and wonderfully satirical
I spent some time at Occupy Eureka. First there to join with others to raise awareness of the growing income gap that is threatening to destroy us.
Then I tried to assist those trying to meet and work with the County to protect our First Amendment rights. Part of that involved taking some late night and early morning shifts.
I wish I had had a camera the morning Officer Goodale walked by. At first I was glad to see him, because pacing about, looking and sounding agitated, was a frequent neighbor in front of the courthouse.
Officer Goodale appeared just as I heard a crash over by the newspaper boxes. Instead of dealing with this obvious destruction of property by a man taller and stronger than I, he points a finger at me, says "great protester you have there" and walks on down the street.
I wish I had though quick enough to get a picture the night he came, cut my "Dear Peace Officer" sign off the fence,then scurried away, too busy to stop and explain his actions. He had been there all day keeping an eye on a special gathering. When they ventured off the landing to take signs he put his knife away when he noticed the other officer untying a sign. During the day he and the other officer returned the signs, leaving them at the table. His demeanor that night was much different.
I wish I had not been on the other side of the plaza sweeping the morning Officer Goodale came and took a large banner off the fence then walked over and threw some homeless person's possessions off the bench by the stairs. As he left he yelled "that is for sitting." Jack was already getting the stuff out of the walkway when I arrived to help.
I admired the spunk and tenacity of Verbena but she and I disagree on one thing, I saw some EPD Officers who seemed uncomfortable, almost apologetic, when they came to take the signs or shoo the homeless from the cover of the landing in the middle of a rainy night. But sad to say, some almost seemed to enjoy it.
I never filed a complaint against Officer Goodale. The one I filed against his superior received a quick and dismissive response.
What is wrong with Frank Jagar's prayer breakfast? He used his title, his elected position to promote religion. It doesn't matter who paid the rent on the building. That is a misuse of his title and his position.
And as to invocations, the question isn't whether it is Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Mormon, Hindu, or Devil worship. Religion is not city business and the Council should stay out of the religion business.
Jamie, Perhaps my acknowledgement of Marcy's, not John's, use of "fondling" wasn't clear enough in my second post above. However, I think many coming of age stories speak of the "childlike wonder tinged with fear" associated with sexual encounters. But if you prefer to think of John's article as describing a platonic relationship with his guns, I agree that is a reasonable reading of it.
I don't recall Marcy's candor about her fear, but perhaps because I would not find a fear of guns unusual or notable. One argument for allowing gun ownership is to provide protection from guns in the hands of others. "The only way to stop a man with a gun is with a gun." Certainly this is a fear based decision-making.
Thank you for the invitation, but I already agree that guns are un-sexy and I can't imagine that shooting a gun would remove my fear of guns. This is a real fear based on the real experience of being threatened with a gun. I am not surprised that a Black woman in Texas would want to have a gun for protection. But openly wearing it down the street and into stores is necessary for what?
To drive a car I have to demonstrate an understanding of the rules associated with the right to drive it, that I know how to operate it safely, that the car I drive is insured should I accidentally harm another and that it is maintained in a manner to lessen it's impact on the ears and lungs of others. We accept those regulations because a car is a very useful but potentially dangerous tool.
The First Amendment says "shall make no law" restricting free speech, yet still you are not free to yell fire in a non-burning theater and endanger others. In contrast, the Second Amendment is based on a need for “a well regulated Militia.” Those advocating for gun ownership need to remember that.
Guns should not be in our schools. They should be well regulated.
My apologies, Sam, the piece was longer than I remembered it.
Nonetheless, I must say that I agree with her that sometimes the comments by some gun owners are downright scary. I hope you can understand that having once had my school halls filled with gun toting police, once been the victim of an armed robbery, and once known a child accidentally killed by a gun, I believe gun owners need to remember that your right is based on a need for "a well regulated Militia." And that I find the NCJ and March Bursiner's piece wonderful additions to the dialog.
It was a gun owner that wrote about guns using words/phrases such as thrilling, exciting, dangerous and transcendent, near-mystical romance, basic excitement, wonder tinged with fear, indulgence, fantasy and fetishistic gear worship.
While Marcy Burstiner, I, and other women, may have read "sexy" into Mr. Bennett's piece, it is you who degenerated into "fondling.".
I think it is wonderful that the NCJ shares its bully pulpit with you. It is testament to their commitment to free speech.
Odd, If I'd have known it was Mr. Salzman's party I would have told him thank you when I saw him.
Talvi, Thank you for your thoughts. Let's assume the best-- that the Deputy Sheriffs actually agree with us that the law isn't constitutional. What would not enforcing the law do? One very frustrating thing was that for months EPD would order OE to take down signs or confiscate them. It was better when they started just taking them down and leaving them. But it didn't settle the issue of whether or not posting signs on the fence was illegal or constitutionally protected free speech.
After they started making arrests the DA weighed in and discovered the law they were citing only mentioned signs about "commodities" and so told law enforcement he couldn't prosecute 1st Amendment related signs. According to the paper both the Sheriff and EPD's Interim Chief had hissy fits.
suddenly there was an "emergency" and a new law passed outlawing not only the signs but tables and easy-ups and candle light vigils. So by enforcing it the Deputy sheriffs are moving it forward, at least in their minds.
Law enforcement, the Board of Sups, the CAO have all been told by County Counsel that it is legal. Now, I think the Board could have asked more questions, the DA could once again say he can't prosecute, the CAO could have said he had doubts. In fact, County Counsel could have provided a bit more input on when time, place and manner restrictions have not been found to be constitutional. But no one wants to question it. It isn't politically correct to side with OE.
Was there a need to hand-cuff the Veterans? It would have been a simple show of respect not to. But, would the Veterans for Peace want them to risk their jobs over some handcuffs?
Mitch, everyday law enforcement officers on the streets make decisions about what laws to enforce and when. I know that SOME members of EPD chose to ignore some things in front of the courthouse until they got out of control and at times chose enforcing the sign law over other safety related laws. This is deeply troubling and so I understand Talvi's comments.
All Comments »
In Print This Week:
Dec 5, 2013
vol XXIV issue 49
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation