Letters 10-24-2016

It’s Obama’s 1984 Several editions ago I concluded a short letter to the editor with an ominous rhetorical flourish: “Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984 and the grand opening of the Federal Department of Truth!” At the time I am sure most of the readers laughed off my comments as right-wing hyperbole. Shame on you for doubting me...

Gun Bans Don’t Work It is said that mass violence only happens in the USA. A lone gunman in a rubber boat, drifted ashore at a popular resort in Tunisia and randomly shot and killed 38 mostly British and Irish tourists. Tunisian gun laws, which are among the most restrictive in the world, didn’t stop this mass slaughter. And in January 2015, two armed men killed 11 and wounded 11 others in an attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. French gun laws didn’t stop these assassins...

Scripps’ Good Deed No good deed shall go unpunished! When Dan Scripps was the 101st District State Representative, he introduced legislation to prevent corporations from contaminating (e.g. fracking) or depleting (e.g. Nestle) Michigan’s water table for corporate profit. There are no property lines in the water table, and many of us depend on private wells for abundant, safe, clean water. In the subsequent election, Dan’s opponents ran a negative campaign almost solely on the misrepresentation that Dan’s good deed was a government takeover of your private water well...

Political Definitions As the time to vote draws near it’s a good time to check into what you stand for. According to Dictionary.com the meanings for liberal and conservative are as follows:

Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform as in political or religious affairs.

Conservative: Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditions and limit change...

Voting Takes A Month? Hurricane Matthew hit the Florida coast Oct. 6, over three weeks before Election Day. Bob Ross (Oct. 17th issue) posits that perhaps evacuation orders from Governor Scott may have had political motivations to diminish turnout and seems to praise Hillary Clinton’s call for Gov. Scott to extend Florida’s voter registration deadline due to evacuations...

Clinton Foundation Facts Does the Clinton Foundation really spend a mere 10 percent (per Mike Pence) or 20 percent (per Reince Priebus) of its money on charity? Not true. Charity Watch gives it an A rating (the same as it gives the NRA Foundation) and says it spends 88 percent on charitable causes, and 12 percent on overhead. Here is the source of the misunderstanding: The Foundation does give only a small percentage of its money to charitable organizations, but it spends far more money directly running a number of programs...

America Needs Change Trump supports our constitution, will appoint judges that will keep our freedoms safe. He supports the partial-birth ban; Hillary voted against it. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, critical issues are at stake. Trump will increase national security, monitor refugee admissions, endorse our vital military forces while fighting ISIS. Vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence will be an intelligent asset for the country. Hillary wants open borders, increased government regulation, and more demilitarization at a time when we need strong military defenses...

My Process For No I will be voting “no” on Prop 3 because I am supportive of the process that is in place to review and approve developments. I was on the Traverse City Planning Commission in the 1990s and gained an appreciation for all of the work that goes into a review. The staff reviews the project and makes a recommendation. The developer then makes a presentation, and fellow commissioners and the public can ask questions and make comments. By the end of the process, I knew how to vote for a project, up or down. This process then repeats itself at the City Commission...

Regarding Your Postcard If you received a “Vote No” postcard from StandUp TC, don’t believe their lies. Prop 3 is not illegal. It won’t cost city taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal bills or special elections. Prop 3 is about protecting our downtown -- not Munson, NMC or the Commons -- from a future of ugly skyscrapers that will diminish the very character of our downtown...

Vote Yes It has been suggested that a recall or re-election of current city staff and Traverse City Commission would work better than Prop 3. I disagree. A recall campaign is the most divisive, costly type of election possible. Prop 3, when passed, will allow all city residents an opportunity to vote on any proposed development over 60 feet tall at no cost to the taxpayer...

Yes Vote Explained A “yes” vote on Prop 3 will give Traverse City the right to vote on developments over 60 feet high. It doesn’t require votes on every future building, as incorrectly stated by a previous letter writer. If referendums are held during general elections, taxpayers pay nothing...

Beware Trump When the country you love have have served for 33 years is threatened, you have an obligation and a duty to speak out. Now is the time for all Americans to speak out against a possible Donald Trump presidency. During the past year Trump has been exposed as a pathological liar, a demagogue and a person who is totally unfit to assume the presidency of our already great country...

Picture Worth 1,000 Words Nobody disagrees with the need for affordable housing or that a certain level of density is dollar smart for TC. The issue is the proposed solution. If you haven’t already seen the architect’s rendition for the site, please Google “Pine Street Development Traverse City”...

Living Wage, Not Tall Buildings Our community deserves better than the StandUp TC “vote no” arguments. They are not truthful. Their yard signs say: “More Housing. Less Red Tape. Vote like you want your kids to live here.” The truth: More housing, but for whom? At what price..

