The tyranny of the bigoted

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.” - Mahatma Gandhi

As Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. recently discovered, one of the greatest threats to the free exercise of civil rights in America is the promulgation of catch-all offenses such as “disturbing the peace” or “disorderly conduct.”

With no clear definition of what constitutes behavior that is “disturbing” or “disorderly”, many in law enforcement use such laws as a way to control and punish citizens for otherwise legal and constitutionally protected behavior.

In Professor Gates’ case, the charges were quickly dropped, but the story doesn’t end there. Hundreds or even thousands of less-prominent citizens, lacking the resources and media presence to fight the charges, allow their rights to be infringed and their behavior to be extra-legally restricted out of fear of repeated prosecution.

And while many law enforcement agencies across the country have taken steps to insure that their officers understand the proper limits of such charges in the wake of the Gates arrest, not everyone has benefited from what the media deemed a “teachable moment.”

The Madison Wisconsin Police Department appears to be one such agency that just doesn’t “get it.” On Saturday, August 8th, Madison police received a call from a “concerned citizen” who reported a “man walking … with a holstered gun on his hip.”

Police responded to find 28 year-old UW-Madison graduate student Travis F. Yates legally and peacefully wearing a properly holstered sidearm. After Yates stated that he was wearing the sidearm as a political statement in support of the open carry and self defense rights recently documented in an advisory opinion by Wisconsin Attorney General Van Hollen, Yates was informed that he was being cited for disorderly conduct because “his actions disturbed other citizens.”

Never mind the fact that this is EXACTLY the type of open carry that Attorney General Van Hollen stated was constitutionally protected and NOT grounds for a disorderly conduct charge.

In his advisory opinion, he stated "The state constitutional right to bear arms extends to openly carrying a handgun for lawful purposes [and t]he Wisconsin Department of Justice believes that the mere open carrying of a firearm by a person, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge from a prosecutor."

Attorney General Van Hollen went on to provide strong guidance to law enforcement as to what additional facts and circumstances would need to be present to justify a disorderly conduct charge against an open carrier. He stated that the totality of the circumstance would need to be such that the actions of the open carrier were "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

Attorney General Van Hollen has done an excellent job of summarizing just how disruptive a person’s behavior needs to be before the public good outweighs the significant interest of a constitutional right. Applied to this incident, the test shows that the Madison Police Department clearly over-stepped their bounds. In fact, given the recent release and significant media coverage of the Van Hollen opinion, this arrest seems to be a willful act of defiance. I expect that should Mr Yates choose to pursue a federal civil rights action under U.S.C. § 1983, this will be an argument raised by his counsel.

But wait. Maybe we are getting ahead of ourselves in our criticism. Could it be that this is an isolated incident based upon a single officer making a misstep?

That is what I had hoped when I first learned of this incident. But no …

As reported by WKOW TV, Madison Police Captain Victor Wahl wrote about the issue in a department newsletter in which he stated that despite the clear guidance in Van Hollen’s opinion, Madison police procedure will likely not change. He went on to describe the considerations HE wanted his officers to use when considering a disorderly conduct charge: "To support a disorderly conduct charge it will be necessary to show that the carrying of the firearm -- under those particular circumstances -- was the type of behavior that caused, or tends to cause, a disturbance. The location of the incident, the behavior of the suspect and the reactions of witnesses will all be relevant (sic) to this determination."

“Tends to cause a disturbance” is very different than "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest." Additionally, by including the “reactions of witnesses” Captain Wahl has insured that any anti-gun person who sees someone exercising their right to self-defense can have that open carrier arrested by simply reacting in a frightened manner.

Clearly, the Madison police are willing to press disorderly conduct charges against a person exercising constitutionally protected rights based upon the unreasonable fear or bigotry of just one witness. As Mr Yates noted in his WKOW interview, this reduces the Wisconsin constitutional right to defend oneself to nothing more than a theoretical right which can never be exercised.

One complaint and otherwise legal behavior becomes “disorderly conduct.” Welcome to the tyranny of the bigoted.

Source: The Examiner

The Tyranny of Democracy

Whenever I hear someone call America a democracy, I inform that person that we are actually living in a republic. I usually get a blank stare in return. Sometimes that person will ask what the difference is between a republic and a democracy. I explain that a republic is an indirect form of democracy where elective representatives vote on certain legislation. Most of the time I get another blank stare, but there are occasions where that person asks "why aren't we a direct democracy, where everybody in the United States gets a vote?'' These questions make me feel like I was the only one who paid attention in social studies. For starters, America is too massive to include everybody in the legislative process. There are towns that practice direct democracy, but they usually take place in areas with small populations. We also have to make sure that our rights are never compromised by the majority. To paraphrase Mel Gibson's character in the Patriot, "An elected legislator can trample on a man's rights just easy as any king."

This has proven to be the case in San Francisco. About two years ago, the residents voted for two of the worst bills ever conceived. One of them was a ban on handguns within the city limits. The other bill barred military recruiters from setting foot on college campuses. Keeping military recruiters off of college campuses seemed more absurd then oppressive. The banning of pistols on the other hand, was a blatant violation of the Second Amendment. People who defend these laws say that they are legit because they represent the will of the majority. Whether it was a majority that brought about these laws or just a select few is irrelevant. Bad laws are never legit, especially when they violate constitutional rights. The right to keep and bear arms is a god given right (natural right if you're an atheist) and cannot be overruled by a majority vote.

On the other side of the coin, conservatives try to justify the bans on gay marriage by claiming that it is the will of the people. In California, the opponents of gay marriage would have the masses vote a bill into the state constitution that would permanently ban gay marriage. Personally, I believe that the government should stay out of the issue of marriage. They shouldn't have the power to decide the legality of any union between consenting adults. I had a constitutional law professor who said that if you allow the government to define marriage, then it can define almost any other aspect of your life. That is why the government shouldn't be allowed to define any union between consenting adults, even if it is following the will of the majority.

There was another instance where people tried to use democracy to impose their will on others. In Riviera Beach, Florida, the people voted for a ban on saggy pants. This law would be tested when a seventeen-year-old kid was jailed overnight for wearing jeans that exposed the top of his underwear. This prompted a Circuit Judge to overturn the law. Many people in the town were outraged by the judge's decision. I would hate to be the one to break it to these people, but the judge was right. It was a bad law.

I don't like saggy pants myself. I hated that style even when it was considered fashionable back when I was in high school. I always hoped that style would die out. To my dismay, there are people who still like to wear saggy pants. There is one thing I hate more then saggy pants. It is the idea of any government telling me what I can or can't wear. What else would they ban? Piercings? Tattoos? Thong underwear? Miniskirts? Cleavage shirts? I wouldn't be surprised if the prudish people of Riviera Beach decided to ban the wearing of white after Labor Day. While they are at it, why don't they create a special task force and call it the "Fashion Police?" One of the main problems of this law is that it falls under the same flawed logic as speech codes on college campuses. They are based on the premise that people have a right not to be offended. I hate to be the one to burst their bubble, but that right doesn't really exist.

I can't remember the last time that I wasn't offended. I get offended every time I see the Obama administration getting brown nosed by the mainstream media. I get offended whenever the TV networks pollute the airwaves with some lame reality show. I get offended every time I see a Will Ferrell movie on top at the box office. Most of all I get offended whenever I see some idiot wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt. Every time I see this, I want to slap the fool over the head and ask him if he even knew who Che Guevara was. I am more offended by the notion that people are ignorant enough to walk around with the face of a mass murderer on their shirts, then I am of saggy jeans. As much as these things offend me, I still have to tolerate them. Like I have said before, part of living in a free society is tolerating the things that you don't like.

What people don't seem to understand is that our government was never meant to be a direct democracy. The founding fathers hated the idea of direct democracy because they knew that it could be used to oppress the minority. This can happen on any level of government. People seem to forget that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Venezuela's own little tyrant, Hugo Chavez was also brought to power through democracy. Without limitations, democracy can lead to oppression just as easy as any dictatorship.

Source: The Libertine Enterprise

Anti-Defamation League Has Lost It's Way

An anonymous letter of July 16 [a reader's online comment printed in July 16 issue, click here for original] takes sharp issue with the opinions of UCSB Professor William Robinson regarding his comparison of Gaza to World War II's Warsaw, calling his comparison "malicious and deliberate slander," and regretting the failure of the university to "discipline" him.

Perhaps understandably, the mystery writer does not mention any of the following:

(1) Professor Robinson's written and (forwarded) photographic comparisons are part of an academic's usual and normal freedom to express an opinion as long as his students are free to disagree (they are);

(2) No student has the right not to be presented with opinions he finds objectionable;

(3) The attempt to "discipline" Professor Robinson was orchestrated by the Anti-Defamation League, partly in cooperation with university officials who had the responsibility to evaluate the charges against Robinson, but did not reveal the ADL connection;

(4) 100 UCSB professors and 20 department heads signed letters, and many UCSB students organized via a web site, all objecting to the charges against Robinson as an attack on academic freedom;

(5) UCSB Academic Senate Charges Officer Martin Sharlemann avoided the usual first step in such proceedings, i.e. having the two complaining students contact the Dean or Department Head to see if an informal resolution could be obtained. He also: violated the Faculty Code of Conduct by demanding Professor Robinson answer a set of general charges before the required convening of an Ad Hoc committee to authorize such action; refused repeated requests from Robinson to make these general charges - copied from the Faculty Code of Conduct - specific; then later, when he did make them specific, refused the professor's attempt to answer them, saying Robinson had had his "chance," thereby eliminating the professor's right to participate in the process in any meaningful way; violated the Faculty Code of Conduct by deleting one of the students' charges that could never have been sustained (antisemitism) and adding a charge ("coercion of conscience") the students did not make, thus acting as an agent for the complainants; and although having no authority to "investigate" anything, spied on distributed emails of the Sociology Department (to which Professor Robinson belongs) by subscribing to one of the departments listservs without revealing his own position as the charges officer.

(6) Professor Aaron Ettenberg, given a place on the Charges Advisory Committee which was convened to evaluate the complaints, violated the confidentiality provision of the Faculty Code of Conduct by discussing the matter with a person not authorized to participate, a Rabbi Gross-Schaefer, who then wrote letters to the Independent and the News-Press attacking Robinson; violated the conflict-of-interest provision of the Faculty Code of Conduct by not revealing his previous membership in Hillel, to which the ADL belonged.

Properly, the UCSB Academic Senate unanimously dismissed the students' frivolous complaints. Properly, it has voted to investigate possible improprieties by some of its members who were active in this matter.

In my opinion, shame accrues to the corrupt behavior of Professors Sharlemann and Ettenberg; to the Anti-Defamation League, once devoted to vigorous defense of persecuted persons, now devoted to scurrilous smear-mongering and attempts to silence those (especially elected officials and teachers) who oppose the despotic policies of the state of Israel; and to University of California Chancellor Henry Yang, whose failure immediately to provide Professor Robinson with an apology reeks of cowardice. William Smithers

Source: The Santa Barbara Independent

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/who-profits-from-israeli-occupation/

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/who-profits-from-israeli-occupation/

Shared via AddThis

kenny's sideshow: Israel's Fifth Column: The People in Between

kenny's sideshow: Israel's Fifth Column: The People in Between

Snippits and Snappits: WHO HIJACKED CANADIAN VALUES?

Snippits and Snappits: WHO HIJACKED CANADIAN VALUES?

AT LEAST THEY LET ROSA PARKS ON THE BUS!

Is history starting to repeat itself? Are we not learning from the mistakes of the past?

Almost 55 years ago, the following took place….(from Wikipedia)

On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks, age 42, refused to obey bus driver James Blake’s order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. Her action was not the first of its kind: Irene Morgan, in 1946, and Sarah Louise Keys, in 1955, had won rulings before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Interstate Commerce Commission respectively in the area of interstate bus travel. Nine months before Parks refused to give up her seat, 15-year-old Claudette Colvin refused to move from her seat on the same bus system. But unlike these previous individual actions of civil disobedience, Parks’s action sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

And now THIS……… IN ISRAEL

A 23-year-old woman of Ethiopian descent claimed that the driver of an Egged No. 5 bus in Rishon Lezion refused to allow her to board his bus because of the color of her skin.

Speaking to Ynet, Yedno Verka recounted last Wednesday's incident: "As I prepared board the bus, the driver suddenly shut the door. I banged on the glass, but he ignored me. Then a young woman came running towards the bus, and he opened the door for her. I stayed close to her and boarded the bus.

"When the driver saw me he said, 'what, don’t you understand that I don't allow Kushim (derogatory term for black people) on board? Are you trying to smash my door in? Were there buses in Ethiopia? Why don't you walk? In Ethiopia you didn't even have shoes and here you do, so why don’t you walk?' I was shaking all over; I couldn't even speak," she said.

At this point Verka handed the driver the bus fair, but, according to her, he refused to accept it and said, "Kushit hold on, what's your hurry? Since you (Ethiopians) made aliyah you've become arrogant."

Verka said she responded by saying, "You can't treat me this way. Treat your mother this way."

At this point, she said, "He grabbed my skirt and yelled: 'You don’t talk like that about my mother. A Kushit will not talk about my mother like that.' I was afraid he was going to hit me, and explained that I did not curse his mother. But he continued: 'Go back to Ethiopia! You are not even Jews; who brought you all here anyway? You're ruining our country; you are a stupid people.'

Only then did the other passengers intervene and call the driver out for his racist behavior, said the woman, adding that the driver continued his tirade even after she made her way to the back of the bus.

"I told myself that I would not cry in front of him. As we approached the college I rang the bell and got off. I couldn't hold it in anymore and began to weep.

"It was such a humiliating experience, and what scares me most is the thought that he'll continue to act this way. I would sue him had jotted down the names and numbers of some of the passengers, but I didn’t even think about it," said Verka.

Knesset Member Shlomo Molla (Kadima) turned to Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz (Likud), who in turn instructed his office to demand that the Egged bus company investigate the incident and see to it that the driver is punished if it is found that he acted inappropriately.

Egged said in response that it "condemns any expression of racism and services all people, regardless of race, gender and creed. The details of the incident have been forwarded to Egged's control committee for an in-depth investigation. Should the allegations prove true, Egged will act accordingly."

Source: YNET News

Fake Jewish tolerance vs. vile Israeli aggression

How many times have we heard about Islam, Muslims and Arabs being slammed for being reactionary on Gay Rights? How many times have we seen political lobbies mobilizing to address Gay Rights issues against Muslim and Arab states and institutions? Interestingly enough, it is actually in the Jewish state where Gays are murdered on the street.

Two days ago in Tel Aviv, the Jewish metropolis that insists upon regarding itself as an international Gay capital proved to be a pretty dangerous place for people who happen to be homosexuals.

In fact, the attack on the Gay community in Tel Aviv should not take us by surprise. The Jewish state, in spite of its relentless effort to prove otherwise, is one of the least tolerant places on this planet. It is fuelled by hatred towards others and Otherness. Its politicians are defined particularly by their level of cruelty towards Palestinians.

As much as the Israelis do love to see themselves as being ‘tolerant and liberal,’ they hate their neighbors and would implement the most murderous lethal tactics against them. At the end of the day, it shouldn’t take us by a complete surprise that in a country that pours white phosphorous on civilians and starves millions behind barbed wire, some people develop deadly inclinations.

The Jewish state is founded on negation. It hates everything that fails to be Jewish. It hates Arabs, it hates the Palestinians, it hates the Goyim, it hates criticism, it hates Islam, it hates the pope, it hates Christianity. You name it, they hate it. As it happens, all it takes to hate Gays is for someone out there to think that Gay is not Jewish enough. And, in fact, it isn’t. It is as non-Jewish as much as democracy and tolerance are totally foreign to the spirit of Jewishness.

A list of prominent Israeli leaders rushed yesterday to promote the fake notion of Jewish tolerance. Amongst them was opposition leader Tzipi Livni who just eight month ago flattened Gaza directly over its inhabitants. “We need to give strength to the child who comes to his parents and says: ‘I am gay,’ or ‘I am a lesbian;’ said Livni. Seemingly, just eight months ago, the same Livni didn’t care much about the hundreds of children that were slaughtered in a criminal war she was enthusiastically pushing for. She appeared to not care much about the thousands of kids who were severely injured and broken for life.

Another Israeli prominent War Criminal, the man who introduced WMD to the region is no other than President Shimon Peres. “The shocking murder in Tel Aviv last night,” he said, “is the kind of murder that an enlightened and cultured people cannot accept.” The man who prides himself as an enlightened and cultured Jewish ambassador is actually personally responsible for more Palestinian death and carnage than any other living politician.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the least tolerant leaders ever also had something to say about tolerance: “We are a democratic and tolerant country and we must respect every person as he is.” I can only wish the Israeli PM would find the courage to listen to his own words next time he evicts Palestinians from their soil and dwellings.

This is really the crux of the matter. Israel is only tolerant symbolically. It is engaged solely in pseudo manifestations of liberalism, it is a ‘kind of’ a democracy, it is ‘kind of’ an open society, it is ‘kind of’ a broadminded society. The more it praises itself for being tolerant and liberal, the more aggression is brewing within. The more open it pretends to be, the more murderous it becomes for real.

This may explain how it is that in such a ‘tolerant society,’ 94 percent of the population supported the slaughter of the Palestinians in the last Israeli campaign in Gaza. This may explain also how it is that in a ‘tolerant society,’ sightseers flocked to the Gaza border to watch their army spreading death en masse.

The repellent duality between fake ‘tolerance’ and vile aggression is the outcome of an unauthentic Jewish fictitious national fantasy. A fantasy that is grounded in mimicking some Western ideologies that are totally foreign to Jewish ideology (religious and secular). Tolerance, democracy and liberalism are foreign to Jewish political precepts which are all racially orientated and supremacist to the bone.

For those who cannot see it yet, Zionist aggression is turning against itself. Israel is imploding.

Source: Online Journal

Bush tortured children, and America yawns

At an Amnesty International conference a few years ago, I had the honor of attending a talk by Clive Stafford Smith, a British attorney who represents some of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Smith shared some alarming details about the abuse that his clients received. Perhaps most shocking was Smith’s description of cigarette burns and other scars that covered the body of a teenage prisoner. This boy had been taken into custody when he was only 14 years old.

And this kid is allegedly not the only child who has been forced to experience the nightmare that is Gitmo.

In a forthcoming book, Hearts of Darkness: Torturing Children in the War on Terror, which was recently excerpted at truthout.org, author Henry A. Giroux describes some of these cases in horrifying detail. He condemns the culture of cruelty in which this kind of thing is even possible, and the “resounding silence” on the part of the media, which keeps it off the public radar.

But, even if the corporate media did find the courage to cover these atrocities, would it make a difference?

It seems as though many Americans have become so desensitized by the right-wing spin machine that they see all Muslims as the enemy, in an overly simplistic “us vs. them” kind of mindset.

Influenced by haters like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity, they think every Middle Eastern person looks suspicious.

Influenced by those right-wing extremists, they see every Muslim as a jihadist who wants to finish the job that the alleged 9/11 hijackers started.

And, influenced by those right-wing extremists, they regard the perceived “enemy” as less than human. Like the “gooks” of World War II and Vietnam, the “towelheads” and “hajis” of Iraq and Afghanistan are painted with one big broad brush. Even the children. How else could they justify the killing and maiming of so many innocent civilian men, women, and children, and the torture of any human being, let alone a child?

This is what we have become, seduced by the misguided emotional appeasement of hate.

We attacked an unarmed nation that posed no threat to us or to its neighbors. Then we tortured human beings. We abused children. And we killed the innocent. All paid for with our tax dollars.

America has lost its conscience.

If we are ever to regain a moral standing in this world, Americans need to wake up and see these atrocities for what they truly are: War crimes, and crimes against humanity

And, if we are ever to regain a moral standing in this world, those who committed these crimes -- and those who authorized them -- must be held accountable.

And they must be held up as an example of a foreign policy gone terribly wrong, a foreign policy gone evil.

Because what is more evil than these things that have been done in our name in the past eight years?

There is no excuse.

No excuse at all.

Source: Online Journal

President Barack Obama arrives at a town hall meeting on health insurance reform at Portsmouth High School in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Tuesday. (J

Virulent meetings over healthcare reform lead some in Congress – especially Democrats – to seek less public ways to engage voters.

For a member of Congress, the only thing worse than a perp walk is a deer-in-the-headlights moment, as when attacked at a public meeting.

