Jim Maas' Letters to the Editor
|
Debates shouldn't be exclusive events The Stevens Point Journal. Published Letter to the Editor. October 25, 2002. The old parties' candidates have insulted the people of this state by trying to "make the rules" for debates. We cannot allow candidates to leverage their power and money to exclude viable choices from the voters, as with today's televised "bipartisan debate," sponsored by the Wausau Daily Herald and WSAW-TV. A "bipartisan debate" when there are more than two candidates is not news, it is an infomercial paid for by the media. When the candidates with multimillion-dollar advertising budgets can determine who gets excluded from the "free" debates on our public airwaves, Wiscon-sin elections are in trouble. When the people who provide us with the news allow professional politicians to make the rules for who will be allowed in debates, we have lost a part of our foundation to a democratic and free society. Voters need to be able to make informed choices come Nov. 5. When our news outlets choose to exclude vital information, dem-ocracy suffers. This is unacceptable. If there is a statewide debate and all candidates are invited, the debate should go on with whoever shows up. Something is wrong when the news outlets have a preconceived idea about who "must" be a debater for them to proceed. The Daily Herald and WSAW-TV should have exposed Doyle and McCallum for their efforts to narrow the debate. When the two major candidates for Wisconsin's top elected office try to silence voices for their personal gain - that is front-page news. They had the opportunity to pressure Doyle and McCallum to reconsider, but now they need to admit they voluntarily handed over their responsibility to serve the public interest. Ed Thompson (Libertarian) and Jim Young (Green Party) will participate in the statewide gubernatorial debate on Wisconsin Public Television this Tuesday. We urge you to see the differences. Amy Heart, Portage County Greens Jim Maas, Portage County Friends for Ed Thompson Freedom can't be exchanged for a little safety Stevens Point Journal. Published opinion by James A. Maas. December 9, 2002. "Posterity -- you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it! If you do not, I shall repent it in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it!" -- John Quincy Adams Our forefathers must be rotating in their graves at the present condition of the freedoms for which they and others sacrificed so much to pass on to us. Dec. 15 is the 211th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, an attempt to limit what the government could do to individuals or local governments. In 2002, the government, which was given limited powers by "The People," has given itself the power to ignore parts of the Bill of Rights in the name of "security." While the government cleverly labels its efforts with emotional terminology (Enduring Freedom, Patriot Act, Home-land Security), its actions have a much different result. Unfor-tunately, it appears that the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" will be neither if we let Washington get away with this. The Homeland "Security" Act is full of surprises for citizens concerned about freedoms (theirs and others'), particularly when combined with last year's USA "PATRIOT" Act. Since the events of 9/11, a range of legislation detrimental to fundamental freedoms and privacy rights has been rammed into law without any assurance that our safety will improve as a result. A variety of surveillance measures were pushed through, including some unrelated to terrorism, that had long been rejected as inappropriate in a free society. This is homeland insecurity for every American who still thinks that the rule of law will protect him or her against surveillance and the demand that they turn over all aspects of their daily lives to the approval of the government. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I agree that cowards don't deserve liberty, but if they squander theirs, mine will be lost as well. Jim Maas North Country Libertarians Stevens Point Smoking is a property rights issue Portage County Gazette. Published Letter to the Editor. Aug. 15, 2003. To the Gazette: There is a local group which has gone from pleading for a smoke-free section in restaurants to demanding pure air wherever they happen to go. They twist emotional words like "freedom". They feel that their "freedom" to breathe smokeless air everywhere is more important than freedom of choice or property rights of others. They have gone too far. The Tobacco Taliban is blowing smoke with claims that individuals need city protection from smokers. The "scientific" data on passive smoking is junk science. The evidence concerning the health effects of secondhand smoke are not nearly as conclusive as the evidence concerning the health effects of direct smoking. The hazards of passive smoking have been greatly exaggerated by those who want to control our lives. Most of the evidence about the health effects of passive smoking relates to exposure in the home, yet the smoke banners don't propose a ban for homes. They still have some respect for property rights. But, business owners have property rights too. If the City respects their right to establish rules about smoke on their own property, potential employees and customers can decide where to work or relax. Whether secondhand smoke is a health hazard or just a nuisance, a voluntary system is the best way to deal with conflicting demands of smokers and non-smokers since it allows for diversity and competition rather than imposing the will of the majority on everyone. Not smoking should always be a personal decision. I decided not to, but I have no business attempting to impose my personal decision on others, including (mis)using the government. Business owners have the power to post No Smoking signs on their property, or not. If we take property rights seriously, owners of a business have a right to regulate the conduct of their patrons. For good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all, the owner should be able to decide whether to admit smokers, nonsmokers, or both. Potential customers or employees who object are free to go elsewhere. They don't have the right to tell the owner what his policies should be. And, the City can set the rules for city property. But is a violation of property rights to tell private owners what to do with theirs. The simplistic excuse for a government mandate goes like: Rules against smoking are like regulations against unsafe conditions, like asbestos. The difference is that patrons would not know they were being exposed to asbestos. People can identify tobacco smoke and decide for themselves what to do about it. Give us some credit. The medical case for not smoking is what it is. But, we will all be better off when we each act on this information voluntarily. If we allow bureaucrats and politicians to create a smoke-free society by force, the costs will outweigh the gains. The campaign of the misguided Tobacco Taliban is detrimental to freedom and personal responsibility. Let's not go there in Stevens Point. Let's encourage diversity, tolerance, choices, and freedom for everyone. Jim Maas Plover Government should stop treating adults like children Portage County Gazette. Published Letter to the Editor. Jan. 7, 2003. Theoretically this is the Land of the Free, and we still like to think that is still true. When it was the Land of the Free, adults weren't treated like children. Today, politicians treat us like they are the only ones with any sense. This isn't appropriate in the United States of America. At the very least, in a free country an adult ought to be free to ingest what, where, and when he wants so long as he doesn't harm anyone else. Otherwise, it's no one else's business. George Rogers (Revise traffic laws to limit crash deaths) admits that problem drinkers will continue to drive drunk, despite a lower legal limit. But, he says, "most motorists would be more cautious.? Most motorists aren't the problem. That kind of fuzzy rationalization, that the government must 'do something' to make us less free but more safe, ignores accident statistics and the basic principles of American government we learned in civics class." The libertarian authors of the Constitution left such matters to the states, where they belong. Advocates for a lower limit on the legal Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), instead of legislating a national limit, are threatening to withhold highway funds from states that do not adopt their 0.08 standard. This maneuver is an end run around the 10th Amendment. ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") Constitutional concerns aside, a lower BAC limit would be a waste of law enforcement resources. The problem isn?t social drinkers who leave a tavern or restaurant after a few drinks with a BAC between .08 and .10%. Most alcohol related crashes involve drivers with a BAC way over the existing limit. More than three-quarters of the drivers in such accidents have BACs of 0.10 or more, with 62 percent above 0.14. The average BAC for fatally injured drunk drivers is a whopping 0.18 percent; the AVERAGE! Rogers said that, "When we go out on the town, most of us carefully watch our alcohol intake or rely on a designated driver." Exactly. So, find a way to hold the irresponsible drinking drivers accountable and leave the majority of us alone. If drunk drivers aren?t influenced by the present limit, why would 0.08% make a difference to them? However, it might affect the hospitality, brewing, and agricultural industries, as well as our way of life. If the Feds want to blackmail us with our own money, let them keep it and cut the budget by refusing to enforce all their un-funded Federal mandates. Wisconsin traffic laws are none of the Fed?s business. Treating Wisconsin adults like children is un-American and it has to stop. We need to elect a state senator who understands that. Jim Maas Plover |
 |
Thompson Index |