8.29.2017

The Bobby Waller Mustang air jump



Robert Waller, 19, 5638 Delhi Rd., was admitted to Bethesda Hospital with face ... The Mustang also had hurtled over a station wagon in a driveway between the ... The front wall at the home of Mrs. Mary Hess, 5678 Lawrence Rd., was struck ...


Comment:  11/11/66 (from the 11/12/1966 paper. Along a row of terraced homes, his V-8 Mustang went airborne over a parked car in the driveway and slammed into the 2nd story of a home. High School memories

Posted by Jim Peet at 8/29/2017 10:03:00 PM 3 comments

Labels:

Houston, we have a drainage problem



Houston drainage grid 'so obsolete it's just unbelievable'

Excerpt:

Houston's system of bayous and reservoirs was built to drain a tabletop-flat city prone to heavy rains. But its Depression-era design is no match for the stresses brought by explosive development and ever-wetter storms.

Nearly any city would be overwhelmed by the more than 4 feet of rain that Hurricane Harvey has dumped since Friday, but Houston is unique in its regular massive floods and inability to cope with them. This is the third 100-year-or-more type of flood in three years.

Experts blame too many people, too much concrete, insufficient upstream storage, not enough green space for water drainage and, especially, too little regulation.

"Houston is the most flood-prone city in the United States," said Rice University environmental engineering professor Phil Bedient. "No one is even a close second — not even New Orleans, because at least they have pumps there."

The entire system is designed to clear out only 12 to 13 inches of rain per 24-hour period, said Jim Blackburn, an environmental law professor at Rice University: "That's so obsolete it's just unbelievable."

Also, Houston's Harris County has the loosest, least-regulated drainage policy and system in the entire country, Bedient said.

Here's how the system is supposed to work: The county that encompasses Houston has 2,500 miles of bayous and channels and more than 300 storm-water holding basins, which are designed to fill up during intense downpours and drain slowly as high waters recede.

Water is supposed to flow west to east through bayous, which are tidal creeks that often have concrete improvements to make water flow and are connected to the Galveston Bay.

When big rains come, officials also activate two normally dry reservoirs, closing the floodgates to collect the water and keep it from overwhelming the downtown area.

But the main bayou through downtown Houston, Buffalo Bayou, "is pretty much still a dirt mud channel like you would have seen 100 years ago, just a little cleaned out," said U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist Jeff East, who is based in Houston.

And because the coastal plain is so flat, only sloping about a foot per mile, the water doesn't flow out of the bayous fast, Bedient said.

Also, some of the bayous, such as Brays, can only handle 10-year storms, he said. Harris County didn't leave enough right-of-way space to expand its bayous, Bedient said. And widening projects have been slow and inadequate.

Because of big early 20th-century floods, Houston designed two dry emergency reservoirs that are only activated in heavy rain, Addicks and Barker, both formed by earthen dams. Addicks is 11.7 miles long (18.8 kilometers) with a maximum elevation of nearly 123 feet (37 meters). Barker is 13.6 miles long (22 kilometers) and has a maximum elevation of 114 feet (34 meters).

Normally the floodgates are open and the two areas are dry parkland with sports fields and biking paths. They were essentially dry on Aug. 25, the day Harvey struck, East said. By the middle of the next day, the floodgates were closed and water levels were starting to rise, East said.

Now the reservoirs are overflowing. Officials are being forced to release some of the water pressing against the 70-year-old dams and backing up into wealthy subdivisions. But those releases could worsen the extreme flooding downstream in Houston.

More reservoirs are needed, Blackburn and Bedient said. In fact, another reservoir had been planned for Houston's western prairies, but development killed that, they said.

Blackburn said studies show those prairies can absorb as much as 11 inches of rain per hour. But he said elected officials allowed subdivision after subdivision to expand outward.

Houston's storm drain and pipe system is minimal compared with that of other cities and at most can take 1½ inches of rain, Bedient said.

