South Park insults Muhammad and gets death threats

I've never been a fan of the TV show South Park. In fact, even if I watched much television it would generally be a show I'd tune out.

Nevertheless I am now compelled to post the above South Park cartoon of the prophet Muhammad because the show's producers have been threatened with death for putting the cartoon on air.

Apparently the group called, "Revolution Muslim" is based in New York and made the threat to murder producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone and posted on its website the work addresses of both men in New York and California. The threat also included graphic pictures of the body of Dutch film artist Theo van Gogh, who was murdered after making a movie that Muslim leaders didn't like.

Apparently these Islamicists don't understand the American psyche. There have been very few who have been quicker to condemn violence or threats against muslims than I have. But that condemnation is just as much valid in condemning muslims who make these kinds of threats against others. Americans may fight like cats and dogs on everything else but if you issue a death threat (against anyone,) especially over an issue of free speech then as Americans we all stand together.

McCain mob threatens Obama counterdemonstrators.

I go to a lot of Democratic events. And at some of them there have been counterdemonstrators.

I remember going to listen to Bill Clinton speak at the University of New Mexico in 1992. And as it happened I ended up right in front of a group of pro-life demonstrators who were holding up a big sign calling Clinton a draft-dodger and a baby-killer. They were also quite vocal, although Clinton had a mike and they were some distance away so I doubt if anyone at the stage heard them, but I sure did.

I remember watching John Kerry when he made his whistle stop in Winslow in 2004. In the back of the crowd were two men holding up a 'Bush/Cheney' sign and who booed when Kerry was being introduced. Like everyone else, I chose to ignore them.

I remember also in 2004, Hillary Clinton was giving a speech at the Wild Horse resort near Chandler. On the way in, I passed a group of Bush supporters who were enthusiastically waving signs, and strategically placed to try and make people think that the right road to go down was one that led to the casino there (not the building where the speech was.)

But hey, that's America. We believe in freedom of speech, and as long as people don't actually try to disrupt a campaign event they are every bit as free to show their non-support of a candidate as others are to show their support.

Except, apparently at John McCain rallies like the one in Miami today. It seems like his supporters are willing to threaten violence and engage in mob mentality if anyone dares to show up and suggest that they are not for McCain.

From fivethirtyeight:

Tonight we'll be at the Obama-Clinton rally in Kissimmee, Florida, and we're breaking in from Miami, where John McCain just concluded his "Joe the Plumber" rally at Everglades Lumber.

After the rally, we witnessed a near-street riot involving the exiting McCain crowd and two Cuban-American Obama supporters. Tony Garcia, 63, and Raul Sorando, 31, were suddenly surrounded by an angry mob. There is a moment in a crowd when something goes from mere yelling to a feeling of danger, and that's what we witnessed. As photographers and police raced to the scene, the crowd elevated from stable to fast-moving scrum, and the two men were surrounded on all sides as we raced to the circle.

The event maybe lasted a minute, two at the most, before police competently managed to hustle the two away from the scene and out of the danger zone. Only FiveThirtyEight tracked the two men down for comment, a quarter mile down the street.

"People were screaming 'Terrorist!' 'Communist!' 'Socialist!'" Sorando said when we caught up with him. "I had a guy tell me he was gonna kill me."

Asked what had precipitated the event, "We were just chanting 'Obama!' and holding our signs. That was it. And the crowd suddenly got crazy."

Garcia told us that the man who originally had warned the two it was his property when they had first tried to attend the rally with Obama T-shirts was one of the agitators. Coming up just before the scene started getting out of hand, the man whispered in Garcia's ear, "I'm gonna beat you up the next time I see you." Garcia described him for us: "a big stocky man wearing a tweed jacket." He used hand motions to emphasize this was a large guy. We went back to look for the gentleman twenty minutes after the incident but didn't find him.

The two Obama supporters had attempted to attend the event with tickets printed from the McCain website. Both were clad in Obama T-shirts, Sorando in a blue "Obama '08" shirt, and Garcia in a white "Obama-Biden" shirt. They were told that the event was being held on private property and that wearing the shirts or carrying the signs they would be asked to either remove the shirts or not attend.

For an hour during the rally, the two had stood across the street from the lumberyard on public property holding yard signs. Some drivers honked in support, and others honked in disapproval. When the rally ended and the crowd spilled out, the disturbance began.

