the American Revolution, soldiers have fought and died to protect and preserve our freedoms, including our right to vote, one of the most basic rights and privileges we as Americans cherish. Or used to. We seemed to have lost that concern.

So here we stand, on the brink of still another presidential race, and what happens? People in their thoughtless, mindless apathy fail to vote (as an 11.86% turnout indicates), and the soldiers who have for centuries fought to preserve such rights, and help establish them for other nations, stand dishonored by that apathy. The darkened flame mirrors both voter ambivalence and the loss of a sense of honor.

On Thursday night, as I left the Riverview Inn in the shadow of the unlit flame and in wake of the narrow defeat of Tim Barnes by incumbent Rosalind Kurita, I thought of a larger issue, that of individuals who care enough to take up the challenge and run for public office, and the individuals who have the courage to work tirelessly behind the scenes for both challengers and incumbents, who face daunting tasks in the running of America at every level. The ability to hold office, or to run for office, the bloodshed it has taken over centuries to secure and sustain those rights, are tied to that flame, the one that was out, again, Thursday night. The blackened space at the top of ‘Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Clouds’ is an embarassment to the city — and we, its residents.

I don’t want to hear the lame excuse that “the wind blew it out” (that’s been used before by a city councilo representative on a windless witless day). I don’t want another round of pass the buck by city officials who apparently are too incompetent to fix the problem permanently — they are solidifying the “top spot” in that. If the city can’t cut it, maybe some business that makes its living off the backs of military paychecks in Clarksville will step up and address the problem. Or just maybe, citizens, veterans included, could make enough noise that the city will have to take successful action. Don’t apologize to me, to the people of Clarksville, to the soldiers of Fort Campbell. Just fix the darned flame.

Fort Campbell troops might consider posting a soldier a day — an honor guard — to stand downtown at the base of the flame with a candle and sign that reads “Thank you Clarksville for failing to honor us and our fallen brethen for our dedicated service.” Maybe some military wives, husbands or mothers with family deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan might want to take turns sitting at the flame during the day, every day, until it is re-lit PERMANENTLY. Maybe guilt or public embarassment will fuel the flame.

I am ashamed that more folks are not stepping up and deluging city hall with complaints, writing letters to the editors of local media, or otherwise showing some pride and honor towards our troops and the freedoms they fought for.

What will it take for Clarksville to keep one simple symbol ablaze to honor our troops and our military history?

I have been covering elections since 1968, back when I was too young to vote but old enough to be a journalist covering the elections. Just like the soldiers old enough to ship to Vietnam but not old enough to legally vote against that war.

I’ve only missed two elections in my voting life, and as a writer I’ve covered 30 years worth of voting ups and downs. I have painstakingly worked to implant the importance of voting to my daughter, my grandchildren (two of whom are now old enough to vote), and anyone who can and should be registered to vote. That’s why I found myself upset and disturbed at the end of the day, Thursday, August 7. Primary day. A day of another kind of infamy: a day of voter apathy.

What else can you call it when a meager 11.86% of the registered voters show up to cast their vote?

I have a number of other adjectives: disgraceful, unpatriotic, disrespectful, and just plain lazy. When I first voted in New England one brisk September morning, we had one day and one day only to show up and vote. It was dicier in November, when the odds of a cold November rain or even an early blizzard could change the shape of an election by placing oversized puddles, torrential downpours, an occasional ice storm, or a small blizzard in the way, limiting how easily a voter could get to a precinct on that solitary voting day. Forty years later in Tennessee, I have the opportunity of voting at my leisure anytime in the two-week “early voting” period or voting on the “day of…” Somewhere in that 15 day window of opportunity I can find time and enough good weather to get out and vote. What are we waiting for, door to door service?

Tim Barnes (far right) with supporters on the campaign trail as early voting ends. Barnes lost his senate bid in an election with a turnout of 11.86%.

