Somehow, comedienne Kathy Griffin thought it would be funny to hold up (a la ISIS) a fake head of Donald Trump dripping with fake blood. Nobody laughed; although the Secret Service did open an investigation into the matter. After receiving blowback from all sides of the political spectrum, Ms. Griffin apologized. Not directly to Trump and his family. But she did acknowledge that she crossed the line, and begged for forgiveness.
No surprise, but the President and his family were not amused. They Tweeted their disgust, with Trump calling it "sick." In the time of ISIS, whose members have held up the severed heads of "infidels," I cannot imagine where she saw the humor. Her apology was not accepted by everyone. She lost her endorsement contract with Squatty Potty, and was fired by CNN, where she has cohosted the New Year's Eve program with Anderson Cooper for the last 10 years. She was also told by certain entertainment venues that some of her scheduled appearances had been canceled. Admittedly pretty rough for one bad mistake.
But, the next day Griffin appeared with attorney Lisa Bloom, giving a press conference, in which she blamed Trump and his family for her misfortunes. Griffin: "I'm not afraid of Donald Trump. I've dealt with older white guys trying to keep me down my whole life, my whole career." What is she talking about? How does Trump being an older white guy have anything to do with her poor decision to hold up what looked like Trump's bloody, severed head? This is a perfect example of what the left often does - they make the perpetrator the victim. We saw it in the mainstream media after the 9/11 attacks. Somehow, Muslims became the victims. We saw it after Michael Brown attacked officer Darren Wilson. The media made him a victim - of his own actions.
The best line by Ms. Griffin was this one: "...what's happening to me has never happened - ever - in the history of this country." Where has she been living? Oh, that's right, she resides in the liberal, entertainment world where only conservatives are supposed to be the bad guys. Does she even know about all the attacks and threats against conservatives, especially those who try to speak on college campuses? Has she ever spoken up in favor of the speech rights of conservatives? Clearly, if she is getting death threats, those people should be caught and prosecuted.
Actually, maybe the best line she said was this one: "It's quite clear to me they're trying to use me as a distraction. I'm not going to be collateral damage for this fool." Hmmm. That sounds suspiciously like a left-wing anti-Trump talking point. Do I think she came up with that on her own? I do not. On the other hand, her attorney is Lisa Bloom, who just happens to be the daughter of Democrat-supporter Gloria Allred. Coincidence? You tell me.
Evergreen State College is a liberal school in Washington State. Since the 1970s, they have had a yearly "Day of Absence," when faculty and students of color meet off campus. The idea, apparently, is to make whites realize the significance of the minority community. This year, however, the minority students decided to "invite" whites to leave the campus for a day. One white, liberal professor was apparently offended by the idea, and was not treated respectfully.
I'm offended by the whole thing. I'm offended by the incessant need of the left to always draw distinctions between the races. How is that supposed to create racial harmony? It does not. But if you want to know all you need to know about "higher" education today,
consider this - the school has a position with the title of "Director of First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services." I'd like to say that I'm just kidding, but no, I'm not.
Having terminated Kathy Griffin's New Year's Eve cohosting duties, I wonder what, if anything, CNN will do Reza Aslan. Aslan on Trump: "This piece of sh.. is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He's an embarrassment to humankind." Let me say that Aslan is an embarrassment to journalism and intellectual discourse everywhere.
Every once in a while I get to agree with the LA Times. From today's lead editorial: "The drumbeat of hatred, incivility and intolerance threatens our political system in ways big and small. It demeans individuals, disrupts discourse and exacerbates divisions. It weakens our claim to be a culture that values a free and open exchange of ideas. And at worst, it devolves into violence, which is unacceptable." Maybe the Times can lead the way and stop with the name-calling of conservatives, and the use of other derogatory terms we see in so many mainstream editorials.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling!
After President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accords, one might reasonably conclude that the end is near. After all, the LA Times 6/2/17 lead editorial told us that Trump "put the world on a path - potentially, but increasingly inevitably - to irreversible catastrophe." Let's put aside for a moment that in the 1970s, some scientists were warning of a coming ice age as increasing amounts of particulate matter in the atmosphere would block the sun's rays and lower global temperatures. Let's take an honest and calm look at what the President has done.
It turns out that in 2014, diplomats of the world were unable to come together and reach a binding agreement about how to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Hardly surprising, especially given the need of developing countries to use plentiful and relatively cheap carbon-based fuels to grow their economies. That would include countries such as China and India, who together have over 2.6 billion of the world's estimated 7.5 billion people. That is over 1/3 of the world's population in just those two still developing countries.
So, if the countries of the world were unable to reach a binding agreement, what does the Paris Accord actually do? It requires each signatory to submit an "Intended Nationally Determined Contribution," or INDC.
Here are two important quotes. "In truth, the agreement does not require any country to do anything; after the failure of the 1997 Kyoto Accord, the United Nations, which oversees climate change negotiations, decided that it simply did not have the authority to force a legally binding agreement." That quote is not from a conservative commentator; rather, it is from the 6/2/17 editorial in the New York Times. Here is another quote from that editorial: "Partly because of investments in cleaner fuels, partly because of revolutionary improvements in efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, carbon dioxide emissions in this country actually fell nearly 12 percent in the last decade."
The Times continues: "Market forces all seem to be headed in the right direction. Technologies are improving." Yes, conservative ideals carry the day again - market forces and technological breakthroughs in the private sector.
Before the international conference in Kyoto, the US Senate voted 95-0 against participating in any protocol that required a reduction in greenhouse-gases in the US - unless developing countries were also mandated to do so. Hence, there was no point in submitting the Kyoto protocol for ratification by the Senate, the Senate having already unanimously rejected the one-sided proposal. But here is another conservative idea. If the Paris Accord is of such significance, then why shouldn't there be compliance with the Constitutional requirements for approval of treaties? Obama did not submit it to the Senate when he signed off. But Article II, Section 2 reads as follows: "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
Meanwhile, while my liberal friends worry about what the Europeans are saying about the US, the 6/1/17 lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal tells us: "...Germany's emissions have increased in the last two years as more coal is burned to compensate for reduced nuclear energy and unreliable solar and wind power." And they are lecturing us? The 6/2/17 Journal editorial tells us that "over the past five years U.S. emissions have fallen by 270 million tons, while China-the No. 1 CO2 emitter-added 1.1 billion tons."
