In the wake of the inane and insane writings of the beyond egregious University of Colorado professor, the ersatz American Indian, Ward Churchill, the issue of “free speech” has been freely, so to speak, bandied about by commentators on the right, left, and in the middle. Interestingly, although this story had been all over talk radio, the internet, Fox News, and in many newspapers, there was only one brief mention on ABC television and none at all on CBS and NBC. To paraphrase Adlai Stevenson: The mainstream news media have an absolute talent separating wheat from chaff, then throwing away the wheat and planting the chaff.
Fact is there is no such thing as “free speech”, nor should there be. A rather provocative statement would you not say? Especially for one who thankfully and appreciatively lives in a representative democratic society – the greatest one on earth in my opinion. Yet, it is a statement I think I can rationally and logically defend. I must say I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said, “There is not a truth I fear or wish unknown to the world.”
For openers let’s consider the U.S. Constitution. That is the basis for our freedom of speech is it not? Well, what does the constitution actually say? The 1st Amendment to the Constitution (the first ten amendments were ratified in 1791 and are called the Bill of Rights) states, “Congress shall make no law…….abridging the freedom of speech…….” Congress is defined as the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. There is no mention in the Constitution about states, counties, municipalities, businesses, associations, universities, etcetera being circumscribed in limiting someone’s speech.
As a matter of course most of us, as a society, tend to ignore the constitution when it suits our purpose. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall have power to declare War…..” The United States has fought the Korean War, Vietnam War, First Iraq War, Afghanistan War, and now Second Iraq War, yet Congress has not declared war since December 8, 1941 ( the vote was unanimous except for pacifist Representative Jeannette Rankin [1880-1973] of Montana who was the first woman elected to Congress). Representative from Texas Dr. Ron Paul (obstetrics/gynecology) is the only current member to object to Congress having abrogated its authority to declare war to the president. And I don’t see people demonstrating in the streets over this issue the way the Ukrainians did when their democratic election for prime minister was in the process of being stolen.
At other times some people invoke what they perceive to be in the Constitution when it is convenient for them whether it is done ipse dixit or not. Unfortunately and importantly many of these people are judges; especially federal judges.
For those who still insist there are practically, short of endangering public safety, no limits on speech without consequence, even if it is only implicit in the Constitution, you should consider the sanctions and/or contumely which were imposed or heaped on the following: Trent Lott, Robert Byrd, Al Campanis, Jimmy Breslin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Don Imus, Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder, Andy Rooney, Bill Maher, and Larry Summers (It is notable there is nary a woman on the list. An amalgam of Al Campanis and Larry Summers might say women lack the “necessities” to be top notch mathematicians or physicists, but I would say when it comes to discretion and good sense in speech women apparently have a distinct advantage over Neanderthals; that is to say men). There was no deus ex machina to save these men from discomfiture and embarrassment and I for one do not believe they were treated too harshly, possibly excepting Trent Lott. Even he may have deserved it on the basis of stupidity – after all he is a professional and long time politician and decidedly should have known better.
Then there is the aphorism spoken by former four term governor of New York and unsuccessful 1928 Democratic presidential candidate, Al Smith, “There ain’t no free lunch.” There might be a lesson in there as applied to speech.
By all means indulge yourself in the exercise of free speech. Your lot might be to gather scorn and pejorative comment. Still, consider it a fair bargain for the sheer joy of saying what you want, however dopy or misguided. What curmudgeonly lexicographer Dr. Samuel Johnson had to say on the subject seems a bit harsh, yet may be realistic: “Every man [person] has the right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man [person] has a right to knock him down for it.”
Monday, November 19, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
Too Much Freedom? You Bet! 40
At the start I want to make it clear that I am talking about the West and especially the good old USA, not countries in general, especially Islamic or other totalitarian societies where there are indeed deficiencies of freedoms.
And let’s dispose of the mantras where security/safety and freedom are positioned as polar opposites. An example is the aphorism attributed to Benjamin Franklin: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Liberals might posit it advantageous that absolute freedom was preserved for everyone, including the brigands who would dispatch them to the “undiscovered country”, but I would think it a poor bargain. Give me not “liberty or death”; give me life and a little less liberty for those who would do us ill.
Liars (sorry, I mean lawyers, I seem to frequently confuse those two words – I wonder why?) who claim their clients were innocent yesterday, are innocent today, and will certainly be innocent tomorrow are not doing the law abiding, decent, and considerate rest of us any favors. We pay in treasure and blood when criminals are either not convicted or subjected to shorter incarceration than they deserve and which is not conducive for the non commission of crime.