Given the virulence lawmakers have encountered lately at some town-hall-style meetings about health reform legislation, those on both sides of the aisle – Democrats especially – are devising new strategies for engaging voters. Even members who have yet to face confrontational protesters have seen video clips of colleagues who have, and they are adapting.

As a result, the face-to-face town meeting, once a staple of the August congressional recess, is on the outs. In its place is a new array of “virtual” meetings – free of protest signs, shouting, bad media moments, and (real or suspected) “outside agitators.”

These new platforms range from mass conference calls, or I-town hall meetings, to interactive Internet sites where voters register concerns and members, in their own time, respond.

A shift to ‘virtual’ meetings

Sen. Herb Kohl (D) of Wisconsin, who chairs the Senate Special Committee on Aging, set up a webcast on YouTube Thursday to explain to voters – no questions asked – the state of play on healthcare, especially the facts that there is yet no healthcare bill and that “no decisions have been made.”

Senator Kohl has scheduled healthcare-related events throughout the recess, but no rallies or town halls.

“People are calling by the hundreds every day. He knows how they are feeling on healthcare,” says Ashley Glacel, a spokeswoman for the Committee on Aging.

“But you can see from the other town halls,” she added, “that a lot of them don’t allow for constructive conversation. So, we’re trying to see how that flow of information and opinions can take place without all the chaos.”

Likewise for Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan. He “is holding a series of intense policy discussions over the August break with policy experts, healthcare providers, business leaders, benefits administrators and others,” says spokeswoman Tara Andringa. “He always welcomes input from Michiganders by e-mail or phone on any topic.”

A GOP tactic, too

Freshman Sen. Jim Risch (R) of Idaho is also punting on big public town hall meetings this August. Instead, he plans a series of I-town hall meetings, along the lines pioneered by Idaho’s senior Sen. Mike Crapo (R) in 2007. It’s a statewide conference call that contacts voters first with an invitation to join the call, and again when the call begins. He is also planning to put up a poll on his Senate website to solicit voter opinion once a Senate bill takes shape.

He’s not worried about confrontational protesters though.

“The vast majority of Idahoans are opposed to a government-sponsored healthcare plan, and they have been calling, writing and e-mailing their opposition,” especially to the idea of a government-run insurance option, says Brad Hoaglun, senior policy advisor for Senator Risch. “So, holding a town hall where a large majority of people agree on the major issue isn’t needed.”

For now, Sen. Mark Warner (D) of Virginia is postponing an in-the-flesh town hall on healthcare in favor of answering questions on multiple platforms – telephone town halls, a rolling poll, and video responses on his Senate website and through Twitter. On July 14, he held a telephone town hall with some 1,600 Virginians.

“We will do traditional town hall meetings, but hopefully the burner will be turned down,” says spokesman Kevin Hall, referring to disruptions in public meetings of other members of Congress. “In the meanwhile, we will use all the options we have.”

Senator Warner is also using his website and Google’s Moderator to allow people to submit questions that he will begin answering in video format as early as this week. In the past 60 days, Warner’s office reports some 60,000 contacts on healthcare. Nearly 500 questions on healthcare have been submitted.

Bawk, bawk, bawk?

Some critics say lawmakers who don’t meet voters in town hall-style settings are avoiding accountability. In a slam pegged to President Obama’s town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., Tuesday, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) criticized Granite State Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) for avoiding similar venues.

“As the president touts his flawed healthcare agenda today, constituents should be wondering why their representative has yet to hold a town hall for them,” said Ken Spain, communications director for the NRCC, the House GOP campaign arm.

“Carol Shea-Porter had no problem with town halls when she was crashing them during her first campaign for Congress, but her noticeable lack of recent public appearances speaks volumes about the plummeting approval of her party’s government takeover of healthcare,” he added in a statement.

A spokesman for the freshman lawmaker says she held a town meeting most recently in March and is scheduling a “tele-town hall” this month. [Editor’s note: Shea-Porter’s staff amended the date of her most recent town hall after this story was published.]

“We’ll call about 90,000 constituents and they can decide to opt it,” says Jamike Radice. “She has done it before, because it reaches such a big audience, including seniors and parents with small children.”

Source: The Christian Science Monitor