But mostly the problem comes down to helter-skelter development in a county with no zoning, leaving lots of concrete where water doesn't drain, and little green space to absorb it, Bedient said.
Comment: Image source . Some interesting Tweets

Posted by Jim Peet at 8/29/2017 09:10:00 PM 1 comments

Labels: ,

Oak Hills High School - Class of 1967 - In Memoriam


Source



To highlight several in the above image:
  • Top row - far left = Bev Cave. Was a real beauty in High School. I was kind of like Toad. She always treated me kindly
  • 2nd row, 3rd from the left, Bill Littleton, died in Viet Nam
  • 3rd row, 2nd from the left, Bobby Waller. Unsure how he died but was in a massive car wreck in HS with his Mustang
  • 4th row - far left. Dave Heil. Died in a car crash the summer after graduation
  • 5th row - far left. Glen Bowers. I was going to join the Navy with him but my Father forbade it and made me go to college.
  • 6th row, 3rd from the left, Joel Perry. Was one of my best friends in HS
  • 8th row, 3rd from the left, Paula Gillespie. I thought very cute but never had the courage to ask her out
  • 9th row, far right. Jim Cederdahl. Died in a tractor rollover in 1970
  • 10th row, far right. Neal Williams. Basketball star
Known obituaries:



Posted by Jim Peet at 8/29/2017 02:51:00 PM 0 comments

Labels: ,

8.25.2017

Roger's 64th birthday



Album review






Posted by Jim Peet at 8/25/2017 06:14:00 PM 0 comments

Labels:

8.24.2017

Jane Eidson: A Remarkable Life



Jane Eidson, who got a college degree at 56, dies at 98

From the Star Tribune:

As the middle child, it always chafed Jane Eidson that her two brothers finished college and she never did.

The boys joined the Navy during World War II, came home and went to school on the GI Bill. She started college right after high school, but she then got diverted — by the war, a marriage, various jobs and five kids.

But persevere she did. Starting in 1964, Eidson plugged away for 11 years on a degree in English and art history at the University of Minnesota. At the age of 56, she finally donned a cap and gown, the same year her youngest child graduated from high school.

The experience solidified Eidson’s belief in the power of education, and propelled her to become an active volunteer for the American Association of University Women, a group that advocates for economic and educational equity for women.

Eidson died July 31, shortly after a stroke, at the age of 98. She had lived with dementia for several years.

Born and raised in Chicago, Eidson enjoyed working in her parents’ vegetable garden and often roller skated to various summer activities in city parks. As a mother, she made sure her children joined outdoor activities, and built a box for the station wagon that stayed loaded with camping gear so the family could take off at a moment’s notice.

She met her future husband, Bill Eidson, when he came to Chicago for officer training. Through the war years, they got to know each other mostly through letters.

Bill, who was raised in a speck of a town in South Carolina, became a lieutenant commander in the Navy and sat atop the crow’s nest on the USS Texas. He took part in the battles of the Atlantic, Iwo Jima, Normandy, North Africa and Okinawa. In 1944, the battleship was damaged by artillery, and the ship came to the Brooklyn Navy Yard for repairs. Seizing the moment, the couple quickly staged a wedding at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.

After the war, the two moved around, with stops in Tennessee and Illinois, and Jane tried to pick up night classes while starting a family. Bill eventually landed a job as a sales manager in Minnesota, and the couple settled down in St. Louis Park, where they lived for nearly 60 years. Bill died of a stroke in 2010.

Eidson believed her body held her soul and never took her good health for granted — sometimes to the dismay of her brood, who craved a little junk food every now and then. She started practicing yoga in the 1960s, and she was a health-food nut decades before it became fashionable. She pushed fruits, vegetables, plenty of water and whole grains.

“We hated that as kids,” said Karen English, her oldest child. “No white sugar, no white flour. We never saw Wonder Bread.” Eidson inherited her father’s artistic flair and seemed to have a bottomless well of creative energy packed into her 5-foot, 4-inch frame. She painted flowers and landscapes in oil and watercolor, and often embellished plain sewing patterns with piping.

“She loved color and texture,” English said. “Her favorite thing was to go to the fabric stores, just to look and touch and think about what she’d make next.”

Eidson took flying lessons, joined ballet classes, and took up clogging and Scottish dancing. When she was in her 60s, she traveled Europe on a Eurail pass with her youngest daughter, Rita, and stayed in youth hostels.

“She was energetic and always ready for adventure,” said Nancy Arguedas, her second-born. “That was her thing: Let’s go!”

But in many ways, it all came back to education. Eventually, every one of her children earned a graduate degree.