I understand that my liberal friends worry about the US being the odd country out. That does not bother me at all. We are already leading the developed world with substantially reduced carbon-based emissions. The Paris Accord would require the US to give away billions of dollars to developing countries in order to assist them with their energy needs - green energy needs. And why not? The first page of the 6/1/17 New York Times tells us "The United States, with its love of big cars, big houses and blasting air conditioners, has contributed more than any other country to the atmospheric carbon dioxide that is scorching the planet."
So, I ask the editors at the New York Times and other liberal papers, and I ask my liberal friends, how small a car do you drive? How small a house do you live in? Are you willing to give up air conditioning? Are you willing to walk or bike to your job and when you run errands? Of course, if we all stopped exhaling that should significantly reduce CO2 emissions, but I think we can agree that is not a feasible option.
It turns out that in 2014, diplomats of the world were unable to come together and reach a binding agreement about how to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Hardly surprising, especially given the need of developing countries to use plentiful and relatively cheap carbon-based fuels to grow their economies. That would include countries such as China and India, who together have over 2.6 billion of the world's estimated 7.5 billion people. That is over 1/3 of the world's population in just those two still developing countries.
So, if the countries of the world were unable to reach a binding agreement, what does the Paris Accord actually do? It requires each signatory to submit an "Intended Nationally Determined Contribution," or INDC.
Here are two important quotes. "In truth, the agreement does not require any country to do anything; after the failure of the 1997 Kyoto Accord, the United Nations, which oversees climate change negotiations, decided that it simply did not have the authority to force a legally binding agreement." That quote is not from a conservative commentator; rather, it is from the 6/2/17 editorial in the New York Times. Here is another quote from that editorial: "Partly because of investments in cleaner fuels, partly because of revolutionary improvements in efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, carbon dioxide emissions in this country actually fell nearly 12 percent in the last decade."
The Times continues: "Market forces all seem to be headed in the right direction. Technologies are improving." Yes, conservative ideals carry the day again - market forces and technological breakthroughs in the private sector.
Before the international conference in Kyoto, the US Senate voted 95-0 against participating in any protocol that required a reduction in greenhouse-gases in the US - unless developing countries were also mandated to do so. Hence, there was no point in submitting the Kyoto protocol for ratification by the Senate, the Senate having already unanimously rejected the one-sided proposal. But here is another conservative idea. If the Paris Accord is of such significance, then why shouldn't there be compliance with the Constitutional requirements for approval of treaties? Obama did not submit it to the Senate when he signed off. But Article II, Section 2 reads as follows: "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
Meanwhile, while my liberal friends worry about what the Europeans are saying about the US, the 6/1/17 lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal tells us: "...Germany's emissions have increased in the last two years as more coal is burned to compensate for reduced nuclear energy and unreliable solar and wind power." And they are lecturing us? The 6/2/17 Journal editorial tells us that "over the past five years U.S. emissions have fallen by 270 million tons, while China-the No. 1 CO2 emitter-added 1.1 billion tons."
I understand that my liberal friends worry about the US being the odd country out. That does not bother me at all. We are already leading the developed world with substantially reduced carbon-based emissions. The Paris Accord would require the US to give away billions of dollars to developing countries in order to assist them with their energy needs - green energy needs. And why not? The first page of the 6/1/17 New York Times tells us "The United States, with its love of big cars, big houses and blasting air conditioners, has contributed more than any other country to the atmospheric carbon dioxide that is scorching the planet."
So, I ask the editors at the New York Times and other liberal papers, and I ask my liberal friends, how small a car do you drive? How small a house do you live in? Are you willing to give up air conditioning? Are you willing to walk or bike to your job and when you run errands? Of course, if we all stopped exhaling that should significantly reduce CO2 emissions, but I think we can agree that is not a feasible option.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Trump and the Middle East
On his first overseas trip as President, Trump's first stop was to Saudi Arabia, where he spoke to the assembled leaders of the Arab and Muslim world. In thanking his host, King Salman, Trump referred to the "magnificent Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." He spoke of the "splendor" of the country, the "kindness" of its citizens, and the "grandeur of this remarkable place." Was he over the top with his rhetoric? Given the Saudi's history of human rights abuses, yes he was. But clearly Trump and his team had decided to practice realpolitik. As Trump stated: "We are not here to lecture - we are not here to tell other people how to live..." Rather, Trump was there with three goals in mind: uniting these countries in the fight against ISIS and terrorism, establishing a bulwark against Iran's hegemony, and gaining acceptance for Israel's right to exist as the Jewish state in exchange for a peace deal with the Palestinians.
Trump was exceptionally strong in his urging the Muslim world to participate in the fight against terrorism. Trump: "Terrorists do not worship G-d, they worship death." And, using a phrase that may turn out to be historic, Trump said: "A better future is possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out." But words are not enough. Qatar helps fund Hamas. The Saudis help to fund many mosques in the US and around the world, with their radical brand of Wahhabbism. Is there any reason to believe that these countries will change their ways?
In seeking to reestablish our ties to the Sunni Arab world, after eight years of disengagement by Obama, Trump signed a $110 billion dollar arms deal with King Salman. Over the long haul, the deal is expected to reach $400 billion. As the Saudis have no peace agreement with Israel, and no recognition of Israel, the Israelis were not pleased. The intent, again, is to shift the balance away from the Ayatollahs which Obama pursued, back to our more traditional allies. As a Jew, and as a supporter of Israel, I find the arms deal disconcerting - even though I understand it.
The mainstream media, however, remains critical of anything and everything Trump does. The New York Times expressed their concern over the "unsettling path" Trump has taken to align the US with the likes of Saudi Arabia. The Times: "The Saudi human rights record is no better than Iran's." Was the Times so concerned with human rights when Obama aligned himself with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the Ayatollahs in Iran? The reality is that US policy has traditionally aligned with the Sunni Arabs, if for no other reason than they are the keepers of the oil.
