June 24
Los Angeles Times: “George Carlin, standup
guy”
Stumbling comedians have grabbed the crutch
of free-speech martyrdom often enough that we should recall one central fact
about the late George Carlin: He was an artist and linguistic provocateur, but
he never set out to create a new law of speech.
The respondent in the landmark 1978 Supreme
Court case over his “Filthy Words” bit was not Carlin but a public radio
network that had played the routine during a midafternoon show about
censorship. Carlin, having begun his career as a clean-cut observational comic
... , enjoyed a long, lustrous career as the kind of beloved
anti-establishmentarian you’d trust to play Thomas the Tank Engine’s Mr.
Conductor. His funniest routine — a side-by-side comparison of baseball
and football — wasn’t even dirty. The comedian didn’t push the limits of
free speech so much as explore the borders of our word choices and the
ludicrousness of those who would regulate those choices.
The decision in FCC vs. Pacifica was written
by Justice John Paul Stevens, who went on to become the high court’s leading
liberal. As with most efforts to put a moderate face on the suppression of
speech, the ruling ended up muddying, rather than clarifying, the legal
environment. The Federal Communications Commission never grew comfortable with
putting together a list of unspeakable words, nor was it willing to say
precisely which hours were OK for broadcasting grown-up language and which were
not.
Carlin, whose real target was the
nudge-and-wink culture that traffics in euphemism while obsessing about what’s
appropriate to say, appreciated nuances like that. You can’t say the “f-word”
on TV, he noted, yet without coy references to sexual congress, bedroom mix-up
plots and lewd bantering with honeymooning couples, there wouldn’t be much TV
at all.
June 22
The Fresno Bee: “State GOP power play
serves no one’s interests”
For most of the year, Republicans in the
Legislature are virtually powerless. As the minority party, they can’t muster
votes to advance their agenda, so they wait for The Big Show to start.
That happens in June, when a budget is
negotiated. Since GOP votes are needed to pass a budget by a two-thirds margin,
Republicans suddenly gain power to advance their interests — assuming
they make prudent choices.
This year, for the umpteenth time, they are
not choosing wisely. As a condition for a budget, Senate Republicans want the
governor to suspend environmental rules, including those that would implement
California’s law to cap greenhouse gas emissions.
The law, Assembly Bill 32, is only 18 months
old. The state Air Resources Board won’t be adopting rules to cap emissions
until the end of the year and won’t enforce the cap until 2010. Nonetheless,
GOP lawmakers claim these rules, still not finalized, will cost businesses.
They are pressing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to invoke a safety valve in the
2006 law that allows him to suspend the rules upon a finding they could cause “significant
economic harm.”
With this stunt, Republicans reinforce their
image as a party that cares little about the threat of climate change, or the
economic benefits afforded by moving toward less dependence on fossil fuels.
California’s law has spurred clean-tech industries to expand and locate in the
state. Yet you’ll never see that noted by Senate Republicans.
Even worse, this move by GOP leaders is
distracting lawmakers from what should be their top priority — a fiscally
sound resolution of the budget crisis. We don’t support the GOP’s proposed
spending cap, but the idea does address a serious issue, and deserves serious
debate.
That will never happen if the GOP attempts to
tie the budget to a fight they fought two years ago, and lost.
June 24
San Jose Mercury News: “At least let dying
patients know what their options are”
California ought to offer terminally ill
patients the right to end their lives when there is no hope of escaping extreme
pain. But in each of the past three years, legislation similar to Oregon’s compassionate
law allowing doctor-assisted suicide has failed here.
So advocates have taken a step back. Now they’re
just trying to make sure the terminally ill are given full and accurate
information about their options for care and pain management. Good for
Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Santa Rosa, and Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van
Nuys, for proposing AB 2747. The Legislature should pass it.
The terminally ill need to know what help is available in their final
months — particularly the option of hospice care, which can be a godsend
to alleviate pain and bring peace to the dying. Yet many doctors are reluctant
to discuss options like this. As a result, Californians spend far less time in
hospice care — and more in agonizing pain — than the national
average.