“We were always supported,” Arguedas said. “She raised us to believe we could do anything.”

The family is planning a private service.
Comment: Nancy in the above article is our best friend.  Here is the obituary for Bill. Photos below of Nancy and Mariano on my birthday this past Saturday.




Posted by Jim Peet at 8/24/2017 05:00:00 PM 0 comments

Labels:

8.22.2017

New Door



The finished job

Below the old

Out with the old:





In with the new:











Out with the old window:




New window in

Posted by Jim Peet at 8/22/2017 03:06:00 PM 4 comments

Labels:

8.18.2017

Dissing Northfield, Minnesota: A simple breeding ground of white supremacy



A simple breeding ground of white supremacy

In total:

Why do I live here? Why do I live in a predominantly white, rural (at least to me), small town in the Midwest?

I live here because my job brought me here, because my son attends a school that mostly serves his needs (not as racially diverse as we would like), not because I want to live here.

I live here because to not live here means a 45- to 50-minute commute twice a day and when you are in your mid-40s and middle-income, that is a tough prospect long term.

I live here because my partner’s job is in this little town. I certainly don’t live here because of safety, not because of the low cost of housing, not because of the community. I live here because it’s practical. I live here for now.

On a day like Saturday, Aug. 12, when I sat in front of my TV watching the violence in Charlottesville, Va., it is lonely. On such a day you are acutely aware of the ways you are in white space because nobody mentions it when you go to a store or chat with people on the street.

My partner and I sit in our home with our outrage, I check on my children, talk to them about what is happening, and I talk to our friends and family from afar.

You think to yourself on these days, “What the hell am I doing here?” And then you become indignant about your right to be here. The right of your children to have space to run and experience what it is like to play in a wide-open space.

You are pissed that the “simplicity” of living, if one is not blessed with wealth or access to family being close by, has become what feels like the exclusive domain of whiteness.

You are acutely aware of all the ways the homogeneity of stolen rural spaces have become the breeding grounds of white supremacy. It isn’t simply about big pickup trucks, guns, flags or Trump stickers, or being taught to explicitly hate people. Rather it is the lack of relationships across difference that you witness.

It’s the child who stares at you at Target because they have never seen a black person up close; it’s the adults who touch your kid’s head before you can swat their hand away or say something; it’s the awareness of how you are the one always making the calls for play dates, not the other way around; it’s the recognition that most of the kids in the town will have deeper relationships with other children and families from other countries before they ever get to know the ones in their own.

These are the spaces that some would say “Make America Great.”

There is power that comes with the exclusivity of knowing the unwritten ways of being because you grew up in the town or a similar town, go to the right church, belong to the right social group or have the kid who behaves just right. The privileges that exist in white space — the good schools, the ability to avoid discomfort, the sheer access to space to grow your own food, as well as enough to feed your neighbors and then some — breed an expectation of what life should be with little regard to what is missing or what could be better.

People don’t witness suffering in this space without looking for it, and, to be clear, suffering abounds. But you wouldn’t know it when you walk down the street or drive around the town, unless you know where to look.

The violence of racism projected on the screen is a reminder of how extensive white supremacy is in its multiple forms. When you leave your house you are aware of the sympathetic smiles from the well-meaning white people who care that you are OK, while you are wondering, “What are they thinking about their people right now? Do they realize the ways they are breeding supremacy? Are my kids the only black kids their kids know?”

And then you go back to wondering how often they sacrificed their comfort because it was “practical,” and then the cycle of pondering your decision starts all over again.

Lisa Moore, of Northfield, is an assistant professor of social work and family studies.
Comment: Proof that blacks can be racists too!

Posted by Jim Peet at 8/18/2017 10:03:00 PM 1 comments

Labels:

D James Kennedy Ministries labeled a "Hate Group"

When Loving the Lord is Labeled Hate 










The Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups

Excerpt:

That's the number of hate groups operating in the US, according to data from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Alabama-based nonprofit activist group tracks civil rights and hate crimes and defines a hate group as an organization with "beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."

"Over the course of a year, we have a team of investigators that scours the internet for racist publications and real world activities to find out which groups exist, which groups are still active and which groups come along," said Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative reporter for the SPLC's Hatewatch project.

Some are classified as anti-LGBT groups, and some are black separatists, who don't believe in interracial marriage and want a nation only for black people, according to the group.
Comment: Watch out - you may be the next one labeled a hater!