The Times also expressed their disappointment with Trump choosing to "single out Iran, the leading Shiite-majority state and Saudi Arabia's main enemy." After acknowledging the Iranians support for "militias" in Lebanon and Yemen, and its backing of Assad in Syria, the Times agrees that "many of Iran's activities are indeed destabilizing." Many? Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
During his stay in Israel, Trump was welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with these words: "We are absolutely delighted to welcome you and Melania to the P.M.'s residence in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people, and the united capital of the Jewish State." It is sad that Netanyahu must continue to remind US leaders that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and that it will remain undivided and in Israeli hands. Unfortunately, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reiterated the nonsense we so often hear about the Middle East: "We solve the Israeli-Palestinian peace dilemma, we start solving a lot of the peace throughout the Middle East region."
Trump repeated the same fallacy, following the lead of not only Tillerson and the State Department holdovers from the Obama Administration, but also what has been a long-term attitude of State towards Israel. Exactly how will "solving" the Israeli-Palestinian issue affect these other issues in the Middle East: the Sunni-Shiite divide within Islam; the desire by Iran to expand its control over the Middle East and export terrorism around the world; the Syrian civil war; the failed states in Iraq, Libya and Yemen; and the overall lack of freedom throughout the Arab world? The truth is that the Palestinian issue has nothing to do with most of the problems in the Middle East. Nothing. And the Sunni Arab world was already moving closer towards Israel, seeing it as an ally in the fight against terror and against Iran; not to mention that they see the technological and economic benefits of dealing with Israel.
As Caroline Glick notes in her most recent column, 98% of the Palestinians live in Areas A and B in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), and have been under Palestinian Authority control since 1996. Glick: "They carry Palestinian passports. Their births and deaths are recorded in the Palestinian population registry. They vote in Palestinian elections." Although, it should be stated that Abbas has refused to hold elections for his office for well over a decade. But Israel can never give up Area C, an area mostly unpopulated, but which allows for Israeli control over the Jordan river valley. Without Israeli control over the borders of the West Bank, how long before Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and ISIS move in? Abbas and the PA are not strong enough to keep them out. Abbas' regime would fall quickly. Are the US policy makers so blinded by their pro-Arab outlook, and against Israel, that they are unable to see what will happen?
Let me put it another way. If, G-d forbid, Israel were overrun and the Jews killed or evicted and all the land was in the hands of the Arabs, who actually believes that the result would be peace throughout the Middle East? Who? For those of us who live in, or have visited, Southern California, imagine that you are traveling northbound on the 405 Freeway from the city side of Los Angeles into the San Fernando Valley. As you reach the top of the hill and start to descend into the Valley, you can see across the Valley floor to the mountain range on the other side of the Valley. That short distance is equal to the entire width of Israel in some places. Should Israel give up complete control of the West Bank, they are looking at enemies who also will have elevated vantage points in the hills of Judea and Samaria; vantage points from which they can easily attack Jerusalem, the Knesset, Ben Gurion airport, and even Tel Aviv and most of Israel's population centers.
Trump visited the Western Wall (the Kotel), but as it sits in what much of the world calls disputed "East" Jerusalem, he did not invite Netanyahu to go with him. He visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Early on he said he would move the US embassy to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem. He has since backed off. Trump seems to be falling under the same anti-Israel influences that permeate much of our State Department and other Federal agencies. Trump's efforts to get the Arab and Muslim world united in a fight against terrorism is to be commended. His desire to align the Sunni Arabs with Israel against the Ayatollahs is worthy of admiration. But, there is no point in forcing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East, and our best ally there, to commit suicide. None.
Trump was exceptionally strong in his urging the Muslim world to participate in the fight against terrorism. Trump: "Terrorists do not worship G-d, they worship death." And, using a phrase that may turn out to be historic, Trump said: "A better future is possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out." But words are not enough. Qatar helps fund Hamas. The Saudis help to fund many mosques in the US and around the world, with their radical brand of Wahhabbism. Is there any reason to believe that these countries will change their ways?
In seeking to reestablish our ties to the Sunni Arab world, after eight years of disengagement by Obama, Trump signed a $110 billion dollar arms deal with King Salman. Over the long haul, the deal is expected to reach $400 billion. As the Saudis have no peace agreement with Israel, and no recognition of Israel, the Israelis were not pleased. The intent, again, is to shift the balance away from the Ayatollahs which Obama pursued, back to our more traditional allies. As a Jew, and as a supporter of Israel, I find the arms deal disconcerting - even though I understand it.
The mainstream media, however, remains critical of anything and everything Trump does. The New York Times expressed their concern over the "unsettling path" Trump has taken to align the US with the likes of Saudi Arabia. The Times: "The Saudi human rights record is no better than Iran's." Was the Times so concerned with human rights when Obama aligned himself with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the Ayatollahs in Iran? The reality is that US policy has traditionally aligned with the Sunni Arabs, if for no other reason than they are the keepers of the oil.
The Times also expressed their disappointment with Trump choosing to "single out Iran, the leading Shiite-majority state and Saudi Arabia's main enemy." After acknowledging the Iranians support for "militias" in Lebanon and Yemen, and its backing of Assad in Syria, the Times agrees that "many of Iran's activities are indeed destabilizing." Many? Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
During his stay in Israel, Trump was welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with these words: "We are absolutely delighted to welcome you and Melania to the P.M.'s residence in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people, and the united capital of the Jewish State." It is sad that Netanyahu must continue to remind US leaders that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and that it will remain undivided and in Israeli hands. Unfortunately, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reiterated the nonsense we so often hear about the Middle East: "We solve the Israeli-Palestinian peace dilemma, we start solving a lot of the peace throughout the Middle East region."
Trump repeated the same fallacy, following the lead of not only Tillerson and the State Department holdovers from the Obama Administration, but also what has been a long-term attitude of State towards Israel. Exactly how will "solving" the Israeli-Palestinian issue affect these other issues in the Middle East: the Sunni-Shiite divide within Islam; the desire by Iran to expand its control over the Middle East and export terrorism around the world; the Syrian civil war; the failed states in Iraq, Libya and Yemen; and the overall lack of freedom throughout the Arab world? The truth is that the Palestinian issue has nothing to do with most of the problems in the Middle East. Nothing. And the Sunni Arab world was already moving closer towards Israel, seeing it as an ally in the fight against terror and against Iran; not to mention that they see the technological and economic benefits of dealing with Israel.