Note that they did obey the request to vacate the private property, and were situated on the street, which by law is public access (anyone can stand there and demonstrate in other words.)

Well, Tony had something else to say to the man who had threatened him:

Garcia had a message for his stocky, tweed-clad threatener. "You tell that guy he can find Tony Garcia down at the West Dade library every day from 7 to 7 helping people early vote. I'll be there from 1 to 5 on Saturday and Sunday. You tell him if he wants to kick my ass that's where he can find me. Come beat me up."

Not thirty seconds later, John McCain drove by in his SUV and waved at Garcia on the sidewalk, who was happily waving his Obama sign.

But this is something that the McCain supporters don't get. Maybe Tony Garcia got under their skin by using his Constitutional right to counterdemonstrate at a McCain rally. But what else is he going to do this weekend? Darn right, he's volunteering to help people vote.

There are millions of Tony Garcias in the country, people who want change and whether they are as outspoken as he is or not, are going to do their part to make it happen.

We are all Tony Garcia.

Free speech is too important to restrict

I hate having to defend people who I consider toads, but right now that's just what I have to do.

Last week a British court gave a victory to Max Mosely, a British politician who claimed that he had been smeared by tabloids after they published intimate details of an orgy at his home in Chelsea, which according to the tabloids involved nazi role-play (for the record, Mosely admits to the orgy but denies the nazi role-play.) From this case we've learned that there is now a whole new subcategory of S & M in which one group of people dresses up in World War II vintage Nazi uniforms and then beat and humiliate their 'captives.' Well, just what I didn't need to know. I'd find it offensive that anyone could turn the systematic slaughter of entire populations into a sexual fantasy if it wasn't so utterly stupid. Best left behind closed doors.

The court ruled that Mosely was entitled to his privacy and that it was a violation of that right for the newspaper to publish details of his sex life.

And that ruling is chilling to me.

Now, I'm a strong advocate of the right to privacy from laws, government intrusions and the like. I've always been an advocate for the right of consenting adults to whatever the heck they want in the privacy of their own home (even if it is to dress up as Nazis and whip each other.) It is also true that tabloids are the worst kind of offenders of personal privacy (if you don't believe that then ask anyone who knows Brittney Spears, Angelina Jolie or Lindsay Lohan.) In celebrity-studded Southern California tabloid reporters eager for a picture have caused several minor traffic accidents and prevented people from getting into restaurants by packing around the front door with cameras clicking. The potential for a major, even fatal accident (and we still don't know how much of a role the paparazzi played in the death of Princess Diana a decade ago), or crowds of paparazzi preventing people from getting out of a restaurant in case of a fire, is present and sooner or later the law of averages says that something like that will happen. And that's just the American tabloids, which are by any account far tamer than their British counterparts (one of the benefits of not having a monarchy, I suppose.)

Personally, I make it a point never to purchase a tabloid and I encourage my kids to not buy them. And I take anything I hear from them with a grain of salt unless it is confirmed by a news source I trust.

Nevertheless, the Mosely verdict is the wrong one. Any kind of censorship (and restrictions on what tabloids can report is censorship) is a step towards an authoritarian state like we all fear. Just last week, the National Enquirer reported that John Edwards had been to a hotel in the middle of the night last week to see a former campaign worker who he has been accused of impregnating (Edwards, the campaign worker, and another campaign worker who claims he is really the father all deny it.) Now, I was skeptical the first time I heard that story a couple of months ago (especially since it also originated in the Enquirer). For one thing Edwards was thoroughly vetted by the Jesse Helms organization (nobody dug dirt better) when he ran for the Senate against a Helms protege in 1998 and again four years ago by the Republican attack machine when he was on the ticket with John Kerry. For him to suddenly do something so stupid this year would seem almost unbelievable, short of his having snuck off to a surgeon's office and having had a secret frontal lobotomy first. But in fact now I am not so sure. It seems to me that if a politician were accused of an affair, especially falsely accused, rule number one would be to avoid ever being around the woman he was accused of having it with again (and even more so to avoid being around her in a place like a hotel at 2 A.M.)

Then again this weekend there was a minor row around Barack Obama's trip to Israel. Like many visitors to come and pray at the Western Wall (Judaism's most holy site) Obama apparently wrote a private prayer on a piece of paper and placed it into the wall. Someone apparently retrieved that particular piece of paper and gave it to Maariv, an Israeli newspaper which published the prayer. I know that if I wrote a private prayer and put it in a holy place I'd expect it to remain between me and God and some Israelis are shocked that the newspaper would carry out such a breach of privacy (though apparently no Israeli laws were broken.)

Nevertheless the National Enquirer and Maariv should be allowed to publish what they find out just as much as any other journalistic enterprise (including the British tabloids.) Leaving aside the obvious facts that this information could just as easily be published, even if anonymously, on the internet or that many more people buy news for the salacious details than for any real news (one reason why traditional newspapers are declining in sales while sales of tabloids never seem to be hurt) they should still have the right to publish what they do and by implication go where they do to get the news. There are some things much more threatening than nosy reporters or photographers intruding on people's most private moments (as irksome as that can be) and one of those is the prospect of the law telling any publication that they can't publish something. Because if they can tell you that you can't publish details of Max Mosely's or John Edwards' sex life, then they can tell you what else you can't publish, and then what else until eventually it becomes instead a list of what you can publish (which could still be shrunken.) That is the policy that the media operates under in countries like China, Cuba and Zimbabwe.

There is of course another threat. During the Hoover era at the FBI (as I once posted), J. Edgar Hoover and others were expert at collecting dirt on everyone they could. By the time he died he had files on as many as fifty million Americans from all walks of life (and certainly on every American who might ever be in a position of power.) Often the government would spill details of someone's personal life in an effort to discredit them (This happened to everyone from Dr. King to people who opposed the Vietnam war to members of Congress who suggested budget cuts to programs that Hoover supported.) Of course laws have since been passed limiting the ability of the Federal Government, even if they know something about somebody, to use it against political opponents (though that hasn't stopped them from trying on occasion.) Is there anything to prevent a future, more sophisticated version of Hoover, from using tabloids to further his own private agenda?

Well, no there is not. And leaks happen today, often in the furtherance of someone or some group's agenda. And they don't even have to go to tabloids to leak, unless the story is so sewer-worthy that the official Washington media won't touch it. But that is the price we pay for a free press. The answer is not to muzzle the press, but to aggressively investigate and prosecute anyone who violates the law in terms of leaking privileged information or violates existing privacy laws in getting that information (for example I would have agreed with Mosely if he'd based his suit on his contention that the tabloid press acted as 'peeping toms' rather than adding that comment as an afterthought and challenging their right to publish the story at all.) Similarly, the city of Malibu, California (ground zero for the paparazzi) is now looking at ways they can fine reporters who drive dangerously or otherwise cause disturbances including blocking entrances to businesses. There is nothing wrong with that-- require that they maintain order while going about their chosen line of work.

Supreme Court decides High School Principal outranks the First Amendment.

Quite a few years ago I was involved in helping to organize a union one of my former work places. At one point we decided that we wanted to have a peaceful picket and demonstration. So we petitioned management to allow us to demonstrate in a courtyard outside of their offices. They refused, so we picketed and demonstrated on a sidewalk, which in fact was along a road that major road that ran right through the middle of our workplace. In the end the management backed down and backed off of the specific decision they had made which prompted the demonstration, in no small part because of the citywide press coverage that the demonstration got (they'd have been much better off if they had approved the original site.)

The reason the sidewalk was chosen was very plain: it was public access. It was the one place on-site where management had no legal sway, and by law we had the right to demonstrate as long as we did so in a manner that did not block access for anyone else wanting to use the sidewalk or interfere with traffic.

And that is what makes today's Supreme Court decision very troubling. By a 6-3 majority, the court ruled to restrict free speech by students on a public sidewalk.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner case -- a split decision that limits students' free speech rights.

Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.

Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, taking his case all the way to the nation's highest court.

The justices ruled 6-3 that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner...

"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

The substance of the banner is irrelevant. Either this student (and by implication all students, or all people) have a right to express their views in public, or they don't. In the end it is that simple.

Suppose that the banner had read, 'prayer 4 Jesus.' Would the conservative justices who voted against Frederick then vote to allow him to display his banner (or for that matter, it is fair to ask whether the three liberal justices who supported him would vote against him?) And if the answer is 'yes,' then wouldn't it plainly mean that the decision was based on the personal viewpoints of the justices and not the matter of free speech at all?

There is no question that the school has every right to control what is said on school grounds-- they have jurisdiction there, but with this decision can they then ban what students can say off campus? Could they enforce dress codes even when students are not at school? Could they punish students if they write a letter to the paper that portrays the school in an unflattering light? The implications are chilling.

And it won't stop with students. If Mr. Frederick can't display the banner across from his school, could you? Maybe prinicipal Morse might not have any jurisdiction over you, but the mayor would. Or the Governor. Or the President. This ruling represents a real restriction on the rights of all of us.

And don't let anyone fool you into thinking that it does not.

Ward Churchill may get fired for his comments. But he shouldn't.

The University of Colorado has announced that it is considering disciplinary action-- possibly including termination, against Professor Ward Churchill. UC President Hank Brown is actively lobbying for his dismissal.

Churchill, you may recall, wrote an essay not long after September 11 in which he compared victims of the World Trade Center Attack to Adoph Eichmann, the Nazi psychopath who with Hitler planned the 'final solution,' leading to the extermination of six million Jews.

I find Churchill's comments to be inaccurate, stupid, intentionally offensive (and deeply offensive at that, on so many levels), and in fact an embarrassment to the University of Colorado, the state of Colorado, the United States of America and the whole human race. My mother's aunt and my entire extended family on that side who remained in Europe were murdered by Adolph Eichmann and his minions.

However, Ward Churchill should not be fired and should face no disciplinary action.

Let's dispense with the trivialities first:

University officials concluded he could not be fired for his comments because they were protected by the First Amendment, but they launched an investigation into allegations that he fabricated or falsified his research and plagiarized.

I don't know what the investigation found, or whether he is guilty of plagiarism (apparently of an al-Qaeda propaganda manual if he was) but it is clear from this that the investigation was launched specifically for the purpose of finding something they could use against him, and that the real reason was his hateful and provocative essay. So, if he is fired it will be for the essay, whatever the official reason may say.

So should he be fired for the essay? Let's forget about tenure for a moment and suppose that it didn't exist, so they didn't have to go looking for something else. Should the University fire him then?

No. Academia exists to expand and challenge the mind. It is a laboratory of civilization, in which ideas are born, percolate and eventually become shaped and expounded to the whole world. Probably at least 99% of the ideas that originate in even the finest of academic minds are stupid, nonoriginal, pointless, useless or (as in this case) needlessly and provocatively harmful. However, it is in academia that the ideas which themselves show promise can be forged, refined and eventually presented as progress. Of such small bits of progress is humanity ever increasing in knowlege, wisdom and ability. If we begin (even the smallest beginning) to restrict those ideas, then we have set a dangerous precedent-- in which only 'certain' ideas will be allowed. Like in Nazi Germany (or for that matter in the Soviet Union or today's fundamentalist Muslim countries) that precedent can be used to create great ignorance, malice and even violence.

I know, this is a leftist blog, so someone will sooner or later find it and suggest that I am selectively defending Churchill because I must secretly agree with him (my earlier comments on that notwithstanding.)

I'd defer, pointing out some of my other posts on free speech:

I posted the infamous Mohammed cartoons that set off weeks of rioting, not because I agreed with their message (which I don't) but because I disagreed more with the fatwa issued against the Danish cartoonist for drawing them. He had a right to draw them, publish them and distribute them. If people don't like them then they can turn the page.

Not long after that, I defended the right of a Holocaust denier to speak his mind without fear of prosecution.

I've also defended anti-Castro Cubans, people who use the 'n'-word, and just recently, two cases that are directly relevant to my defense of Churchill: defending a professor threatened with being fired for espousing a right-wing view of immigration, and University of Colorado Student Max Karson, who was arrested after making tasteless and provocative comments after the Virginia Tech massacre. Certainly UC's tough stance on Churchill doesn't bode well for Karson.

Nevertheless I have to support their right to say what they will.

Because if Ward Churchill (or any of the others) doesn't have free speech, then neither do I, and neither do you.

Even a Pat Buchanan-quoting professor still shouldn't be fired for his views.

A story out today is about how Glendale Community College Math Professor Walter Kehowski could be fired for an email he sent out with a link to Pat Buchanan's website.

I should mention right here that though I work in the same field as Professor Kehowski and I am certain that I know some people who also know him (including several of his colleagues in the math department there), I don't remember meeting him. I may have met Professor Kehowski at a professional conference (though the name doesn't bring to mind a face) but if I did then I don't remember the introduction, nor have I ever attended any professional conferences where I listened to him present anything. I've been to Glendale Community College several times for various reasons and find it to be a pleasant enough place, but have never had any contact with their administration.

I will also mention that I am certain that I disagree with virtually everything political that Professor Kehowski believes concerning immigration, and have been an outspoken proponent of immigrant rights on this blog and elsewhere.

However, I disagree even more strongly with the idea that he should be fired for exercising his right to free speech within the context of an academic environment.

A Maricopa Community Colleges professor could be fired after he sent an e-mail to district employees that contained a link to Pat Buchanan's Web site and a transcript of a George Washington Thanksgiving proclamation.

Math Professor Walter Kehowski, who has sent controversial e-mails in the past, was placed on paid leave from his job at Glendale Community College. A national free-speech group, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has taken up his cause and is asking the Maricopa County Community College District to exonerate him.

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Philadelphia-based group, said Kehowski is being targeted because of the e-mail, sent Nov. 22, with the 1789 proclamation and the link to the site of Buchanan, a conservative commentator and former presidential candidate. Lukianoff said five employees filed complaints because the Buchanan site criticized immigration policies.

Glendale Community College is claiming that he is being fired for violating the district's electronic communications policy, which prohibits using district e-mail for private or personal matters.

Fair enough, if it were a private or personal matter. If he were sending out emails touting his side business or exchanging raunchy emails with a hooker in Hong Kong then they might have a point.

However, this email propounded a political viewpoint. Whether one agrees with it or not is irrelevant. It is hard to argue that it is either private or personal. It is instead an academic argument. What this amounts to is an attack on academic freedom. Academia is supposed to be a place in which ideas can be exchanged freely, debated and responded to (there's a thought-- why didn't they just send out an email rebutting his?). If Professor Kehowski is fired the clear message will be that only those political views which pass muster with Maricopa Community Colleges will be tolerated or will be allowed to be expressed on campus (because let's face it, they certainly have similar policies governing what can be posted on bulletin boards and otherwise distributed on campus.) Perhaps the view here is that academic freedom on campus doesn't extend beyond the classroom.

And that would be a true irony. As I mentioned earlier, I work in the same field as Professor Kehowski. And teaching math, I have no reason to discuss politics in the classroom, so I very scrupulously check my politics at the door and go in and talk about quadratic equations and logarithms. As Professor Kehowski's professionalism on the job has not been called into question, I can only assume that he does likewise. Do you really think it is wise then, to implement a policy in which he (and for that matter any of us in academia, if this policy becomes universal) has to propound his views in the classroom because that is the only place on campus where free speech will be protected?

There are things I'll never say, unless you tell me it's against the law to say it.

If there is one word I really loathe, it is the 'n' word. I can honestly say that my parents taught me early on never to use that word so I've never used it. I've even been careful to explain to my kids when we read 'Huckleberry Finn' that we don't ever, ever use that word. People who use it show themselves to be ignorant, bigoted fools. I know that the word is deeply offensive, especially to African-Americans as it is what they were called during the days of slavery and Jim Crow.

So is there a situation when I would ever allow that putrid, rotten word to come out of my mouth? Well, yes there is. I might use it if I'm ever in the town of Brazoria, Texas and they make it illegal.

Saying the "n-word" in one Texas town may soon cost people hundreds of dollars. The mayor of Brazoria, near Houston, wants to ban the word.

"This is a melting pot -- this country is, okay? There is no room for any racial slurs, whatever," said Brazoria Mayor Ken Corley.

Ken Corley wants people to face a $500 fine if they say the “n-word” there.

I'm glad the mayor feels that his town is a melting pot and that there is no room for racial slurs. I agree with him that there shouldn't be room for that. Heck, he makes it sound like the kind of progressive place that you don't hear so much about in the Lone Star State, and maybe worth a visit sometime.

But he and I part company when we talk about making a word illegal.

In the United States we have a Constitution, and one which wisely allows people to say the most horrible, disgusting things. That is why while we may regulate pornography, it is allowed. That is why holocaust deniers can feel free to spout off their particular kind of filth. That is why we allow music to be sold in stores that is pretty much one constant stream of profanity, often liberally spiced with the 'n' word, for that matter.