How many people are actually assaulted, restrained, or even incommoded by law enforcement other than felons and malefactors? I have been on this planet for more than four score minus ten years and not only have I not been harassed or harangued by the gendarme, but I do not know anyone who was unjustly subjected to same. The ones who seem to suffer or feign suffering the most in regard to what they interpret as overzealous laws and law enforcement are the lachrymose, hand wringing, hysterical social liberals. For witnessing such an entertaining spectacle as these posturing wimps I would almost, but not quite, be willing to endure a really overly aggressive or even repressive regime.
In 2004 there were approximately 16,500 people murdered in the United States. That does not include the hundred of thousands who were senselessly and unjustifiably beaten and crippled by criminal cretins. True, some of those were miscreants who received proper punishment; still the large majority was innocent men, women, and children who were blameless and tragic victims. Does anyone seriously doubt that with fewer nonsensical restraints on law enforcement and indeed on individuals in their own or someone else’s defense these numbers would be reduced? I thank God I live in Texas where one may dispatch to inferno home intruders intent on larceny and mayhem. There are some states where, as difficult as it is to believe, the home occupants are first legally required to try to flee rather than confront these vandals and villains before attempting to send them to perdition. How do you like them apples? From the foregoing one might conclude that I am advocating for more freedom not less. Yes, more freedom in defense of life, limb, and property, but certainly less freedom and fewer rights for the criminally inclined. Least you think I am exaggerating on this point about criminals being emboldened by lax laws and insufficient law enforcement then let me relate the following stories which were in the news in 2006: (1) In London, England there are gangs of juvenile punks, called “hoodies” because they wear hooded sweatshirts, who rampage through suburban parks destroying property, knocking down bike riders, and threatening picnickers. On buses they laugh while punching passengers in the face and recording the attack on their mobile phones. In some cases they were imitating such extreme-stunt shows as MTV’s Jackass. They beat a 16 year old girl unconscious while recording the attack on a mobile phone and messaging it to their friends. A 41 year old man who had fallen asleep at a bus stop was permanently disfigured and burned over 22% of his body when these punks set him on fire. A 5 year old boy escaped death after being lured from his yard by these teen age cretins who placed a noose around his neck and attempted to hang him. A 49 year old man was left brain damaged and in a coma after he challenged the gang youths who were throwing stones at his car. A Manchester schoolteacher used a pellet gun to fire warning shots at teens that had repeatedly harassed her family and were vandalizing her son’s car. The schoolteacher was fired from her job which she had held for 25 years and received a 6 month prison sentence for the illegal use of a firearm! Is this an “Alice in Wonderland” reality or what?
(2) There is a video game called Grand Theft Auto which has sold 35 million copies and grossed $2 billion worldwide to date. The objective of this interactive “game” is to commit as much virtual murder, mayhem, robbery, and violent anti-social acts as possible. Included in the interactive activities are forcibly stealing cars; decapitating people, complete with simulated squiring blood; beating people to a pulp; and shooting gaping holes in cops. One virtual scene is a police station where the “fun” is to kill as many cops as are encountered and then escaping by stealing a police cruiser. The defense the producers of these abominable videos games fall back on is the claim that it does not cause people to actually commit these acts in real life. What is beyond dispute is that kids with other at-risk factors, e.g. being from dysfunctional families, absent parents, delinquent friends with the same background, and the offspring of criminals, among other risks, are negatively influenced by repeatedly playing this video. There are examples of kids who after being arrested admitted they were influenced by this video game.
(3) Young male motorcyclists travel at high speeds and perform acrobatic stunts on public highways while being video taped by their friends. The videos or DVD’s are then sold. Incredibly there seems to be a market for this insane and criminal spectacle. Often these stunts are done in traffic, putting motorists at high risk and scaring the hell out of them as any sensible person would be. Additionally these motorcyclists challenge the police in their police cars. At times with the motorcyclists traveling well over 100 miles per hour, sometimes the police abandon the chase because not to do so would not only put their own lives at risk, but other motorists as well. In an interview with a television journalist one of these lame-brained motorcycle morons allowed as how he thought, if one could call it thinking, that nobody had the right to set speed limits on public highways. And he said that he didn’t believe any motorist would get hurt when a motorcycle occasionally got out of control. Of course there are motorists who have gotten killed or seriously injured when the motorcycles sans rider have gone careening and careering out of control, but that idiot could not or would not admit it.