As Caroline Glick notes in her most recent column, 98% of the Palestinians live in Areas A and B in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), and have been under Palestinian Authority control since 1996. Glick: "They carry Palestinian passports. Their births and deaths are recorded in the Palestinian population registry. They vote in Palestinian elections." Although, it should be stated that Abbas has refused to hold elections for his office for well over a decade. But Israel can never give up Area C, an area mostly unpopulated, but which allows for Israeli control over the Jordan river valley. Without Israeli control over the borders of the West Bank, how long before Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and ISIS move in? Abbas and the PA are not strong enough to keep them out. Abbas' regime would fall quickly. Are the US policy makers so blinded by their pro-Arab outlook, and against Israel, that they are unable to see what will happen?
Let me put it another way. If, G-d forbid, Israel were overrun and the Jews killed or evicted and all the land was in the hands of the Arabs, who actually believes that the result would be peace throughout the Middle East? Who? For those of us who live in, or have visited, Southern California, imagine that you are traveling northbound on the 405 Freeway from the city side of Los Angeles into the San Fernando Valley. As you reach the top of the hill and start to descend into the Valley, you can see across the Valley floor to the mountain range on the other side of the Valley. That short distance is equal to the entire width of Israel in some places. Should Israel give up complete control of the West Bank, they are looking at enemies who also will have elevated vantage points in the hills of Judea and Samaria; vantage points from which they can easily attack Jerusalem, the Knesset, Ben Gurion airport, and even Tel Aviv and most of Israel's population centers.
Trump visited the Western Wall (the Kotel), but as it sits in what much of the world calls disputed "East" Jerusalem, he did not invite Netanyahu to go with him. He visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Early on he said he would move the US embassy to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem. He has since backed off. Trump seems to be falling under the same anti-Israel influences that permeate much of our State Department and other Federal agencies. Trump's efforts to get the Arab and Muslim world united in a fight against terrorism is to be commended. His desire to align the Sunni Arabs with Israel against the Ayatollahs is worthy of admiration. But, there is no point in forcing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East, and our best ally there, to commit suicide. None.
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Why My Friend is Wrong
Recently, a friend, who also reads the blog, asked why I have not been discussing the big issues of the day. Issues such as "Korea, Yates, Flynn, Sessions, Comey, Putin, Russia and the French election." Admittedly, I have not discussed much about those issues. Those are issues that do require more research and more time to prepare. I fully acknowledge that it is likely that many readers would like to see me address those issues. Recently, I have discussed Hollywood propaganda (using the TV show "Designated Survivor" as an example), and the lack of tolerance for conservative speech on college and university campuses. My friend told me that those issues were the least of our problems in light of all the other issues he referred to. I disagree.
It is not that all of those issues are not important. Of course they are. But I believe the bigger issue is the civil war which we are currently experiencing. I have described it as a mostly non-violent war. You see, this war did not start with a few college protests. We have an entire generation that has been spoon fed propaganda by the Left - from Hollywood TV and movies, from academia and from the mainstream media. Not only have they been "taught" left wing views, they have been taught that those who disagree are the basket of deplorables - haters, bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes, and so on. Once those labels are attached, it quite easy to have no respect for such people.
We now have some newspapers refusing to print opinion pieces opposing gay marriage. The rationale is that gay marriage is the law of the land. Of course, when heterosexual marriage was the law of the land they had no problem printing news stories and op-eds in favor of gay marriage. Some papers will not print opinion pieces rebutting global warming. They say that the science is settled. Once upon a time the science was settled that the earth was flat. I am reminded of the death sentence given to Socrates for "refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state." Some would like to see climate change deniers imprisoned. Shall we return to the time of Socrates, which was 2,416 years ago? Of course, we need not go back that far, as in the 20th Century, Communists in particular have meted out harsh sentences to those who dared to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies in their societies.
Today, we see young people unable to even hear an opposing viewpoint. Instead they need their safe spaces. Worse, it is not just young people. I was part of a group email with the aforementioned friend. After a while, I was kicked off of that group email by adults who could not tolerate an opposing viewpoint. And it is not simply an unwillingness to hear my views. I know very well what some on the Left think of me as an individual because of my conservative views. For proof, please go back and read my 7/29/16 post "A Personal Tale of Left-Wing Intolerance," as well as the 8/1/16 post "An Email Exchange With the Woman From the Last Post." That incident last year was not the first time I was yelled at by someone who disagreed with me.
Obviously, I am not the only conservative who feels the dislike and even hatred from the Left. We now have families where those who voted for Trump are made to feel unwelcome at family get togethers, and are even uninvited to holiday dinners. It's bad enough to see the violent protests and vandalism at colleges where conservative speakers are scheduled to speak. In a 5/10/17 piece by Michelangelo Signorile, which the Huffington Post saw fit to put online, this is what Mr. Signorile recommended: "Starting today and from here on, no elected official - certainly those in the GOP defending and supporting Trump on a variety of issues, for example - should be able to sit down for a nice, quiet lunch or dinner in a Washington, D.C. eatery or even in their own homes. They should be hounded by protestors everywhere, especially in public - in restaurants, in shopping centers, in their districts, and yes, on the public property outside their homes and apartments, in Washington and back in their home states."
Mr. Signorile continued: "The elected officials and White House staffers must be challenged going to and from their cars and at the many public speeches they give at organizations and think tanks throughout DC and elsewhere. They should be bombarded with questions and placards by groups of people as they head to media appearances at the cable networks where they spew their lies every day. And they should be challenged when they come off TV for what they just lied about."
Then there's this: "Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, should not be able to attend any function, eat in public, or enjoy dinner at home without hearing people expressing how his actions are harming their lives and their families' lives in terrible ways." Signorile goes on to state he is not calling for violent or thuggish behavior. Rather, he claims he wants to see protests the way the AIDS activist group, ACT UP, did in the 1980s and 1990s. Of course, he is dreaming if he believes this type of in-your-face harassment does not lead to people getting hurt, or worse. I do not remember any call to treat liberals/leftists with such disrespect while Obama was in office, even though many of us felt that Obama constantly lied and was a danger to this country.
The Left has been engaging in an effort to hurt the "enemy" (Republicans and conservatives) for some time. As an example, recall how they wanted to hurt Chick Fil-A because the owner said he personally believed in the traditional definition of marriage. And the hatred towards Donald Trump has been so great that we have heard talk of his impeachment from the day he took office. So, my friend is concerned about my not addressing certain "big" issues. Our country has always faced such types of issues. But, there was only one time when we were engaged in a violent civil war. Actual civility is not a value for the Left. We have seen it in the vulgar tirades from late night talk show hosts. We see it in the likes of Mr. Signorile's call for harassment and intimidation. We even see it in the mainstream media's name calling and demagoguery.
This civil war will not be north versus south. But it will, and already has, divided families - just as the first one did. Where this one will end still remains to be seen. But I fail to see how the possible failure of the United States to stay united is not the most important issue facing our country.
It is not that all of those issues are not important. Of course they are. But I believe the bigger issue is the civil war which we are currently experiencing. I have described it as a mostly non-violent war. You see, this war did not start with a few college protests. We have an entire generation that has been spoon fed propaganda by the Left - from Hollywood TV and movies, from academia and from the mainstream media. Not only have they been "taught" left wing views, they have been taught that those who disagree are the basket of deplorables - haters, bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes, and so on. Once those labels are attached, it quite easy to have no respect for such people.
We now have some newspapers refusing to print opinion pieces opposing gay marriage. The rationale is that gay marriage is the law of the land. Of course, when heterosexual marriage was the law of the land they had no problem printing news stories and op-eds in favor of gay marriage. Some papers will not print opinion pieces rebutting global warming. They say that the science is settled. Once upon a time the science was settled that the earth was flat. I am reminded of the death sentence given to Socrates for "refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state." Some would like to see climate change deniers imprisoned. Shall we return to the time of Socrates, which was 2,416 years ago? Of course, we need not go back that far, as in the 20th Century, Communists in particular have meted out harsh sentences to those who dared to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies in their societies.
Today, we see young people unable to even hear an opposing viewpoint. Instead they need their safe spaces. Worse, it is not just young people. I was part of a group email with the aforementioned friend. After a while, I was kicked off of that group email by adults who could not tolerate an opposing viewpoint. And it is not simply an unwillingness to hear my views. I know very well what some on the Left think of me as an individual because of my conservative views. For proof, please go back and read my 7/29/16 post "A Personal Tale of Left-Wing Intolerance," as well as the 8/1/16 post "An Email Exchange With the Woman From the Last Post." That incident last year was not the first time I was yelled at by someone who disagreed with me.
Obviously, I am not the only conservative who feels the dislike and even hatred from the Left. We now have families where those who voted for Trump are made to feel unwelcome at family get togethers, and are even uninvited to holiday dinners. It's bad enough to see the violent protests and vandalism at colleges where conservative speakers are scheduled to speak. In a 5/10/17 piece by Michelangelo Signorile, which the Huffington Post saw fit to put online, this is what Mr. Signorile recommended: "Starting today and from here on, no elected official - certainly those in the GOP defending and supporting Trump on a variety of issues, for example - should be able to sit down for a nice, quiet lunch or dinner in a Washington, D.C. eatery or even in their own homes. They should be hounded by protestors everywhere, especially in public - in restaurants, in shopping centers, in their districts, and yes, on the public property outside their homes and apartments, in Washington and back in their home states."
Mr. Signorile continued: "The elected officials and White House staffers must be challenged going to and from their cars and at the many public speeches they give at organizations and think tanks throughout DC and elsewhere. They should be bombarded with questions and placards by groups of people as they head to media appearances at the cable networks where they spew their lies every day. And they should be challenged when they come off TV for what they just lied about."
Then there's this: "Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, should not be able to attend any function, eat in public, or enjoy dinner at home without hearing people expressing how his actions are harming their lives and their families' lives in terrible ways." Signorile goes on to state he is not calling for violent or thuggish behavior. Rather, he claims he wants to see protests the way the AIDS activist group, ACT UP, did in the 1980s and 1990s. Of course, he is dreaming if he believes this type of in-your-face harassment does not lead to people getting hurt, or worse. I do not remember any call to treat liberals/leftists with such disrespect while Obama was in office, even though many of us felt that Obama constantly lied and was a danger to this country.
The Left has been engaging in an effort to hurt the "enemy" (Republicans and conservatives) for some time. As an example, recall how they wanted to hurt Chick Fil-A because the owner said he personally believed in the traditional definition of marriage. And the hatred towards Donald Trump has been so great that we have heard talk of his impeachment from the day he took office. So, my friend is concerned about my not addressing certain "big" issues. Our country has always faced such types of issues. But, there was only one time when we were engaged in a violent civil war. Actual civility is not a value for the Left. We have seen it in the vulgar tirades from late night talk show hosts. We see it in the likes of Mr. Signorile's call for harassment and intimidation. We even see it in the mainstream media's name calling and demagoguery.
This civil war will not be north versus south. But it will, and already has, divided families - just as the first one did. Where this one will end still remains to be seen. But I fail to see how the possible failure of the United States to stay united is not the most important issue facing our country.
Sunday, May 14, 2017
More Hollywood Propaganda
In the 2/1/17 post, I showed how the TV show "Homeland" managed to weave their left-wing message into the story line. Much of television and the movies is similar. So, here is yet another example, this time from the TV show "Designated Survivor." The premise of the show is that the character played by Kiefer Sutherland (HUD Secretary) becomes President because, as the low man on the totem pole, he was chosen to stay behind during the President's State of the Union address. When the Capitol is bombed and the government is wiped out, Sutherland, as the 'designated survivor" becomes President.
This is the first season of the show. In episode 19, "Misalliance," we see in the first 20 minutes quite a few left-wing talking points. As a high school band is performing at the White House, the teacher tells the President: "This might be the end of playing music for a lot of these kids...most of their families can't afford private lessons." The President: "Mine couldn't either...I think every student in this country should have access to the arts for their education."
Shortly thereafter, the President is conversing with the Speaker of the House. POTUS: "How familiar are you with the Federal art grants that make these kinds of programs possible?" Speaker: "I remember that bill (authorizing the current funding). The sunset clause was added to get it past some of my more conservative colleagues." There you have it - every student is entitled to what, a musical instrument? At government expense?
I do give some credit to the show, as they have the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman telling POTUS: "Look, I love music as much as anyone. But a lot of folks think we should throw everything we've got into science, technology, engineering and math. We used to lead the world in those areas. Now, we're barely in the middle of the pack." The overall gist of these scenes, however, was that Democrats love music and kids, Republicans - not so much. In fact, the Speaker tells her political nemesis - the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee - that she will resign on this condition: "I want the public arts and education funding reauthorized before I go." The Speaker gives up her career to save the arts for the kids - and from the meanie Republicans.
In yet another scene, there was a discussion about clean water between POTUS and a man in a wheelchair, although I am not clear what position that man held. POTUS: "Clean water should not even be a fight." Man in wheelchair: "You know that business executives only think about bottom line costs." POTUS: "Well, if their only concern is costs you should remind them how much it costs to clean up their mess, especially after we start fining them." Message: business is bad, government is good.
In one of my "favorite" scenes, we hear that the French Ambassador would like to see a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Said one aide to POTUS: "Liberals in France have been railing against nuclear escalation for decades, but now even the conservatives are beginning to wonder why they're spending so much damn money just to maintain weapons in Europe." Well, thankfully, there is no danger from the likes of Russia, Iran or North Korea. One aide does question what happens if the Russians fail to reciprocate and reduce their nuclear arsenal. (Is Russia really the only threat?) The President tells everyone assembled that if Russia does not reciprocate, then "we stop." But why are we starting? Just because we "hope" the Russians will respond in good faith? Is the subtle message that the Iranians and North Koreans are no threat at all?
Whether a TV show or movie is based in the world of politics or not, the writers seamlessly weave their left-wing views into the story line. Frankly, it is really not significantly different from what the left-wing mainstream media does, with their left-wing spin part of so many stories.
This is the first season of the show. In episode 19, "Misalliance," we see in the first 20 minutes quite a few left-wing talking points. As a high school band is performing at the White House, the teacher tells the President: "This might be the end of playing music for a lot of these kids...most of their families can't afford private lessons." The President: "Mine couldn't either...I think every student in this country should have access to the arts for their education."
Shortly thereafter, the President is conversing with the Speaker of the House. POTUS: "How familiar are you with the Federal art grants that make these kinds of programs possible?" Speaker: "I remember that bill (authorizing the current funding). The sunset clause was added to get it past some of my more conservative colleagues." There you have it - every student is entitled to what, a musical instrument? At government expense?
I do give some credit to the show, as they have the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman telling POTUS: "Look, I love music as much as anyone. But a lot of folks think we should throw everything we've got into science, technology, engineering and math. We used to lead the world in those areas. Now, we're barely in the middle of the pack." The overall gist of these scenes, however, was that Democrats love music and kids, Republicans - not so much. In fact, the Speaker tells her political nemesis - the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee - that she will resign on this condition: "I want the public arts and education funding reauthorized before I go." The Speaker gives up her career to save the arts for the kids - and from the meanie Republicans.
In yet another scene, there was a discussion about clean water between POTUS and a man in a wheelchair, although I am not clear what position that man held. POTUS: "Clean water should not even be a fight." Man in wheelchair: "You know that business executives only think about bottom line costs." POTUS: "Well, if their only concern is costs you should remind them how much it costs to clean up their mess, especially after we start fining them." Message: business is bad, government is good.
In one of my "favorite" scenes, we hear that the French Ambassador would like to see a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Said one aide to POTUS: "Liberals in France have been railing against nuclear escalation for decades, but now even the conservatives are beginning to wonder why they're spending so much damn money just to maintain weapons in Europe." Well, thankfully, there is no danger from the likes of Russia, Iran or North Korea. One aide does question what happens if the Russians fail to reciprocate and reduce their nuclear arsenal. (Is Russia really the only threat?) The President tells everyone assembled that if Russia does not reciprocate, then "we stop." But why are we starting? Just because we "hope" the Russians will respond in good faith? Is the subtle message that the Iranians and North Koreans are no threat at all?
Whether a TV show or movie is based in the world of politics or not, the writers seamlessly weave their left-wing views into the story line. Frankly, it is really not significantly different from what the left-wing mainstream media does, with their left-wing spin part of so many stories.
What the (Bleep)?
Comedians are not exactly known for their judicious use of language and gestures, especially left-wing comedians when it comes to "jokes" about Donald Trump.
Recently, Bill Maher said this: "A lot of us thought, 'Oh, Ivanka is gonna be our saving grace. When (Trump's) about to f...... nuke Finland or something, she is gonna walk into the bedroom and you know...Daddy, Daddy, don't do it, Daddy,' with Maher making an obscene gesture of a sexual nature with his hand, suggesting Ivanka would calm her father down with a particular sexual activity. Very classy.
Not to be outdone was Stephen Colbert. "You (Trump) talk like a sign language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's c..k holster." Imagine if anyone spoke about Obama in that manner. They'd bring back tar and feathering.
It is not simply these comedians who speak coarsely. Democrat politicians tend to have similarly "colorful" speech when speaking of Republicans. Current Chair of the DNC, Tom Perez, said "Republicans don't give a sh.. about people." At a recent town hall, Republican Representative Paul Labrador apparently said "nobody dies because they don't have access to healthcare." He claimed the statement was taken out of context as it was replayed by the left-wing media. California's newest Senator, Kamala Harris, said in reply to Labrador: "Like this guy, this congressman, you might as well say, 'people don't starve because they don't have food.' What the f... is that?"
Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, recently said this: "...we're here to help people, and if we're not helping people, we should go the f... home."
In a 2015 report by the Daily Caller, they cited a study of language used by US Democrats and Republicans done by Queen Mary University in London. They noted that liberals were more prone than conservatives to use profanity on Twitter. Words often used by liberals were "sh.., f..., happy, like, feel and amaze." For conservatives it was "G-d, psalm, America, country and border." Liberals would frequently use "I" and "me" (as did Obama). Conservatives used "we" and "ours" (as did George W. Bush).