The hate map

Home D James Kennedy ministry 

Who was D James Kennedy?



Posted by Jim Peet at 8/18/2017 05:33:00 PM 1 comments

Labels: , , , ,

On Nazis and the Alt-Right: Moral Clarity is Demanded




Trump and His 'Very Fine People'

Excerpt:

The truth is that, with his statements on the Charlottesville protests, the president of the United States disgraced himself and his office.

On Saturday, the president referred to the neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan protests in Charlottesville as an “egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides,” repeating the phrase “on many sides.” It was a bizarre bit of reticence from a man known for censuring those he deems worthy of it in the harshest terms. As the vagueness of this condemnation drew sharp criticism, the president issued a more direct statement on Monday. “Racism is evil,” Trump said, “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

Well, fine. Much too late, but fine. Then on Tuesday, rather than allow his critics to say whatever they would say about his initial procrastination, he defended himself by insisting there were two sides to the violence, both more or less culpable. Why the bland statement on Saturday, then? “I didn’t know all of the facts,” and “I wanted to make a statement with knowledge.” And what were those facts? “You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent.” Again: “You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You have just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group.”

There were indeed a small number of leftist or “antifa” thugs at the Charlottesville event, but that is beside the point. The Charlottesville protest was planned and staged by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. Were it not for these people, there would have been no protests, no offensive displays of racial bigotry, and no violence or death. That the president couldn’t or wouldn’t simply condemn the event’s instigators in direct terms—that he preferred to justify his indecision and so give the impression that he has some sympathy for white supremacists and neo-Nazis—is a scandal for which there is no excuse and no mitigating factor.

Trump went on to draw an imaginary distinction between good and bad protesters on the white supremacist side—“you had some very fine people but you also had troublemakers”—and to suggest that the “very fine people” were “protesting very quietly the taking down [of] the statue of Robert E. Lee.” But as he must have known by this point, the white supremacists and neo-Nazis came from all over the country to stage a rally of hate; the statue of Marse Robert was a secondary concern.

So a sitting U.S. president couldn’t condemn neo-Nazi agitators until prodded into it, and even then couldn’t do it without circling back to claim falsely that some of the agitators were “very fine people” who wanted only to protest “very quietly.” There may be other points to make about this embarrassing episode, but they are secondary and simply cannot be made with any moral force until you acknowledge the primary one: Irrespective of anything else, Donald Trump’s behavior since Saturday has been a disgrace.
All the President’s Advisers

Excerpt:

Even many opponents of Donald Trump as a candidate were cheered by the quality of his early appointments, especially his Cabinet. But as his behavior as President has become more erratic, and especially after the moral confusion of his response to Charlottesville, the question becomes whether there will be a rush to the exits that sends this Presidency into an even faster decline.

This is no exaggerated fear. John Kelly, the new chief of staff, looked visibly uncomfortable as he listened to Mr. Trump’s self-destructive, off-the-cuff riff about Charlottesville on Tuesday. The former general is supposed to bring order to White House chaos.

Gary Cohn, the chief economic adviser who is Jewish, is widely reported to have been upset as he stood nearby as Mr. Trump struggled to distinguish between neo-Nazis, whom he condemned, and “very fine people” who merely wanted to support Confederate statues. The press event was supposed to be about infrastructure.
Trump Criticized by James Murdoch: ‘There Are No Good Nazis’

Excerpt:

“I can’t even believe I have to write this: standing up to Nazis is essential; there are no good Nazis. Or Klansmen, or terrorists. Democrats, Republicans, and others must all agree on this, and it compromises nothing for them to do so,”
Trump Follows Obama’s Example of Moral Equivalence - When five Dallas cops were murdered last year, the 44th president faulted police as well as the killer.

Excerpt:

If you were shocked that President Trump had to be pressured into condemning by name neo-Nazis, Klansmen and white supremacists, then you probably haven’t been paying enough attention. His Saturday remarks on Charlottesville, Va., where protesters clashed violently over a statue in a park of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, showed again that Mr. Trump has little use for Oval Office norms. But his initial reaction also evinced an Obama-like reluctance to denounce despicable behavior forcefully and in no uncertain terms.