(4) In 2006 the US Supreme Court voided two death penalty convictions – one in Texas. There was never any doubt about the guilt of these two murderers. The court ruled that they did not receive a “fair” trial. These decisions were widely applauded by liberals. Neither they nor the court commented on whether the murdered victims received a “fair” hearing from their vicious murders. At the risk of sounding highly provocative and perhaps to some even unhinged, I must say I do not give a damn whether anyone gets a “fair” trial so long as there is no rational and reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
In 2007 the US Supreme Court, in effect, put a hold on executions until it could render a decision on whether the method of execution by states using fatal chemical injection was “cruel and inhumane.” As could be expected, one of the plaintiffs in this case was the ACLU (American Criminal Liberties Union). No decision has yet been made, but I wonder if whether the victims of these heinous criminals were treated in a “cruel and inhumane” manner will be considered.
Whether the robbers barons Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom; John Rigas & son of Adelphia; Gary Winnick of Global Crossing; and Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and Andrew Fastow of Enron had “fair” trials troubles me not a whit. These crooks have stolen from and caused equity prices of their companies to decrease by billions of dollars inflicting financial pain and woe on hundreds of thousands of employees and shareholders. I am an unaffected and impartial bystander, yet I would punish them with the maximum fines and prison sentences possible by law. The 80 year old cancer patient John Rigas was given 15 years by the judge with the proviso that if, at any point, medical authorities told the judge that Rigas had only 3 months or so to live he might be released from prison. I would have given that old bastard 30 years in the slammer and if he said he could not do it because of his advanced age and ill health I would have told him then he must do as much as he can.
If anyone wants to disagree with my thesis that we in the West have too much rather than too little freedom or I am engaging in a bit too much Sturm und Drang, then by all means respond with your arguments. The only caveat I would make is that your response be well reasoned with valid examples.
And let’s dispose of the mantras where security/safety and freedom are positioned as polar opposites. An example is the aphorism attributed to Benjamin Franklin: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Liberals might posit it advantageous that absolute freedom was preserved for everyone, including the brigands who would dispatch them to the “undiscovered country”, but I would think it a poor bargain. Give me not “liberty or death”; give me life and a little less liberty for those who would do us ill.
Liars (sorry, I mean lawyers, I seem to frequently confuse those two words – I wonder why?) who claim their clients were innocent yesterday, are innocent today, and will certainly be innocent tomorrow are not doing the law abiding, decent, and considerate rest of us any favors. We pay in treasure and blood when criminals are either not convicted or subjected to shorter incarceration than they deserve and which is not conducive for the non commission of crime.
How many people are actually assaulted, restrained, or even incommoded by law enforcement other than felons and malefactors? I have been on this planet for more than four score minus ten years and not only have I not been harassed or harangued by the gendarme, but I do not know anyone who was unjustly subjected to same. The ones who seem to suffer or feign suffering the most in regard to what they interpret as overzealous laws and law enforcement are the lachrymose, hand wringing, hysterical social liberals. For witnessing such an entertaining spectacle as these posturing wimps I would almost, but not quite, be willing to endure a really overly aggressive or even repressive regime.
In 2004 there were approximately 16,500 people murdered in the United States. That does not include the hundred of thousands who were senselessly and unjustifiably beaten and crippled by criminal cretins. True, some of those were miscreants who received proper punishment; still the large majority was innocent men, women, and children who were blameless and tragic victims. Does anyone seriously doubt that with fewer nonsensical restraints on law enforcement and indeed on individuals in their own or someone else’s defense these numbers would be reduced? I thank God I live in Texas where one may dispatch to inferno home intruders intent on larceny and mayhem. There are some states where, as difficult as it is to believe, the home occupants are first legally required to try to flee rather than confront these vandals and villains before attempting to send them to perdition. How do you like them apples? From the foregoing one might conclude that I am advocating for more freedom not less. Yes, more freedom in defense of life, limb, and property, but certainly less freedom and fewer rights for the criminally inclined. Least you think I am exaggerating on this point about criminals being emboldened by lax laws and insufficient law enforcement then let me relate the following stories which were in the news in 2006: (1) In London, England there are gangs of juvenile punks, called “hoodies” because they wear hooded sweatshirts, who rampage through suburban parks destroying property, knocking down bike riders, and threatening picnickers. On buses they laugh while punching passengers in the face and recording the attack on their mobile phones. In some cases they were imitating such extreme-stunt shows as MTV’s Jackass. They beat a 16 year old girl unconscious while recording the attack on a mobile phone and messaging it to their friends. A 41 year old man who had fallen asleep at a bus stop was permanently disfigured and burned over 22% of his body when these punks set him on fire. A 5 year old boy escaped death after being lured from his yard by these teen age cretins who placed a noose around his neck and attempted to hang him. A 49 year old man was left brain damaged and in a coma after he challenged the gang youths who were throwing stones at his car. A Manchester schoolteacher used a pellet gun to fire warning shots at teens that had repeatedly harassed her family and were vandalizing her son’s car. The schoolteacher was fired from her job which she had held for 25 years and received a 6 month prison sentence for the illegal use of a firearm! Is this an “Alice in Wonderland” reality or what?
(2) There is a video game called Grand Theft Auto which has sold 35 million copies and grossed $2 billion worldwide to date. The objective of this interactive “game” is to commit as much virtual murder, mayhem, robbery, and violent anti-social acts as possible. Included in the interactive activities are forcibly stealing cars; decapitating people, complete with simulated squiring blood; beating people to a pulp; and shooting gaping holes in cops. One virtual scene is a police station where the “fun” is to kill as many cops as are encountered and then escaping by stealing a police cruiser. The defense the producers of these abominable videos games fall back on is the claim that it does not cause people to actually commit these acts in real life. What is beyond dispute is that kids with other at-risk factors, e.g. being from dysfunctional families, absent parents, delinquent friends with the same background, and the offspring of criminals, among other risks, are negatively influenced by repeatedly playing this video. There are examples of kids who after being arrested admitted they were influenced by this video game.
(3) Young male motorcyclists travel at high speeds and perform acrobatic stunts on public highways while being video taped by their friends. The videos or DVD’s are then sold. Incredibly there seems to be a market for this insane and criminal spectacle. Often these stunts are done in traffic, putting motorists at high risk and scaring the hell out of them as any sensible person would be. Additionally these motorcyclists challenge the police in their police cars. At times with the motorcyclists traveling well over 100 miles per hour, sometimes the police abandon the chase because not to do so would not only put their own lives at risk, but other motorists as well. In an interview with a television journalist one of these lame-brained motorcycle morons allowed as how he thought, if one could call it thinking, that nobody had the right to set speed limits on public highways. And he said that he didn’t believe any motorist would get hurt when a motorcycle occasionally got out of control. Of course there are motorists who have gotten killed or seriously injured when the motorcycles sans rider have gone careening and careering out of control, but that idiot could not or would not admit it.
(4) In 2006 the US Supreme Court voided two death penalty convictions – one in Texas. There was never any doubt about the guilt of these two murderers. The court ruled that they did not receive a “fair” trial. These decisions were widely applauded by liberals. Neither they nor the court commented on whether the murdered victims received a “fair” hearing from their vicious murders. At the risk of sounding highly provocative and perhaps to some even unhinged, I must say I do not give a damn whether anyone gets a “fair” trial so long as there is no rational and reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
In 2007 the US Supreme Court, in effect, put a hold on executions until it could render a decision on whether the method of execution by states using fatal chemical injection was “cruel and inhumane.” As could be expected, one of the plaintiffs in this case was the ACLU (American Criminal Liberties Union). No decision has yet been made, but I wonder if whether the victims of these heinous criminals were treated in a “cruel and inhumane” manner will be considered.
Whether the robbers barons Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom; John Rigas & son of Adelphia; Gary Winnick of Global Crossing; and Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and Andrew Fastow of Enron had “fair” trials troubles me not a whit. These crooks have stolen from and caused equity prices of their companies to decrease by billions of dollars inflicting financial pain and woe on hundreds of thousands of employees and shareholders. I am an unaffected and impartial bystander, yet I would punish them with the maximum fines and prison sentences possible by law. The 80 year old cancer patient John Rigas was given 15 years by the judge with the proviso that if, at any point, medical authorities told the judge that Rigas had only 3 months or so to live he might be released from prison. I would have given that old bastard 30 years in the slammer and if he said he could not do it because of his advanced age and ill health I would have told him then he must do as much as he can.
If anyone wants to disagree with my thesis that we in the West have too much rather than too little freedom or I am engaging in a bit too much Sturm und Drang, then by all means respond with your arguments. The only caveat I would make is that your response be well reasoned with valid examples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
