Free Speech? Not if we don't like what you have to say
cn | 23 April, 2007 15:20
Why is it that so many people believe that a statement they don't like must be silenced rather than listened to and evaluated? It seems a religious group recently interrupted a comedian's show because they didn't like something about what he was saying...so they poured water all over his handwritten notes:
I am performing the show to a packed house, when suddenly the lights start coming up in the house as a flood of people start walking down the aisles -- they looked like a flock of birds who'd been startled, the way they all moved so quickly, and at the same moment... it was shocking, to see them surging down the aisles. The show halted as they fled, and at this moment a member of their group strode up to the table, stood looking down on me and poured water all over the outline, drenching everything in a kind of anti-baptism.
There's a video of the event at the site, here. My guess is that the perpetrators of the act live in great fear of the lord that they claim to be 'benevolent' and thus don't understand why the rest of us (comedian included) don't have such fear, and since we don't, they decide it's their purpose to create the fear themselves. But that's just a guess...
Posted in Ethics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
What to do what to do...
cn | 10 March, 2007 23:01
I've been thinking a lot lately about what's going on in the world and what's going on with people in the world and why things are how they are. I have certain beliefs about liberty and freedom and the general rights of all people that, based on events in the world, are not beliefs that are shared by other people...obviously.
I think there are so many things that influence peoples' moment-to-moment beliefs and decisions that people often are not fully aware of what they are supporting or choosing. As a result, in the moment they hear a public figure speak or read a news article, they are impassioned, they are caught up in the rhetoric of the moment and forget the implications of the action they are about to support or the action or stance that the public figure is taking.
The media and those people who exist in the public eye and have established themselves in positions of power are well aware of their own capacity to sway public opinion and belief and choose to do so in a way that will entrench enough of the general public on their own side and keep the masses at bay, as it were. You see, I believe that if most people fully understood the implications inherent in restricting our rights defined in the Constitution - especially restricting them in the manner in which the government is currently proceeding - people would to a great extent oppose the direction in which our society is moving.
But how will people come to understand what is really going on in the world? How will they come to move beyond the immediate blood and gore of the front page of the newspaper or the meaningless yet emotionally moving speeches of politicians to see the real issues? I have some opinions about this but essentially it all comes down to objectivity and respect for the general public.
It would seem that most politicians have one of two driving beliefs in place:
- the general public is ignorant and even if given all the information they will make poor choices, therefore as I (the politician) must misinform them in order to protect them from themselves.
- the general public is smart, but if I (the politician) give them all the relevant information they will not support me and I will lose my power/money/etc, therefore I must misinform them in order to maintain my position of power.
Not to say that all politicians fall into one of these two camps, but it would seem that a great many wish to present only one side of data or not data at all when presenting their ideas.
The obvious question would be 'How do we change this?' But perhaps a more important question would be: 'Why change it?' or phrased with less brevity: 'Is it even important or necessary to change it?'
I suppose that depends on one’s greatest desires in life – what one sees as important and how far into the future one looks. If all in the world I care about is the material possessions I have at this moment or the idea that I have a job today and will (I believe) have a job tomorrow, then what the goes on in the world does not concern me, so long as I’m continually assured that I can have my stuff and will have my job tomorrow. But let’s say that today I am told by an unassailable source that I can have my job forever – until I die or retire – and can keep everything I have now forever – until I die or give it away – but in exchange for these graces granted by this almighty entity I must subjugate myself and forfeit all my freedoms – those of speech, those of choice, those of religion, those of self-determination – to the whims of this unassailable source. What do I choose? I put forth that we as a culture, as a civilization, are choosing to forfeit ourselves to the unassailable source, a source which at any moment could decide to take what little it grants us, yet we continue down this road unseeing.
What will it take to see? What will it take for us as a culture and nation to step back and look down upon ourselves and ask: ‘Is this how humanity is meant to live? Is this all we can muster?’
Things for us as a society are very good right now but it seems to me that we are at a precarious position and can choose to step to the side of fear and veiled totalitarianism or to the side of freedom. The only catch is that we have to actually do something. And it might mean less TV or fewer Walmarts or more expensive gas. But that could all be gone tomorrow anyway if we choose to continue in the direction we’re headed.
I leave you with this:
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the sick, the so-called incurables, and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't mentally ill.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me
- Pastor Martin Niemoller
The poem has a few versions – learn about them here.
Read an adapted modern version here.
Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Freedom Suppression in France
cn | 07 March, 2007 09:46
It seems that France wants to reign in the use of video cameras by the general public. As posted on 27B Stroke 6:
France is making it illegal to shoot or distribute video of violent crimes, unless you're a professional journalist, IDG reports.
