The Editor's Desk

I succumbed to the mistake I’m most neurotic about in a recent editorial.

I wrote on Wednesday speculating that the CHP’s latest speeding enforcement drive coinciding with the governor’s budget cuts announcement was more of a show that they are a source of revenue of the state

A reader politely e-mailed me to inform me that the money from speeding tickets given by the CHP doesn’t go to the state — the money goes to county or city in which the driver is cited.

I’ve written here that one of my biggest concerns about writing editorials is presenting an opinion based on a factual foundation that proves to be incorrect, which is exactly what happened here. It should have occurred to me to think about the complex relationship between the state and county funding in California, but it did not.

I’ll have to make this right in an editorial next week. I do stand behind the rest of the editorial though, that a two-day publicized crackdown on speeders in the middle of the week is going to be unlikely to result in any sort of change in driver behavior on our stretch of Interstate 15.

What happens when a political organization forgets that its job is to represent its constituents and instead assumes that its the job of its constituents to represent them? Loyalty oaths.

Apparently, according to The Roanoke Times, the Virginia GOP is requiring those who wish to vote in the Republican primary there to sign an oath that they’ll vote for the Republican candidate for president in 2008, regardless of whom it might be.

What an insult to the Republican voter in that state — and to the very idea of freedom and liberty.

Right now the Republican candidates for president are noteworthy for the diversity of their positions in a number of areas. They all stand on different places on the Republican platform. It is extremely insulting and unbelievably inappropriate for a political party to attempt to demand its members vote for somebody for whom they do not ultimately support.

Last week I mentioned in a commentary to coincide with the birthday of Freedom Communications founder R.C. Hoiles that I would never vote for a presidential candidate who would permit the use of torture to interrogate prisoners. So if I were a Republican in Virginia, I may want to vote for Ron Paul or John McCain in the primary and express my concern that the GOP return to its commitment to the rule of law. But what if Rudy Giuliani landed the ultimate nomination? I will not vote for that man. He doesn’t even understand the concept of “limited government.”

I don’t know what to say. I’ve never been a Republican, so I don’t know what it’s like, but I’ve read a number of traditional conservatives who have stated that they feel the party is abandoning them and its principles. This is a good example. I can’t imagine any political organization that purports to uphold liberty and freedom demanding loyalty oaths from its members. It’s like something that would be required at a worker’s meeting in the old Soviet Union.

It looks like I spent too much time thinking about what the Supreme Court might say about rental inspections and didn’t bother to look to see if lower courts had already addressed the matter.

They have. Attempts to implement rental inspections in Illinois and Texas have been successfully fought off as Fourth Amendment violations. The description of how the inspections bore out in Garland, Texas, is especially eye-opening. Those who voluntarily participated ended up having to deal with improvement demands that went far above and beyond the safety of the tenant. And of course, the landlords who were actually the cause of the problems didn’t even bother to register.

This rental inspection proposal is doomed. I know that a number of folks are planning to come forward to speak out against it. We can only hope the city listens before it brings an ordinance into play that will likely cost the city a lot of money when it’s inevitably challenged in court.

Incidentally, I rent my home, and I already warned a city staffer that I’m not going to agree to an inspection unless my landlord wants it.

I hate this case in so many ways — I hate the leader of the defendants probably more than is necessary, and unfortunately, I hate the verdict:

“The brokenhearted father of a Marine killed in Iraq won a long-shot legal fight today after a federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against members of a Kansas church who hoisted anti-gay placards at his son’s Westminster funeral.” — The Baltimore Sun (read the whole story here)

The Westboro Baptist Church family is a crew of loathsome people with a seeming collective persecution complex and apparently thrive on the fact that they repulse so many people. In fact, I have no doubt that they moved on from picketing gay events and AIDS victim funerals to military funerals exactly because of the negative attention it would give them. They probably believe deep in their hearts that the abuse they receive by so many people for what they do brings them closer to what Jesus went through.

I personally encountered these picketers about eight years ago while covering a story and made the decision to mention them, but not interview any of them, for the very reason that all they wanted was publicity and to feed off being loathed. I wanted to deny them of what they most craved.

But this verdict is wrong. There’s no way to get around it. The First Amendment should not have an exception: “unless it causes emotional distress.”

The can of worms this opens is absolutely unbelievable. Somebody could claim emotional distress over just about any comment. How do you argue that somebody hasn’t been caused emotional distress?

No doubt the horror of having this family show up to picket your dead son’s funeral is indeed a source of emotional distress, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, but it’s not the role of the government to protect us from cruelty, only threats to our safety and livelihood.