Just to be clear, I am not prudish. I have heard all the words, and undoubtedly used many of them. The point is that this is how liberals debate; it is how they make a point. They debate with insults, mockery and name calling. It is not simply comedians and politicians. Disagree with the left-wing mainstream media and they call you names - bigot, racist, homophobe, etc. It's Hillary's basket of deplorables. This type of language reflects the total disdain in which Democrats hold Republicans. Hence, name calling and vulgarity, insults and mockery - these are the stock in trade of the Left.
Recently, Bill Maher said this: "A lot of us thought, 'Oh, Ivanka is gonna be our saving grace. When (Trump's) about to f...... nuke Finland or something, she is gonna walk into the bedroom and you know...Daddy, Daddy, don't do it, Daddy,' with Maher making an obscene gesture of a sexual nature with his hand, suggesting Ivanka would calm her father down with a particular sexual activity. Very classy.
Not to be outdone was Stephen Colbert. "You (Trump) talk like a sign language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's c..k holster." Imagine if anyone spoke about Obama in that manner. They'd bring back tar and feathering.
It is not simply these comedians who speak coarsely. Democrat politicians tend to have similarly "colorful" speech when speaking of Republicans. Current Chair of the DNC, Tom Perez, said "Republicans don't give a sh.. about people." At a recent town hall, Republican Representative Paul Labrador apparently said "nobody dies because they don't have access to healthcare." He claimed the statement was taken out of context as it was replayed by the left-wing media. California's newest Senator, Kamala Harris, said in reply to Labrador: "Like this guy, this congressman, you might as well say, 'people don't starve because they don't have food.' What the f... is that?"
Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, recently said this: "...we're here to help people, and if we're not helping people, we should go the f... home."
In a 2015 report by the Daily Caller, they cited a study of language used by US Democrats and Republicans done by Queen Mary University in London. They noted that liberals were more prone than conservatives to use profanity on Twitter. Words often used by liberals were "sh.., f..., happy, like, feel and amaze." For conservatives it was "G-d, psalm, America, country and border." Liberals would frequently use "I" and "me" (as did Obama). Conservatives used "we" and "ours" (as did George W. Bush).
Just to be clear, I am not prudish. I have heard all the words, and undoubtedly used many of them. The point is that this is how liberals debate; it is how they make a point. They debate with insults, mockery and name calling. It is not simply comedians and politicians. Disagree with the left-wing mainstream media and they call you names - bigot, racist, homophobe, etc. It's Hillary's basket of deplorables. This type of language reflects the total disdain in which Democrats hold Republicans. Hence, name calling and vulgarity, insults and mockery - these are the stock in trade of the Left.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
The Left's New Theory of "Free Speech" Under the First Amendment
As Americans, most of us have assumed that we are free to say whatever we want about whoever and whatever we want to speak about. We understand that there are exceptions for things like libel, slander and yelling fire in a theater. But the Left feels differently. It is not just that they oppose speech with which they disagree, or speech that they find "insulting" or "hateful;" they are now providing an intellectual basis for making legal changes to our First Amendment rights.
Former Labor Secretary and now Public Policy Professor at UC Berkeley, Robert Reich, said this: "Unfortunately, Berkeley and other universities have played into a narrative that the right would love to advance...The narrative assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views in which academe, mainstream media - every facet of the establishment - is organized against them...That's a narrative Trump used to get into the White House." A "narrative?" Just a story?
As discussed in recent posts in this blog, conservative speakers Milo Yiannopoulos, Charles Murray, Heather MacDonald and now Ann Coulter have been prevented from speaking or been disinvited or forced to back out from speaking on college campuses. But those are simply the most recent examples. Here are some more: Karl Rove at U. Mass, Rand Paul at Howard, Ben Carson at Johns Hopkins, Ben Shapiro at Cal State L.A., Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Brandeis, and Jason Riley at Va. Tech. Then there is the objection to Israeli speakers: then Israeli Amb. to the US Michael Oren at UC Irvine, and Benjamin Netanyahu, now Israeli P.M., at Concordia Univ. in Montreal. All these speakers constitute nothing more than "a narrative (that) assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views?" Let's get real!
NYU Professor Ulrich Baer had an op-ed in the 4/24/17 NY Times entitled "What Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech." Baer: "During the 1980s and '90s, a shift occurred in American culture; personal experience and testimony, especially of suffering and oppression, began to challenge the primacy of argument. Freedom of expression became a flash point in this shift." How does this work? Those who were oppressed get to censor speech of the alleged oppressors? The descendants of those who were formerly oppressed get to censor the descendants of those claimed to be the oppressors? Who gets to decide who belongs in each group - and what words are permissible?
The new standard seems to be that we allow only that speech which enhances the "public good." Baer: "Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms." First, notice the elitist attitude that certain groups need some sort of government protection from speech, because they are not able to "debate...on the same terms." Second, who gets to decide what topics are off limits for public debate, and what enforcement mechanisms will be utilized? Once again, we can infer that the Left will look to the government to determine proper speech. Is that really the direction in which we should be going? How long before we end up with a complete suppression of speech, as we have seen in various Communist - and other dictatorial - countries.
Baer: For speech to be considered a "common, public good...requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing." Baer continued: "As a scholar of literature, history and politics, I am especially attuned to the next generation's demands to revise existing definitions of free speech to accommodate previously delegitimized experiences. Freedom of expression is not an unchanging absolute." Well, I am always glad to hear from scholars of this, that and the other thing. No, I am not against intellectual thought and analysis. But, intellectuals and scholars do not have such a great track record of defending liberty. They often supported the murderous Communist regime in Soviet Russia. They have supported Castro's Cuba. And they often support the terrorism-committing Palestinians in their efforts to wipe Israel off the map. So, spare me the intellectual gobbledygook. What we are really talking about is tyranny.
Baer finishes his piece with this: "We should thank the student protesters, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other "overly sensitive souls" for keeping watch over the soul of our republic." Yes, let's thank Black Lives Matter for things like "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." I guess that highly offensive speech - calling cops pigs, and suggesting they be fried - coming from the Left is to be permitted. I guess we get to see that not all offensive speech is banned - depending on which side of the political divide is uttering it.