When five policemen were gunned down in Dallas last year, Mr. Obama said there was no justification for violence against law enforcement—but then he added a comment about racial inequity in the criminal-justice system. After violent demonstrators pillaged Baltimore in 2015 following the death of a black man in police custody, Mr. Obama dutifully condemned the rioters—but not without also noting that “we have seen too many instances of what appears to be police officers interacting with individuals, primarily African-American, often poor, in ways that raise troubling questions.”

What we heard from Mr. Trump on Saturday, when he said “many sides” were to blame for what took place in Charlottesville, was more of the same equivocation. Both presidents were less interested in moral clarity than in placating fringe groups out of political expediency. The difference is that Mr. Obama’s caucus mostly indulged his racial innuendo, while Mr. Trump’s called him on it. That’s why the president reluctantly issued a more forceful second statement on Monday.
5 Facts about the alt-right

Excerpt:

A rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia this weekend ended in violence and domestic terrorism, as white nationalist groups clashed with counter-protestors. The Unite the Right rally was intended, as co-promoter Matthew Heimbach explains, to unite the alt-right around the “14 words”: “We must secure the existence of our people and the future for white children’—as our primary motivating factor.”

The objectives of the alt-right movement are antithetical to the mission, values, and principles of the Acton Institute and other like-minded groups. Yet the movement is often associated with traditional forms of conservatism and libertarianism even though its supporters frequently rejects issues such as economic freedom and the dignity of all people that we consider foundational.* For this reason, you should know what the alt-right believes and the agenda they work to promote.

Here are five facts you should know about the alt-right:
  1. The alt-right—short for “alternative right”—is an umbrella term for a host of disparate nationalist and populist groups associated with the white identity cause/movement. The term brings together white supremacists (e.g., neo-Nazis), religious racialists (e.g., Kinists), neo-pagans (e.g., Heathenry), internet trolls (e.g., 4chan’s /pol/), and others enamored with white identity and racialism. These groups seek to provide an “alternative” to mainstream American conservatism, which they believe is insufficiently concerned about the objectives of white identity, the defining concept that unites the alt-right. “Racial Identity,” said Arthur Kemp in March of the Titans: A History of the White Race, “can be defined as the conscious recognition that one belongs to a specific race, ethnicity, and culture and with that comes certain obligations toward their own welfare.” And the alt-right leader Jared Taylor of American Renaissance defines “white identity” as “a recognition by whites that they have interests in common that must be defended. All other racial groups take this for granted, that it’s necessary to band together along racial lines to work together for common interests.”
  2. This association of the term alt-right with white identity politics first appeared in December 2008 when Paul Gottfried wrote an article for Taki’s Magazine titled, “The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right.” (The article itself does not use the phrase “alternative right,” and the editor of the magazine at that time, Richard Spencer—the current leading figure in the alt-right—claims to have added the title.) At the time, the “alternative right” was loosely associated with “paleoconservatives” (another term created by Gottfried). Paleocons were self-identified conservatives who rejected the neo-conservatism of the George W. Bush-era. While the group tended to be anti-globalist and anti-war (especially opposed to the Iraq War) it was not necessarily associated with white identity politics. But in his article Gottfried identified “postpaleos” as a “growing communion “that now includes Takimag, VDARE.com, and other websites that are willing to engage sensitive, timely subjects.” The “sensitive, timely subjects” Gottfried refers to are topics that had previously been the main concern of white identity groups, issues such as non-white immigration (“being physically displaced by the entire Third World”) and “human cognitive capacities” (i.e., the belief that certain racial groups are, in general, intellectually inferior to others). In 2010, Richard Spencer launched a website, AlternativeRight.com, to promote these views. Since then, the term has been associated with the white identity movement.
  3. The alt-right is a mostly secular movement that frequently embraces leftist political views (especially on economics) and rejects traditional conservatism. As George Hawley, a University of Alabama professor who has studied the movement, told The Washington Post, “the modal alt-right person is a male, white millennial; probably has a college degree or is in college; is secular and perhaps atheist and [is] not interested in the conservative movement at all.” What puts the movement on the “right” is that it shares, along with conservatism, skepticism of forced egalitarianism. But that’s generally all it shares with mainstream conservatism. In fact, many on the alt-right (such as Spencer) hold views associated with progressivism (e.g., support for abortion and opposition to free-market economics). The confusion about the movement’s politics lies in thinking that extremist groups are on each “end” of the left-right political spectrum. It is more accurate to consider them through the lens of the horseshoe theory, a concept in political science that claims the far left and the far right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe.
  4. While generally secular, the alt-right sometimes embraces “Christendom” (their version of a white European cultural Christianity) and some (such as Vox Day) claim that Christianity is a “foundational pillar” of the movement. But what they mean by Christianity is often a heretical form (Day rejects the Trinity and doesn’t believe the races are “spiritually” equal) a racialized version of the faith (e.g., the Kinist movement), or “religion as culture” (Spencer says he is both an atheist and a “culture Christian”). The movement is also frequently embraced by neo-pagans. As alt-right leader Stephen McNallen has said, “I am a pagan because it is the only way I can be true to who, and what, I am. I am a pagan because the best things in our civilization come from pre-Christian Europe.” McNallen says he opposes Christianity because it “lacks any roots in blood or soil” and consequently can “claim the allegiance of all the human race.” The true religion of the alt-right is white identitarianism.
  5. The alt-right embraces white identity politics and almost all of them embrace white nationalism. But not everyone on the alt-right embraces white supremacy. White supremacy is the belief that lighter-skinned or “white” racial groups are superior to all other racial groups. Modern advocates of white supremacy (such as the KKK) almost always advocate for white identity, though the reverse is not always true. As alt right leader Vox Day says, “The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.” White supremacy is also often conflated with white nationalism, the political view that merges nationalism with white identity. White nationalists are racial separatists who believe that to preserve the white race, other racial groups must be excluded or marginalized in “white states” (i.e., countries or regions that have historically had majority-white populations). White nationalists are frequently concerned about miscegenation and non-white immigration because it contributes to what they consider to be “white genocide,” i.e., the replacement of the “white race” by other racial groups.