I suspect the judgment will be tossed on appeal, as it should be. I hate that I have to say that. As much as I would love to be rid of Phelps and his ilk, the potential consequences of letting this decision stand are far worse.

My editorial today took a fairly predictable libertarian position that the City of Barstow lacks the constitutional authority to order door-to-door inspections of rental units.

Though I’ve already gotten one supportive comment online, I’m not holding out much hope that Barstow residents will speak out against the ordinance, given the community’s dislike of some the really run-down properties in town.

The ordinance appeals to people on both the left in the right in the way it uses government authority to achieve wanted ends. On the left, the ordinance speaks to the desire to use the government to protect the consumer from some of the abuses of the marketplace — in this case, poor tenants stuck in uninhabitable homes, afraid to contact authorities for fear of being evicted. It appeals to the right as a tool of law enforcement to deal with a difficult problem — typically drug abusers/dealers/gang members who allow their homes to decay and affect the neighborhood negatively.

Whether or not any actual changes will occur is something of which I’m extremely suspect. I asked Jeanette Hayhurst, city project manager for housing, whether the city was having luck getting absentee landlords (the target of this proposed ordinance) to respond to existing code enforcement efforts. She said that the responses were improving, which sounds like they have a long way to go still. I have doubts that absentee landlords are going to respond to this ordinance or care about the city’s threats.

Before writing the editorial I contacted Patricia Neal, the consultant helping the city with the rental studies and the formulation of the ordinance. I asked her about legal challenges to the ordinances in other communities. She said the ordinance has survived a challenge on the state level over the forced fees. However, she wasn’t aware of any challenges on the federal level on the basis of the inspections violating the Fourth Amendment (the crux of my argument). She doubted whether the Supreme Court would even take up a challenge in this situation, and after the Kelo vs. New London decision (authorizing abuse of eminent domain) I’m sadly inclined to agree.

Today, Oct. 11, is National Coming Out Day, a day ostensibly for folks to come out and declare that they’re gay, if they’re so inclined.

I’ve always found the day to be a little odd. If you’re involved enough in the community to know of this day’s existence, chances are you’re already out.

On the other hand, because I’m in the media, I’ve had to come out of the closet several times in my career in order to give context whenever I find myself writing opinion pieces on gay issues.

I find it strange every time I feel that I have to do it — journalists are taught to keep so much of ourselves to ourselves. But I’m a strong believer in honesty about any possible bias — I want people to know that on the rare occasion where I’m writing about gay issues, I’m coming from about as far an objective position as you can imagine.

I’ve written twice about gay issues on the opinion page where I’ve brought myself into the discussion as a gay man, and each time I’ve gotten a couple of e-mails in support and opposition. There are some who have written in about the difficulties of being or growing up gay in Barstow. I’ve only been in Barstow for about five years, but I have to say that I haven’t really had many issues with people. There are a couple of people who are very outspoken about my sexual orientation, but they’re really in the minority. I suspect the vast majority of Barstow folks don’t care one way or another.

That’s been my experience in a lot of communities. I have gay friends in large cities who think it’s quite impressive or courageous to be openly gay in a small town. I don’t quite get it. I think I’m more likely to be a victim of a gay bashing in Los Angeles than here.

As I’ve had this experience of being gay in a small town, I eventually came to realize what the fear is: It’s not so much the fear of harm or rejection as it is the lack of embrace or community. It’s the lack of a notable gay subculture in your town. You have to be comfortable in your own skin to be gay in a small town. You have to be able to live without those regular affirmations of the big city. You have to be able to accept the cultural disagreement with others and get on with your life. You can’t hide among “your own.”

Fortunately, I’m used to having a thick skin as a newspaper editor and opinion writer. That I don’t have a parade or a festival here is not really a concern of mine. I drove down to Redlands to see “Brokeback Mountain” and bought in on DVD at the Barstow Wal-Mart. I didn’t see it as some huge injustice that it didn’t play here (though given the part-empty rack at Wal-Mart, I think the local theater might have made a bad decision for economic reasons, not social ones — the theater where I saw the movie was sold out, and the audience consisted mostly of heterosexual couples).

I enjoy my life in Barstow, despite the lack of a traditional “gay community.” I visit friends on occasion in Los Angeles and we have dinner in West Hollywood and it’s fun, but when I leave, I don’t feel as though I’m missing something valuable to me in my return to Barstow.

So, happy coming out day, I guess. If you’re taking this day to inform others that you’re gay, remember that it’s your inner strength that matters, not the responses you get from others.

These words have been tossed around by those opposing the Big Lagoon/Los Coyotes casinos as the reasons the state legislatures won’t approve the compacts.