Voting is right, a privilege, an opportunity. And yes, voting as it is done now with machines and ambiguous technology has its challenges, as evidenced by the demand for a return to veriafiable (read: Paper) ballots. But anyone who dares to think one vote, their vote, doesn’t make a difference need only look at the results in District 22 on August 7. A 19-vote difference with 11.89% of the registered voters showing up. Imaging the possibilities if even 50% had turned out.

Apathy and ambivalence rule; people think they cannot make a difference, that their voice doesn’t matter, that politicians listen then do as they please. Why not, since no one, including voters who have the power, opt to challenge them?

Apathy and ambivalence rule; as long as people are too lazy, too disinterested, too inattentive to get out and vote, they will continue to get the very thing they complain about: politicians who are disinterested and inattentive to the needs of the people. Do not dare to complain about conditions — political, economic, social — in this country unless you have taken the time to cast a ballot and speak your mind as should be allowed under the ever-diminishing U.S. Constitution.

As we are sleeping in our self-centered cocoons, our civil liberties and constitutional rights eroding before our eyes, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. We have the power to effect change; we simply choose not to use it. Yet we are arrogant enough to complain about the aftermath of our own indifference.

My mother used to say “clean your plate. There are starving children who would love to have what you have to eat.”

Listen up, folks. There are people in the world who would love to shape their government but will never have that opportunity. The average American, it seems, would rather toss that chance away with yesterday’s trash. We get what we deserve.

The following is a personal response to both Tennessee U.S. senators who voted to pass the recent FISA legislation in the Senate. This farce of a bill stripped Americans of Constitutionally protected rights, gave cover to communication enterprises which had wrongly acquiesced to strong-armed tactics of government entities overstepping their bounds and did nothing whatsoever to enhance our national or individual security.

“Dear Senators Alexander and Corker,

I am greatly disturbed that you supported an abandonment of essential Bill of Rights protections to be seen supporting the Bush administration. Your vote does immense damage to the rule of law and our most fundamental democratic institutions and our personal liberties.

I can not impress upon you strongly enough how you need to fix this most egregious mistake by supporting efforts to revisit this flawed bill and rectify its worst consequences. This bill is nothing but an incalculatable disaster of a totally unwarranted and dastardly compromise. As your fellow Senator Kit Bond said, “the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get.” The American people, your Tennessee constituents included, got bludgeoned to a bloody pulp for no good reason. The shame is on your hands and your conscience and your voting records.”

I am reminded of a most telling quote from a most radical thinker:

“If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison.”

The radical thinker, why none other than that erstwhile former U. S. Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower, speaking as President of Columbia University in 1949. He was such a liberal firebrand that the Republican Party nominated him and the American people twice elected him President of the United States. What were they thinking?? Mm-Mm-Mm. More to the point, “What were YOU thinking?”

Lady Liberty is surely weeping for all of us.

Wolf enters a male-dominated political commentary arena dominated by men to make a compelling argument for civil rights. Her analysis falls closer to the bones of political discourse as presented by Emma Goldman, and presents her case with an energetic urgency as she cautions Americans of a dangerous “fascist shift” brought about by the Bush administration.

Chapters outline the “Ten Steps to Fascism” citing historical corollaries (as well as the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm), with headings like “Invoke an External and Internal Threat,” “Establish Secret Prisons,” “Surveil Ordinary Citizens,” “Restrict the Press,” and “Target Key Individuals,” making a case for the existence of fascism outside of a dictatorship.

Her book’s publication through the small press, Chelsea Green Publishing of White River Junction, Vermont, which is committed to politics and “sustainable living.” Here is Naomi Wolf, speaking out an this October 2007 videotaping.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The issues are on the Bill of Rights and implicate university free speech zones, university speech codes, and the USA Patriot Act powers and students’ rights of free assembly.