There's an update in the post at Stroke 6 quoting a post, apparently by a French journalist, on TechDirt stating that:
the story is bogus. The law includes an exemption for "when the recording or the diffusion results from the normal exercise of a profession devoted to inform the public or is carried out in order to be used as proof in justice."
This is, in essence, beside the point. The issue is that the French government is attempting to prevent its citizens from collecting, sharing, and distributing information. Ostensibly the intent may be stated as a protection of public safety or some such excuse, but once again the government is really saying that anything we can claim to lead to insecurity trumps any and all basic freedom.
Posted in Ethics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Academy of Achievement - A Great Site
cn | 05 March, 2007 13:21
Ken K. sent me a link to this Academy of Achievement site last week and I just got a chance to look at it and I must say that it represents something I'd love to see more of in the world. A clip from their 'About' section:
The Academy of Achievement is like no other organization in the world. For more than 40 years, this unique non-profit entity has sparked the imagination of students across America and around the globe by bringing them into direct personal contact with the greatest thinkers and achievers of the age.
The site itself is beautiful and includes an 'Achiever Gallery' that has profiles of and sometimes interviews with some amazing people in the world from all walks of life - people including Rosa Parks, Oprah Winfrey, Willie Mays, Jonas Salk, Johnny Cash, etc.
The site is a great representation of upholding people who create true value in the world and who are working to move it in a positive direction.
Posted in Ethics, Excellence, Philosophy, World Culture/Travel . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Quuote of the Day - Feb. 27th
cn | 27 February, 2007 12:35
This comes courtesy of Barb J!
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.
- Pericles
Posted in Ethics, Excellence, Facts, Quotes, and Whatnot . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Moveon.org's Shifty Campaign
cn | 27 February, 2007 12:26
FactCheck.org reports that MoveOn.org's political action group is throwing some republicans into the fire without analyzing the actual stance of those republicans in regards to the issue they are fighting about - escalation in Iraq:
MoveOn.org Political Action began airing ads attacking four Republican senators in their home states, accusing them of favoring escalation of the war in Iraq and saying all are "willing to send tens of thousands more troops to face danger in Iraq." The ads clearly misrepresent the stands of three of the targeted senators, who in fact had publicly expressed strong disapproval of sending additional US troops.
This is just from the summary. The article itself goes into great detail about the actions of Moveon.org (who managed to raise $150,000 to run the ads) and pulled quotes by those that Moveon names.
A couple of the great things about FactCheck.org - they include a bibliography of their sources and they present the data of the issue at hand rather than hypothesis.
Now, why doesn't CNN, BBC, the NY Times, Fox News, etc. provide a bibliography of their sources. I understand the importance of certain sources remaining anonymous, but when they quote a fact or a source actually named in one of their stories, why not provide the reader with a reference to the actual source document or full interview, etc so we can see the context from which the information was pulled? Hmmm...that might mean accountability...
Posted in Ethics, Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Quote of the Day - Feb 21st
cn | 21 February, 2007 18:49
Another woman! I found another woman! (quote from a woman, that is, and a good one too!).
You must do the thing you think you cannot do.
- Eleanor Roosevelt
source: http://followyourdreams.com
Posted in Ethics, Excellence, Facts, Quotes, and Whatnot . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Quote of the Day - Feb. 18th
cn | 18 February, 2007 23:47
Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.
- Aristotle
Posted in Ethics, Excellence, Philosophy . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Nashville Mayor Stands Up for True American Values
cn | 14 February, 2007 10:58
The Nashville, TN Metro Council passed (23-14) a bill that would require all government communication to be in English - which to me basically amounts to a vote for exclusion. Not only are open immigration and willing assistance to those who can not easily communicate with English-speakers a great boost for the growth and prosperity of our country, but it also exemplifies what I believe the true core values that the foundation of our country was built on: acceptance, equality, and humanity. Lucky for the side of freedom, the Nashville mayor took a similar stand (from cnn.com):
Even supporters acknowledged that the bill to make English the official language of Nashville was mostly a symbolic slap at illegal immigration.
But even that was too much for Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell. He vetoed the measure, saying it was unconstitutional, unnecessary and mean-spirited.
...Purcell said his legal staff had advised him the measure violated the U.S. and state constitutions, and likely legal challenges would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend -- "for no good reason."
..."If this ordinance becomes law, Nashville will become a less safe, less friendly and less successful city," Purcell said. "And as mayor, I cannot allow that to happen."
The first section of the above quote speaks quite volumes for the mindset of what I would consider, more or less, the status quo of government practice - creating an exclusionary bill that would be little more than "a symbolic slap at illegal immigration".