As one of my friends who has a gift for cutting things to the core once told me in regard to free speech (after an incident in which a mutual acquaintance was punished by his employer for complaining about a co-worker), "If I don't have the right to call you an asshole, then what rights do I have?" (I generally try to avoid even that level of language, but that is a direct quote to what he said-- though as an aside I believe that someone who hires you does have some rights to expect you to uphold certain standards of civility on the job.)

So to be honest, as much as I loathe and detest the word, and as honestly as I can say that I've never once said it, if they make it illegal in Brazoria, Texas and I happened to be there, I'd feel obligated to say it, probably right directly in front of hizzoner the mayor. I might not even say it in a way that was connected to anything else, or as part of a sentence, but I'd feel like I had to say the word. And then challenge the ban in court. Because if we can tell people what to say, then can telling them what to think be far behind?

Donald Trump can fly his flag-- on a 42 foot pole like anyone else.

As a liberal, it's always risky speaking against flying an American flag. I'm sure that some right winger, if they read this, will be quick to jump up and cite it as proof that liberals are unpatriotic, or hate America, or some such crap.

If so, they don't know me. I love America, and in fact I have a small American flag right next to my front door. I stuck it up there on September 11, 2001, and it has remained in place since that day. The wind has shredded it to the extent that pretty soon I will have to replace it. To be honest it would bother me to throw it away. The proper procedure for disposal of an old or tattered flag,

according to 36 USCA Sec. 176, Respect for flag:

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

but if I did that then I'm sure those same right-wingers would claim that I was making an anti-American political statement.

But I'm going to speak against flying the flag. Specifically, against Donald Trump flying his.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Officials in the ritzy coastal town of Palm Beach have voted to fine Donald Trump $1,250 a day for flying a large American flag atop an 80-foot flagpole at his lavish club in violation of town codes.

Code enforcement officials have accused the 60-year-old real-estate mogul of violating zoning guidelines with a flagpole taller than 42 feet, for not obtaining a building permit, and for not getting permission from the landmarks board.

Trump has refused to take down the flag. He has also filed a $25 million lawsuit against the town arguing, in part, that officials are selectively enforcing ordinances and that flying the American flag at his Mar-A-Lago club is a constitutionally protected expression of free speech.

Let's start with why this is not a violation of free speech. The town of West Palm Beach has not said that Donald Trump can't fly the American flag. In fact, he could fly the same flag (oversized as it is) 42 feet off the ground. This is as high as a typical three or four story building, so it's not like he can't fly his flag in a very visible manner. He would have a point that it was a violation of free speech if the law said that he couldn't display it at all, or for that matter that he could only display it in a manner where it could easily be overlooked, but the ordinance does not say that. Further, the zoning ordinance says nothing about the flag itself, but rather about the flagpole. In other words if he wants to, for example, display the flag eighty feet up on the side of a building or some other way of displaying it, he would not be in violation of the ordinance. A limit on the height of a flagpole can be grounded in all sorts of practical reasons, including that an eighty foot pole could, if struck by a vehicle conceivably cause injury to people a signficant distance away, or that people may want an unobstructed view.

The fact is that cities and towns have a right to create and enforce ordinances designed to promote what they see as the quality of life in their communities. There have been times when I have been unhappy about these ordinances (for example several years ago we were all set to buy land and move into a community when they passed an ordinance against single wide trailers. We had one that we were planning to put on the land. When they passed the ordinance we went elsewhere (though things have in fact turned out much better where we are, especially in terms of having much better schools, than they would have there). But whether I liked the ordinance or not, I never felt that the town didn't have the legal right to pass it.

A zoning ordinance can in some cases be considered a restriction on free speech but I don't honestly see how this one is. If I felt otherwise I'd speak out against it, as I have before on free speech issues.

Donald Trump seems to have created this situation intentionally. He could have applied for permission from the landmarks board. It might not have been granted, but then again it might have-- but he chose not to follow the procedure to ask for permission. Perhaps he is creating the controversy because his image has taken a hit lately, between the dust-up with Rosie O'Donnell and his having been fooled by a fraudulent resume submitted by a low level day trader who was hired by Trump to direct his mortgage division. Or maybe it's just a matter of the fact that he hasn't had many headlines since the war with Rosie has receded from the front page.