Students in the class are either on the prosecution, the defense, or the court. This semester’s Lead Counsels are Elizabeth Borsavage and Jeremy Smith for the prosecution, and Valerie Cerda and Chris Lowe for the defense. The Chief Justice is Enderson Miranda. Amber Gaulden and Beth Anne Warhurst from the Dramatic Arts Department are playing the role of the accused. Several other students from outside the class are portraying the FBI Agent (DJ Luciano) the Police Officer (Bethany McCaslin) with other students including Leslie Crouch, Julia Dittrich and Adam Haynes providing testimony.

The premise is that on or about March 7, 2008, several students were engaged in a campus protest within the “Free Speech Zone” here on campus. The protesters appeared to be chanting anti-war slogans and were heard to also chant “Death to Non-Believers.” Shortly into the protest/demonstration, an undercover FBI Agent along with a local uniformed police officer attempted to break-up the protest, asserting that it had not been approved by the university and they were violating free speech zone and speech codes.

What ensued was a confrontation between at least two of the student-protesters, alleged to be the leaders of a group called “Holy Land Avengers” and the authorities, which resulted in the arrests of both students on several charges including assault and battery and civil rights intimidation. Subsequent search warrants executed at the apartment of the two students resulted in evidence being seized including; weaponry, materials on terrorism and Dirty Bomb-Making as well as a weapon alleged to have been at the scene of the protest.

Amber Gaulden, a Dramatic Arts major, aka Alice O’Hare, leader of the protest group and one of the accused and DJ Luciano, aka, FBI Agent DiSalvo.

To the right, Beth Warhurst (dramatic arts student), aka, Bethany Christianson and Policewoman Bethany McCaslin, aka, Heather Brooke.

A plea arraignment was held recently where pleas Not Guilty to all charges were entered by the Defendant Alice O’Hare on behalf of her co-Defendant Bethany Christianson. Motions by both prosecution and defense have been heard by the court and a special tribunal of five judges.

If you have any questions or would like to take part in this trial please contact Dr. Rabidoux at , or Kelly Maddox at .edu.

The conference will focus on young people’s rights, both in school and in the community. Topics include freedom of speech and expression, discipline, dress code, youth violence, LGBT rights, and drug testing. Special sessions will focus on what to do when stopped by the police and Activism 101 (the tools needed for making change), Freedom of Expression (including student rights related to speech, press, dress, and the Internet), and Street Law (including student rights and responsibilities related to police and the courts, racial profiling and police/community relations).

Conference participants include Attorney and First Amendment Center Scholar David Hudson, Metro Nashville Police Chief Ronal Serpas, Referee Sheila Calloway of the Metro Nashville Juvenile Court, and youth activist Lindsay Earls, a plaintiff in the 2002 Earls v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that challenged random drug testing of high school students participating in extra-curricular activities.

This event is free and includes lunch and a snack will be provide. Participants need to pre-register by Feb. 29th by filling out and sending in the registration form from our website, or through Facebook (search “ACLU Students Rights Conference”).

For further information, call Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director ACLU-TN at 615-320-7142.

Each representative is responsible for making sound and timely decisions on issues that are plaguing the survivability of our city, county, state, and nation. As responsible citizens we’re supposed to be the trumpets that sound the alarms signaling them to take actions.

Are we doing our forefathers justices by allowing these infractions of justice to continue unabated? Should we not be addressing these issues through the proper channels, reminding those in leadership positions that we will not permit their turning deaf ears to our uproar?

Clarksville is a growing metropolis. It is evident that in just a few short years our population will reach upward of 200,000, especially if the current sprawl is allowed to continue. With sprawl come the elements of prosperity. Some good … Some not so good. Now is the time to start preparing for the changes that will undoubtedly follow the course of action we have chosen through our election of the representatives who lead our city and county. Yes, whether we want them or not, with growth, whether define or undefined, come the imperfections associated with such progress.

As we move closer to the status of becoming a metropolitan community, we need to reconsider our ability to protect those who reside in our boundaries, identify methods to effectively deal with the inequities that will occur in our administering to a more diverse population, and start redefining how we will make the members of this great community feel more inclusive in the political, economic, and social affairs of our city and county. We also need to reassess the filling open leadership positions, and address the equity of the justice that’s being dispensed through our judicial system.