A former head of the DNC, Howard Dean, expressed that "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment." He's wrong. One letter writer to the USA Today said this: "Just because you can say something doesn't mean it should be said, freedom or not." He's right, of course. However, he left out that it also does not mean that the government should be able to punish those who say things that, perhaps, are indeed best left unsaid. The letter writer suggests using good judgment and common sense, with which, again, I totally concur. But he ends his letter saying: "So you can take your ivory tower interpretation of what free speech means and park it down your apologist street." This writer's approach would mean that those who take offense would be able to bar speech of those whose speech offends them. That is exactly what we have now in academia. Why is the closure of debate a good thing? Why is the Left unable to rebut speech with which they disagree? Because they have been oppressed? History is replete with writings and speeches by those who have suffered true oppression - the oppressed have not been unable to speak. Now, with the internet and social media, there is virtually an unlimited ability to speak. It is both elitist and tyrannical to suggest that government needs to protect certain people from certain speech.
Given how so many people today take offense so easily, if we were to abide by this new theory of permissible speech, there would be precious little speech left. Sadly, the above-mentioned letter writer does not appreciate that in a free society we do have to tolerate speech that may be obnoxious to us. It is called liberty. But liberty is not a value for the Left. As this blog has previously pointed out, the fundamental American values always take a back seat to the Left's agenda-driven issues. As another letter writer to the USA Today so astutely pointed out, "Speech that is not offensive does not need protection. The First Amendment was created precisely to protect speech that some may find offensive..."
Former Labor Secretary and now Public Policy Professor at UC Berkeley, Robert Reich, said this: "Unfortunately, Berkeley and other universities have played into a narrative that the right would love to advance...The narrative assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views in which academe, mainstream media - every facet of the establishment - is organized against them...That's a narrative Trump used to get into the White House." A "narrative?" Just a story?
As discussed in recent posts in this blog, conservative speakers Milo Yiannopoulos, Charles Murray, Heather MacDonald and now Ann Coulter have been prevented from speaking or been disinvited or forced to back out from speaking on college campuses. But those are simply the most recent examples. Here are some more: Karl Rove at U. Mass, Rand Paul at Howard, Ben Carson at Johns Hopkins, Ben Shapiro at Cal State L.A., Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Brandeis, and Jason Riley at Va. Tech. Then there is the objection to Israeli speakers: then Israeli Amb. to the US Michael Oren at UC Irvine, and Benjamin Netanyahu, now Israeli P.M., at Concordia Univ. in Montreal. All these speakers constitute nothing more than "a narrative (that) assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views?" Let's get real!
NYU Professor Ulrich Baer had an op-ed in the 4/24/17 NY Times entitled "What Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech." Baer: "During the 1980s and '90s, a shift occurred in American culture; personal experience and testimony, especially of suffering and oppression, began to challenge the primacy of argument. Freedom of expression became a flash point in this shift." How does this work? Those who were oppressed get to censor speech of the alleged oppressors? The descendants of those who were formerly oppressed get to censor the descendants of those claimed to be the oppressors? Who gets to decide who belongs in each group - and what words are permissible?
The new standard seems to be that we allow only that speech which enhances the "public good." Baer: "Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms." First, notice the elitist attitude that certain groups need some sort of government protection from speech, because they are not able to "debate...on the same terms." Second, who gets to decide what topics are off limits for public debate, and what enforcement mechanisms will be utilized? Once again, we can infer that the Left will look to the government to determine proper speech. Is that really the direction in which we should be going? How long before we end up with a complete suppression of speech, as we have seen in various Communist - and other dictatorial - countries.
Baer: For speech to be considered a "common, public good...requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing." Baer continued: "As a scholar of literature, history and politics, I am especially attuned to the next generation's demands to revise existing definitions of free speech to accommodate previously delegitimized experiences. Freedom of expression is not an unchanging absolute." Well, I am always glad to hear from scholars of this, that and the other thing. No, I am not against intellectual thought and analysis. But, intellectuals and scholars do not have such a great track record of defending liberty. They often supported the murderous Communist regime in Soviet Russia. They have supported Castro's Cuba. And they often support the terrorism-committing Palestinians in their efforts to wipe Israel off the map. So, spare me the intellectual gobbledygook. What we are really talking about is tyranny.
Baer finishes his piece with this: "We should thank the student protesters, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other "overly sensitive souls" for keeping watch over the soul of our republic." Yes, let's thank Black Lives Matter for things like "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." I guess that highly offensive speech - calling cops pigs, and suggesting they be fried - coming from the Left is to be permitted. I guess we get to see that not all offensive speech is banned - depending on which side of the political divide is uttering it.
A former head of the DNC, Howard Dean, expressed that "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment." He's wrong. One letter writer to the USA Today said this: "Just because you can say something doesn't mean it should be said, freedom or not." He's right, of course. However, he left out that it also does not mean that the government should be able to punish those who say things that, perhaps, are indeed best left unsaid. The letter writer suggests using good judgment and common sense, with which, again, I totally concur. But he ends his letter saying: "So you can take your ivory tower interpretation of what free speech means and park it down your apologist street." This writer's approach would mean that those who take offense would be able to bar speech of those whose speech offends them. That is exactly what we have now in academia. Why is the closure of debate a good thing? Why is the Left unable to rebut speech with which they disagree? Because they have been oppressed? History is replete with writings and speeches by those who have suffered true oppression - the oppressed have not been unable to speak. Now, with the internet and social media, there is virtually an unlimited ability to speak. It is both elitist and tyrannical to suggest that government needs to protect certain people from certain speech.
Given how so many people today take offense so easily, if we were to abide by this new theory of permissible speech, there would be precious little speech left. Sadly, the above-mentioned letter writer does not appreciate that in a free society we do have to tolerate speech that may be obnoxious to us. It is called liberty. But liberty is not a value for the Left. As this blog has previously pointed out, the fundamental American values always take a back seat to the Left's agenda-driven issues. As another letter writer to the USA Today so astutely pointed out, "Speech that is not offensive does not need protection. The First Amendment was created precisely to protect speech that some may find offensive..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)