If the media and the government took a big-picture look at not only the implications of closing down immigration, but of what it means - what values we are upholding - by passing and promoting measures such as this, I believe it would create a much more tolerant, safe, and productive mindset with the general public. As it stands, even productive, intelligent, and resourceful people from Canada and Mexico have an extraordinarily hard time working in the United States and, as history shows, nearly all of the greatest contributors to our growth and prosperity in modern history have come from other countries, or their parents have, or their parents' parents have.
If we attract the motivated, the intelligent, the excluded from other countries around the world, we will grow and prosper because those people will create opportunities for all of us. If we shun those same people, it will likely lead only to decline.
Posted in Ethics, Legal, Philosophy, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Quote for February 4th, 2007
cn | 05 February, 2007 00:50
"Government has lost its ability to ever blindside me again. I no longer read the news and believe the written pages. I no longer assume the guilt of those I see arrested. I have learned to open my eyes and see a story other than the one that the government and the media want me to see."
Sunni Liston
Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR)
Posted in Ethics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
February 3rd - Quote of the Day
cn | 04 February, 2007 01:18
A society will remain as free or as enslaved as the conscious dispositions of individuals determine it shall be. Just as the roots of oppression are found in passivity, the foundations of our liberty reside in highly energized and focused minds that insist upon their independence. There are no shortcuts, no structures or doctrines that can be erected, no hallowed documents to be revered, to save us the effort of continually challenging those who would presume to exercise authority over our lives.
— Butler Shaffer
Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Facts, Quotes, and Whatnot . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
NOT on CNN: Elections Officials in Ohio Convicted of Rigging 2004 Pres. Election Recount
cn | 01 February, 2007 12:16
Now, I searched CNN.com for this story and the only thing that came up was a link to an outside website called OpEdNews.com, and wasn't able to dig anything up on nytimes.com. This is pulled from Homeland Stupidity:
Two Ohio election officials were convicted last week of rigging a recount of the 2004 presidential election results.
Cuyahoga County election officials Jacqueline Maiden and Kathleen Dreamer were each convicted of one count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee, a felony, and one count of failure of elections employees to perform their duty, a misdemeanor. The two still work for the county elections board.
Democratic elections are one of the bedrocks of our society. How can the media NOT report on such events? A full recount may not have changed the final result of the election, but the fact that such things are going on AND not brought to the awareness of we the people that I find truly disturbing.
Posted in Ethics, Legal, Politics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Auschwitz Liberated 62 Years Ago Today
cn | 26 January, 2007 23:50
From news.bbc.co.uk, where they have an article written at the time:
Little did we know that we had arrived at a place, the name of which would become as well known and remembered as any battle in the war.
The article is a very interesting look at what was being reported at the time and has some sidebars putting the article in context.
Posted in Ethics . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
January 24th - a freakin' great quote by James Madison
cn | 24 January, 2007 17:41
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.
— James Madison
How timely is that?
Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State, Facts, Quotes, and Whatnot . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink
Congress Trying to Silence Grassroots Movements in America?
cn | 21 January, 2007 23:06
Mark Fitzgibbons of GrassrootsFreedoms.com accuses Congress of attempting to track and, as he accuses, silence grassroots movements in the US...
Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.
The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.
On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.'
Now, the government can justify this in any way they want, but when it comes down to it, is it right for the government to track any and all major efforts to organize political movemnts? It seems to me to be a conflict of interests and another step towards authoritarianism. I haven't found this reported in any major media outlets yet and holds major First Amendment Rights implications.
There's a piece at hillnews.com about the bill as well citing former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith:
“It’s a disaster, generally, the notion that the government should be checking up on attempts by citizens to communicate with citizens,” Smith said. He argued that lawmakers are seeking the identity of firms paying for constituent calls for purposes of retaliation: “Can you think of any other reason that members of Congress need to know who’s running grassroots ads in their district?”
However, the piece at hillnews.com finishes with this:
As for the [Free Speech C]oalition’s rhetorical combat with Public Citizen, MacCleery characterized the specter of a lawsuit against grassroots rules as an attempt to generate a false opposition to reform.
“It’s almost like they’re flacks,” she added, “like they’re good at creating the appearance of controversy where none exists.”
Both sides have good points, yet when it comes to passing laws with such potentially sweeping effects to one's ability to critique or even oppose the government, we must proceed cautiously and the media must be diligent in its reporting. Otherwise, we as a nation will only move one unimpeded step closer to a police state.
You can also read a very right-leaning report here. However, I would not call the report balanced in any way, shape, or form, but certainly gives a perspective not covered in the other sources, yet in agreement with the final statement - that this is a dangerous bill.
Posted in Ethics, Legal, Politics, Speeding Towards a Police State . Comment: (0). Trackbacks:(0). Permalink