Each of those areas is pertinent in making citizens who reside within our borders feel more a part of the political and social environment. We have a constitutional mandate to demand the enforcement of local, state and federal laws that have been directed by legislative bodies who are chartered to regulate our commerce and justice systems.

We live in a country founded on the premise that equal justice is guaranteed to every citizen. Real justice begins with the establishing and dispersing the rule of law without exceptions. Laws designed to serve and protect every citizen. As citizens of this community, we need to be more aggressive in addressing the needs of our constituencies. If we are not vigilant, we are destined to become pawns of our own “inactions”.

Last August, President Bush attended an exclusive, high-priced fundraiser for New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici.  Local activists opposed to the president’s policies were, of course, not invited.  To let the president know that not everyone agreed with him, they planned to stand along his motorcade route holding up signs expressing their views, especially their opposition to the war in Iraq.

The peaceful demonstrators’ attempt at free speech was quickly squashed when police officers forced them to stay at least 150 yards away from the motorcade route, walling them off by placing numerous police cars and officers on horseback between the protesters and the president.  Meanwhile, a group of Bush supporters was allowed to stand right along the motorcade route, where their “God Bless George Bush!  We pray for you!” sign was in plain view of both Bush and the journalists accompanying him.

This isn’t the first time law enforcement officers have tried to squelch dissenters in President Bush’s presence. In 2004, Jeffrey and Nicole Rank were arrested for peacefully attending one of the president’s speeches while wearing t-shirts bearing the international “no” symbol superimposed over the word “Bush.”  The Ranks sued and ultimately received an $80,000 settlement from the White House—a win for free speech after a fight that should never have been necessary in a free society.

And in 2005, Leslie Weise and Alex Young were ejected from another of the president’s speeches because of a bumper sticker on their car that read “No More Blood for Oil.”  Their lawsuit is still pending.  

Now, the ACLU has filed a complaint in federal court on behalf of six of the peaceful protesters in New Mexico who were banned from the view of the president.  It is our hope that the lawsuit will prove once and for all that incidents such as these are unconstitutional.

These incidents of censorship appear to be dictated by White House policy.  The official Presidential Advance Manual recommends that someone working on the ground where the president is to make an appearance “ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route.”  It advocates the formation of “rally squads” of sign-wielding supporters that can “use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform.”  It also suggests that the rally squads “lead supportive chants to drown out the protesters (USA!  USA!  USA!).”  

Lest it be thought that only Republican administrations engage in this type of behavior, it is worth pointing out that the Clinton administration’s Advance Manual also suggested that supporters could “be encouraged to wave supporting placards in front of opposing ones.”  In fact, the ACLU supported a lawsuit against a government policy that prohibited people from demonstrating along the route of Clinton’s presidential inauguration parade.

It’s easy to see why presidents would want to be pictured surrounded by adoring supporters. After all, the true audience for a presidential appearance is usually not those who attend in person, but the potential millions who will catch a glimpse on the evening news.  Few may hear the words the president speaks, but many will see the images filmed that day.

But the desire to look good does not justify treating members of the public like extras in a campaign commercial rather than citizens with a protected constitutional right to engage in speech of their own.  Shielding the president from all criticism is an unsound and undemocratic policy that violates the Constitution.  The First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech.”  This guarantee is grounded in the idea that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained almost 90 years ago, “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”  

The right to free speech is meaningless when the government is permitted to do an end run around the First Amendment by relegating those who want to exercise it to remote locations where no one will hear them.  Communication requires both a speaker and a listener.  Just as it is censorship to prohibit speech entirely, it is censorship to place individuals where they can speak all they want with no chance of being heard.

Take Action

You should consider joining the ACLU, or at least donating to help them with the good works they are doing to protect all of our civil liberties.

