Is There a Right To Be Heard?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines its relationship with the "right" of free speech: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". The amendment never speaks to a "civil right", or the citizen's rights, but only states that Congress (meaning the government) cannot abridge the freedom. This is not an additive process that establishes what a government can and will do, but a reductive process that states what a government cannot do, thereby leaving it open to future generations to establish what free speech is. Does this mean that just because the government, through the constitution has agreed not to abridge the implied, or natural right to speak freely, that there is an implied right to be heard?...and is the government responsible to provide that right?...and is the government the arbiter of free speech?

This lends to a deeper discussion of whether or not the government is the one that bestows rights upon its people. The "Bill of Rights" ammendments to the Constitution of the United States is about the government abridging the rights of its citizens. It infers that the rights of the citizens are inherent and bestowed upon the peoples of the world by a "higher power". Man's efforts to abridge, or control, the inherent rights has varied throughout history. Longheld institutions have been co-opted by government in the modern era, simply because government has decided that it can do it more fairly. The has led to government control of charity, education, religious expression, speech, marriage, families, etc., all under the guise of making an even playing-field, or fairness.

The 1st amendment simply and succintly states: "Congress shall make no law...", and then goes on to define where it shall no infringe the long-held, natural rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation in that it specifically targeted the 14th amendment for a specific enforcement. Many people of that era fought for these rights, and some died. But really, what it did was take away the government's infringement to those natural rights, then sought to bestow rights that made a class of people that were more "equal" than other citizens.

The question is, "Is there a right to be heard?"....maybe, but it is a natural right, and the government should get out of the way and stop inventing "fairness" doctrines, and campaign "reforms" that further infringe upon our natural rights. The Congress seems to have as its objective, to try to tip the scales so that they can remain in power, and to maintain the status quo. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, it was the ideal situation. A Republican President and a Democratic Congress; nothing got done. As soon as laws were passed, they were vetoed by the President. They could not pass any laws. As soon as the electorate figures out that this is the real utopia, we will be there, but of course, this is just an observation.....

Who is the Sole Survivor?

Another season of Survivor in the can; in the end you wanted the villain (Russel) to win. I can imagine how people could have sympathy for the devil, but that is how he works. He preys on others, and like the parable of the snake and the frog where the snake says after carrying the frog across the water, "why are you suprised that I bit you, you knew that I was a snake, when you met me. I haven't tried to do anything but what I am."...In the end he was bitter and only wanted the glory, the title of "The Sole Survivor"! He was even willing to pay the winner (Natalie) for the title.

In the grand councils of Heaven where we planned out this earth life there was one who wanted to be the one to bring us back to our Heavenly Father, but wanted the glory for himself and wanted to take away the gift of agency (free will) and force all of us to make correct choices. Our Father in Heaven knew that we had to choose for ourselves and so the Savior offered himself to be the One to lead the way, to show us the right path and give the glory to our Heavenly Father (Abraham 3:22-28). So now we find ourselves in the thick of the fight between good & evil. We know what the outcome will be. We know who will win the fight. We know who the Sole Survivor is.....and it is not the one that lies, cheats, plots, and tramples all others to get to the end. It is the one who will pay the price to do what is right.....but this is Just an Observation....

Moral Relativism Redux

I was wondering at how the founding fathers would feel, if they knew that the modern-day enlightenment found their practice of slavery as morally reprehensible, inexcusable and a social embarrassment. But would the founding fathers find it equally reprehensible, inexcusable and a social embarassment in the modern-day practice of abortion?

After all, not everyone of that era practiced slavery, and not everyone of our era practices abortion, but yet these topics seemed to be argued and re-argued and not resolved. The practice of slavery led to the Civil War. What will the practice of abortion lead to?

But, of course, this is just an observation......

...Oh, I Don't Watch TV

Have you ever noticed that the supposed illuminati always say that? In a casual conversation you might innocently comment, "...Did you get your iPhone at the Buy More?", which is an obtuse reference to the TV show "Chuck". They will say, "What? What's a Buy More?", and then you will explain the TV show and they will then say, "I don't watch TV", or "I only watch PBS", like that is some kind of virtue. Granted, most TV programs are crap, especially on the constant-fill news channels, or E!, or Spike and the like, but there is some interestingly entertaining content out there. I will readily admit my preference for movies and have suffered through some real garbage (anything with Billy Bob Thornton), but you take the bad with the good, and hope that you only remember the good. Back to the illuminati....I have observed that most of those who "don't watch TV", tend to be well informed on the CNN (No Bias, No Bull, which is a bunch of bull) or MSNBC point-of-view. Notice that I didn't make it a plural (points-of-view) because the seem to be pretty singular on their biases. So for an out-of-touch demographic (the non-watching-TV group) they seem to be in-touch with their kind. So, what is it? Are they so much better for not watching who gets voted off the island on Survivor, or the latest plot twist on The Closer, or Andy Rooney's ungroomed eyebrows on 60 Minutes?

We, as the baby-boom generation, grew up on TV content, and suckled on cartoons and game shows. Our children are truly multi-attentive by texting, surfing and watching television at the same time. What does the future hold for us? Will we be a bunch of zombies in a rest home watching a test pattern, partially catatonic? I hope that entertainment will rise above the lowest common denominator and actually become a means of education, instead of a fascist means of propaganda......but this is only an observation.

Tolerance - An Intellectual Stalemate

"Cry tolerance" seems to be a child-like emotion, but it is more a bullying tactic in modern times. Tolerance implies equal consideration of an issue, or idea, from opposite viewpoints. More often it is the bullying of an established more from an non-standard, non-accepted idea. Appealing to the sensitivities of the masses, the non-standard proponents try to guilt those of the accepted mores to open up to the non-standard idea. The tolerance.org website uses the UNESCO definition of tolerance: Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance is harmony in difference.

I would submit that they have it half-correct. Yes, tolerance is respect, but it is not acceptance. Acceptance has put away tolerance and embraced the idea. We can appreciate the diversity of all cultures, but we don't have to accept the garbage and the errors of those cultures. As creatures of freedom, we are free to choose what we feel is acceptable from all ideas. We don't have to feel that we are bullied into accepting an idea that is different, simply because it is different!

Tolerance is declared almost as much as a plea for mercy. It is interesting to see that those appealing for tolerance are usually appealing for a change in law, or a change in the time-tested norms of society. Societal tolerance and societal change seem to go hand-in-hand. A practice, or a principle first is tolerated, then becomes accepted, then integrated into the norms of society. As there are always opposing sides, opinions, etc., one side always becomes the loser, when change occurs. The time for attention is when tolerance starts to appear, because once the change occurs, tolerance has already lost

Tolerance IS difference! There is no harmony there. It is an intellectual stalemate. You don't have to give up your stand and I don't have to give up mine. We agree to disagree. Is there any question on how you believe something, if you believe it is true? Does the truth give into error? Then where does tolerance lose its ground? When it accepts a lesser standard and degrades itself and its integrity......but this is only a tolerant observation.