I would classify that claim under the “weaselly ways” legislators have managed to duck the issue. In reality, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act does not require such ties to the land to be considered for gaming. Here’s what it says:

“Indian Lands” Acquired After Enactment of IGRA. Lands acquired in trust after IGRA’s enactment are generally not eligible for gaming if they are outside of and not contiguous to the boundaries of a tribe’s reservation. There are exceptions to this policy, however, that allow gaming on certain “after acquired” or “newly acquired” lands. One exception permits gaming on lands newly taken into trust with the consent of the governor of the state in which the land is located and SOI: (1) consults with state and local officials, including officials of other tribes; (2) determines “that a gaming establishment on the newly acquired lands would be in the best interest of the Indian tribe and its members”; and (3) determines that gaming “would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.”

That’s it. Now the other tribes the governor is obligated to consult with may object to the fact that the proposed tribes don’t have strong historical ties to the land, and that’s exactly what they’ve done, but that doesn’t obligate a particular decision from the state legislature. So again, they’re using a technicality to avoid taking responsibility for folding for money.

Again, I would point out that it’s not particularly shocking that tribes would use this method to try to stop a completing casino — it’s the legislators who are at fault for wimping out. (It’ll likely cost taxpayers millions of dollars if Big Lagoon restores their lawsuit over the state’s insistence they don’t build a casino on their environmentally sensitive reservation. But why should legislators care? — it’s not their money)

To be fair to the other side, the reverse is pretty much true as well. That the Chemehuevi won’t get permission to build a casino in Barstow is based on similarly arbitrary decisions by the government that work against them (that they already have a casino). We don’t have the power to alter the governor’s judgment in that area anymore than we have the power to alter the legislature in the matter of the Big Lagoon/Los Coyotes project.

Now if gambling were legal, none of this would be a problem at all. Though I suspect none of the tribes would be quick to give up their monopoly in exchange for such freedom.

Mike Luckovich elegantly and efficiently illustrates what I’ve warned about regarding presidential authority in an editorial cartoon of his we ran in the Desert Dispatch on Wednesday.

Luckovich comes to the paper from a pretty hard left direction (cartoonist Bob Gorrell, whom we also run, tends more toward the right, though he’s not a Bush fan these days), so it’s interesting for him to note the flip side of giving the president too much authority. No matter who you support now, someday somebody you don’t want is going to be sitting in that chair.

The commander of Iraqi’s own military forces was at Fort Irwin to attend Brig. Gen Dana J.H. Pittard’s assumption of command there, and made some interesting points.

He thinks Iraqi troops would benefit from the kind of training offered at Fort Irwin. It’s an interesting little twist — the military provides this training to help our soldiers understand what they’re going to be dealing with in Iraq. And now we have Iraq leaders saying their own military could benefit from this training.

It got me wondering whether this is an actual opportunity. The security risks are extremely high, but I can see some clear benefits. I need some time to cogitate; I’ll plan an editorial for sometime next week about it.

Tuesday’s editorial will be my commentary about the state Senate bill mandating changes in school food options to make them healthier. I’m coming to the issue from a libertarian perspective, so you can imagine the giant eye-roll I’m directing at the matter.

But I do want to add that healthy eating is actually an important issue to me. I was diagnosed with Type II diabetes (caught while still fairly mild) last November and have had to make major changes to my lifestyle. Like many adults who spend a lot of time working, I didn’t pay much attention to what I was putting in my body, relying on fast food and soda to keep me going during the day.

I never at any point in this reevaluation of my eating habits would have expected (or for that matter, allowed) the government to make these changes for me. Why on earth would I do that? They don’t know me. They don’t have to deal with the consequences. They don’t have to care whether the advice they give me is accurate. They won’t be the ones to go blind or suffer permanent nerve damage.

When the news of New York City’s trans fat ban hit the wire, I thought to myself, “Why would people allow this?” Then I read one harried businesswoman say she was glad about the ban because it meant one less thing she’d have to think or worry about.

That comment from her sent shivers up my spine. I would never, ever surrender my decision-making rights to a gaggle of government bureaucrats, even if it meant I would have to take responsibility for my own stupid decisions.

It’s interesting how nature has its own way of keeping you in check. I went blind in one eye for a nerve-wracking 30 minutes last year while at work; this incident was what ultimately led to the diagnosis. Going blind is one of my greatest fears, probably even greater than dying. Mother nature couldn’t have figured out a bigger incentive to cause me to change my behavior. The government certainly couldn’t.

And it worked. I’ve lost 20 pounds, all because I wanted to change my behavior, not because the government did my thinking for me.