About the author

Catherine Crump works at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to safeguard the right to engage in political dissent. Catherine’s project seeks to protect the First Amendment rights of government whistle blowers and political protesters. She counsels and supports government employees who wish to come forward with information about shortcomings in the government’s national security strategy. She also works with political protesters who are critical of government and have been forced to protest in relatively remote locations because of their viewpoint.
 

Editor’s Note: This article was originally posted at The Huffington Post, and The Daily Kos. Her bio is from Equal Justice Works

Bush was acquitted on the other charges though the presidential signings would have been a guilty verdict if not for a prosecutorial procedural error in not providing verification of a signing statement entered as evidence.

The Prosecutors, from left: Michael Price, Michael Hughey and helper Karl Lukis

The trial took place over two days, in two-hour sessions, not a lot of time to present evidence. Time constraints limited the number of witnesses and the presentation of evidence for both prosecutors and defense teams, and resulted in the guilty finding on one of the four counts. Given the apparent ease with which, in just four hours, this student panel managed to convict the President on one of four counts, it would be interesting to see what a week’s worth of trial would produce. As it stands, the APSU prosecution team scored a major victory for civil liberties. This trial was staged at Austin Peay State University as part of a Constitutional Law I class taught by Professor Greg Rabidoux, Ph.D., J.D., and included a panel of Judges, Defense Counsel and Prosecutors, and witnesses.

Standing from left: Lead Defense, Jessica Lance, Frankie A. DeJesus and Matt Harris, APSU Professor Dr. Rabidoux,; Lead Prosecutors Michael Hughey, Mike Price and Liz Borsavage. The Judges, seated from left, Kasey Henricks, Emery Walters, Enderson Miranda, Ryan Knight and Zach Suggs

1. Disparate Treatment of US Citizens during Hurricane Katrina Response in violation of 14th Amendment. The Federal response to Hurricane Katrina provided unequal protection under the law by unqualified director Michael Brown who was picked by Bush as he passed over others more qualified.
2. Violation of Separation of Powers within Articles I-III of US Constitution. Bush is not just interpreting to clarify laws through signing statements, but actually and intentionally changing the actual law, attempting to assert power as a lawmaker and not just through his Article II [“He shall faithfully execute the law”] powers from the Constitution. A President is not a lawmaker. He has altered 750 laws. [Reference the following website: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html].
3. Violation of Amendments I & IV, Freedom of Speech and Illegal Search and Seizure. Concerning wire tapping and eavesdropping on the American people: What is legal under the 4th Amendment and FISA, versus what has been made legal under the USA Patriot Act, and if in conflict, which one should prevail. There was deception on the part of the President in order to get the Patriot Act passed. Had Congress had the facts, they would not have signed the Patriot Act to begin with, considering the clear violations of privileges and due process rights offered by the Constitution under the Bill of Rights. The Prosecution presented FBI witness who testified she obtained no search warrants because of the President’s direct order to eavesdrop/wiretap.
4. Violation of the Geneva Convention Articles: Iraqis, specifically those in militias, were taken prisoner by the United States military when the U.S. military acted as an invading force. Prosecutors presented CIA witness who testified that most Iraqis captured and held had no ties with insurgents and were released. When Iraq was invaded, the Iraqi soldiers were of course supposed to defend their country. They were found by the CIA to be law abiding citizens, not terrorists. The definition of terrorist per G.W. Bush is “a suspected member of Al Quaeda or the Taliban”. For taking prisoners of war on Iraqi soil, the U.S. and military must adhere to Geneva Convention Articles.