Comment: We must stand against the White supremacists, the neo-Nazis and the Alt-right! (Superman covers from here) Batman image source

Posted by Jim Peet at 8/18/2017 10:38:00 AM 3 comments

Labels: , , ,

8.16.2017

On removing Confederate statues










Comment: No time to develop this today but saving the above Tweets for another day. Removing Confederate statues is folly!
Updated:














Interesting:
More madness:





This will change minds:

Posted by Jim Peet at 8/16/2017 03:54:00 PM 1 comments

Labels:

A Freedom of Speech lesson from Skokie (1977)






'Swastika war': When the neo-Nazis fought in court to march in Skokie

Excerpt:

Four decades ago, a neo-Nazi group announced plans to march in Skokie, home to thousands of Holocaust survivors. The news set off a rhetorical firestorm that the Chicago Tribune dubbed the "Skokie swastika war." In 1977, the swastika became the centerpiece of a constitutional question posed by a small group of neo-Nazis who called themselves "National Socialists" — a callback to the formal name of Adolf Hitler's political party. When the group encountered pushback over its plans to march through Skokie that spring while carrying flags bearing the swastika, its leader, Frank Collin, invoked the First Amendment as his defense.
Skokie, Nazis and the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech on trial - Confederate Flags and Swastikas are uncomfortable, but still protected under the Constitution.

Excerpt:
The National Socialist Party of America, neo-Nazis, wanted to march in Skokie on May 1, 1977. They asked Skokie officials for permission to stage a rally in front of the village hall to protest a local ordinance. The group planned to wear Nazi uniforms with swastika emblems and armbands. It also promised to demonstrate peacefully and to obey reasonable police instructions or requests.

While most Americans believe in the First Amendment, most also would not want this group to march where they live and work. In Skokie, this was especially true, as most of its residents were Jewish. Thousands of Skokie residents survived concentration camps and the Holocaust and believed they were safe from the influence of Adolf Hitler here in the United States

Not surprisingly, a firestorm of controversy erupted. The Nazis took the case to court. The trial court disallowed the march, and then the Illinois appellate court upheld the ban after refusing to look at the case. The Illinois Supreme Court then refused to grant review of the case or to stay the injunction, effectively denying the Nazis their rights to free speech and assembly.

Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union defended the Nazi request. The ACLU asserted that they were not defending Nazi idealism but the freedom of speech. Attorney David Goldberger, a Jew, stated:

“Your Honor, if this court issues a preliminary injunction in the case, enjoining the demonstration of Mr. Collin and the National Socialist Party of America, I fear that the Village of Skokie will be dancing in the grave of the First Amendment.”

The Illinois Supreme Court denied a stay of injunction. The Nazis then took the case to the United States Supreme Court.

The Village of Skokie argued that neo-Nazi speech promoted racial or religious hatred and is unprotected by the First Amendment. The courts rejected this argument on the grounds that it is not a reason for suppressing speech alone. As long as they are not burning down houses, inflicting bodily harm or destroying property, they have a right to express what they want. Why? If the Supreme Court silenced one group, it effectively silences all groups since all Americans have the same rights under the Constitution – even groups that are offensive to mainstream America.

The village also claimed that the purpose of the marches was to inflict emotional harm on the Jewish residents of Skokie. However, the Nazis originally petitioned to march in a different town with a minute Jewish population. Denied that permit, they decided to march in Skokie so they would get publicity for their grievance. Then, when faced with having to pay $350,000 to cover insurance for that march, they became more resolute.

In addition, Skokie mayor Albert Smith testified that, if the Nazis marched, there would be uncontrollable violence as a result. But once a government gives in to such threats of violence, it effectively empowers any group of people who wants to silence others to do so simply by threatening to violate the law.

In the end, the Supreme Court ordered the Illinois Supreme Court to respond. It finally struck down the injunction against the Nazis in January 1978, paving the way for a Nazi demonstration. Fortunately, they declined to march in Skokie and marched somewhere else.

The Village of Skokie had also passed three new ordinances. The first required that a permit would be necessary for any demonstration. Next, political organizations could not demonstrate in military style uniforms. The third ordinance banned the display of symbols offensive to the community.

The Supreme Court, which included Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first black American Supreme Court Justice found the ordinances to be unconstitutional.

I [the author of this article] was 13 when this happened. During this time, the Nazis staged a march at Veterans Memorial Park in South Holland, Ill., not far from where my family lived. My girlfriends and I told my mom we wanted to go throw rocks and eggs at them. My mother, in her wisdom, instead of saying no, explained that if we did that we would be giving the Nazis what they wanted — publicity. Good or bad publicity put them in the public eye — right where they wanted to be. And they were willing to endure rocks, eggs and other items thrown at them if necessary. We decided that the Nazis were not worth our time and effort. The best way to deal with groups like this is to not give them an audience. And we didn’t.
The Supreme Court Case: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie


In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that Illinois must provide strict procedural safeguards, including appellate review, to deny a stay for an injunction depriving the Nazi Party of protected First Amendment rights. The Court treated the Illinois Supreme Court's denial of a stay as a final judgment for the purposes of Supreme Court jurisdiction because it involved a right separable from and collateral to the merits of the Nazi Party's case. Hence, the Court also treated the Nazi Party's application for a stay as a petition for certiorari. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Comments: There are groups that I find absolutely repugnant:

But I support their right to peacefully and legally assemble and express their views (no matter how repugnant I find them)

On  the thugs on both sides in Charlottesville

The second thing the president did that was worthy was that he denounced the criminals and thugs on both sides. This is what you want from magistrates. If the white supremacists get a permit, and they are marching to Hell in an orderly fashion, they ought to be allowed to march there unmolested. If antifa thugs show up with baseball bats and attack, they ought to be treated as the violent instigators they are. If one of the white supremacists drives his car into the crowd on the other side, that is not self-defense, and he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Policemen, and the magistrates behind them, are in the business of maintaining public order, which means that they do not get to approve of anarchy from one side only.

If there is outrage over Trump’s denunciation of both sides, then it is plain and obvious that someone is attempting to steer us. In response to my post yesterday, someone breathlessly announced that I had equated Black Lives Matter with the Klan. Why, yes, I did. Hatred and murder are to be reprobated, period. Movements that excuse them are to be reprobated, period. But when your moral compass is governed by the skin tone of your tribe, instead of letters in granite inscribed by the finger of God, then you are going to get the kind of identity race war that we are in the process of getting.
I wasn't aware of 1969 SCOTUS case

Posted by Jim Peet at 8/16/2017 01:30:00 PM 1 comments

Labels: , , , , , ,

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)