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · Deserving the Bill of...
. . . .

Deserving the Bill of Rights

Stephen Tuttle - January 3rd, 2011
Deserving the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights has, more or less, been under attack from the
second it was ratified as the first 10 amendments to the Constitution
in 1791. Introduced by James Madison, all 10 were created as a way to
protect the rights of individuals and serve as a brake against the
It’s taken a real beating for the last half century or so.
The Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unreasonable searches
and seizures, was stomped on pretty good at the beginning of the
modern war on drugs. Courts gave police unprecedented powers to
rummage through all sorts of our possessions absent a warrant, and all
in the name of protecting society. The courts have since backed off a
bit on some of those excesses but have allowed the government to
search pretty much all of our electronic communications in the name of
the war on terrorism.
Our e-mails and phone calls can be routinely trapped, analyzed by
computers and sent along their way, and it can all be done without
permission or warrants. The courts have decided there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy when we’re communicating in the
ether and, anyway, we’ve decided the government can do pretty much
anything if they call it part of the war on terrorism.
The Fourth Amendment also shrinks a little more every day in airports
across the country. In fact, the pat-downs we now endure if we don’t
want to be scanned would require probable cause or a warrant if a
police officer wanted to conduct such a search out on the street.
The Fifth Amendment, and its clause that prevents the government from
taking our property without proving it’s for public use and without
just compensation, got creamed by the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of
New London in 2005. Taking private property under eminent domain laws
had previously been reserved for schools, roads, water treatment
plants and other construction that served the general public.
In Kelo, the court held the city of New London, Connecticut, could
condemn private property for the benefit of a private developer
because the subsequent redevelopment would generate more tax revenues
and jobs than the residential neighborhood it was replacing and that
would serve the public good.
The NRA would have us believe the Second Amendment has also been under
perpetual attack. States rights advocates believe the 10th Amendment
has been ignored for decades. Our 5th Amendment rights against
self-incrimination were just dealt a blow by the Supreme Court when it
ruled a suspect must affirmatively invoke the right to remain silent.
Every amendment has its champions and they all believe they are under
There’s little question, however, that our freedom of speech has been
skating on paper thin ice for a very long time. It started with John
Adam’s onerous Sedition Act of 1798 (repealed in 1801), and another
hit in 1918 with another Sedition Act (repealed in 1920) and has been
buffeted ever since.
There always seems to be someone out there who wants to stop us from
saying something or revealing something they don’t like.
Which brings us right up to WikiLeaks and its creepy founder, Julian
Assange. Wiki-Leaks has famously released a series of documents some
would rather they had not. The first gave us an honest look at the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the second wave included hundreds of
thousands of cables from diplomats essentially gossiping and whining
about other diplomats. The Obama Administration wants to silence
Assange and shut down his web site. Others would like him to be
arrested but haven’t found any laws that suit their purposes just yet.
Assange, a former journalist and computer hacker from Australia, sees
his WikiLeaks site as a kind of clearinghouse for whistle blowers and
those interested in uncovering wrongdoing by various governments and
corporations. There’s no evidence he’s paying people for information
nor doing anything to induce anyone to commit crimes to obtain the
documents being exposed. And there’s no evidence he’s getting rich
doing it.
Assange received Amnesty International’s Media Award in 2009 and was
the Reader’s Choice for Time Magazine’s Person of the Year for 2010.
He’s also wanted by Swedish authorities on a sexual assault charge
(he denies it), was recently arrested in London, and is awaiting
extradition to Sweden.
There is no denying that WikiLeaks has served a useful purpose. They
gave us our first look at internal documents from the Church of
Scientology, shed some daylight on the procedures being used on
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, uncovered government-sponsored murders in
Kenya and toxic dumping, including nuclear waste, in and off the coast
of Africa.
However, Assange’s rampant paranoia, legal troubles and his obvious
dislike of the United States make him a ripe target for those wishing
to silence him. Of course, they are doing it in the name of “national
security.” This, despite the fact that he has broken no laws and no
one has yet demonstrated how anything on WikiLeaks has compromised
national security.
Plenty of people have been embarrassed by the leaks, but so what? It
is in our best interests to know what our government and corporate
institutions are doing. Legally providing that information,
uncomfortable though it may be, is in the best traditions of our First
Amendment freedoms.
The real danger here is not Julian Assange but our ongoing willingness
to abandon, one after another, our rights guaranteed in the
Constitution in the name of “security.” This time it’s the bedrock of
the First Amendment that’s on the line.
Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “Those who would give up
essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety.”
It was true in 1775. One could argue we’re even less deserving now.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5