Read the original article at: http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/11/28/apsu-mock-trial-united-states-vs-bush

Bernie Ellis introduces “UnCounted”

Producers describe UnCounted as “an explosive documentary that shows how the election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2004 election led to even greater fraud in 2006 — and now looms as an unbridled threat to the outcome of the 2008 election. This controversial film examines…how easy it is to change election outcomes and undermine election integrity…”

“There is still time to return to a verifiable system [such as paper ballots] for the 2008 presidential election,” Ellis said. Ellis, (at left with producer Patricia Earnhardt), is featured in this film. He noted that when issues arose with the e-machines in Maryland, the Republican governor of that state dumped the machines in favor of paper ballots in just seven weeks to guarantee the “integrity” of the election.

UnCounted details the long lines, missing machines, inaccuracies in tabulating votes, and the ways voting machines can be tampered with to affect tallies. The film documents long voting lines, missing and failed machines, and other occurrences in the 2000, 2004 and 2006 elections. It examines the relationship between companies such as Diebold, manufacturer of voting machines that serve millions of American voters, and elected officials including election commissions and federal and state officers whose decisions affect how Americans will cast their votes.

In Nashville, David Earnhardt said “buying a Krispy Kreme donut was better documented than our vote.” Our most vital right as as Americans is our right to vote, and that right is being eroded by the manipulation and malfunctioning of electronic voting machines, and there is no paper trail, no way to verify how votes were cast or tabulated.

Patricia Earnhardt (above right with display of UnCounted DVDs) introduced the film, noting that the Clarksville screening was only the second time this film has been shown in the state of Tennessee, though it has been screened in 39 other states and several other countries since its worldwide premiere in Nashville in November at the Belcourt Theater. That premiere played to a standing room only crowd, just as last night’s screening played to a full house. At both events, the film generated heavy comments and considerable questions in the post-film debate. Earnhardt also noted the absence of interest by mainstream media in this film, noting that Clarksville Online was the only media to cover the world premiere of Uncounted in Nashville.

For a state that tipped the scales on women’s suffrage and was pivotal in civil rights, Tennessee stands “eighth from bottom” on a list of states when it comes to election integrity, Ellis (at right) said. “[Election officials] say it is too late to change how we vote in this state. It is not. If Maryland can do it in seven weeks, we can too.”

Ellis noted that pivotal votes on the voting process are coming up on December 18 and urged this audience to contact their legislators and election commissioners to demand verifiable voting. Ellis is also creating a lending library of UnCounted DVDs that will be available at no cost to groups who want to screen this film.

Friday’s event was hosted by the Unitarian fellowship and sponsored by the FreeThinkers for Peace and Civil Liberties and Clarksville Online.

FreeThinkers founder Debbie Boen was “excited” over the turnout, voicing satisfaction that so many people are interested in the voting process and concerned about issues of voting and electronic machines. “This kind of turnout just fuels us, recharges us and makes us want to do more.”

Boen (at left) brought her sculpture, Bob, to the event, attaching a “trust me” sign about voting to this figure, which has been displayed in numerous art venues throughout Clarksville.

Clarksville Online Publisher Bill Larson, equally pleased with the success of the program, said that Clarksville sponsorship of this event, which was offered admission-free as a community service by all sponsoring groups, is just the first of a number of community programs Larson would endorse in the coming year. “This is part of what we give back to the community.”

Ellis wrapped up the event with recommended contacts and suggested actions for those interested in voicing their opinion about electronic voting.

Ellis urged anyone who wants to know more or wants to communicate with legislators on the issue to email him ( "> ) for an action packet and/or visit the web-site: www.votesafetn.org . More information is also available at ">.

Here is a preview of UnCounted: The Movie –

Click here to view the embedded video.

Additional photos from the Clarksville premiere of UnCounted:

A crowd gathered at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship for the Clarksville screening of David Earnhardt’s film, UnCounted

Bernie Ellis (left) makes a point on e-voting

Many viewers lingered after the film to comment on the e-voting issue and question Ellis on the finer points in the film

Chris Lugo, candidate for U.S. Senate, who attended the Nashville premiere and the Clarksville screening, discusses the electronic voting issue

FreeThinkers founder Debbie Boen makes a point on e-voting

Photos by David Shelton and Christine Anne Piesyk