The Iranian Meet and Tweet

So the question of fairness looms…

Is it fair that with respect to Iran, President Obama is willing, without preconditions, to meet…

But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadineja, without exception, won’t allow his people to Tweet.

Power to the Tweeters… May their revolution bring about “change we can believe in.”

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Gayness

Happy Independence Day!

It is with pride that most of America celebrates the 4th of July. While some have chosen to sit this one out (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080701_Chris_Satullo__A_not-so-glorious_Fourth.html), the vast majority of Americans will be sipping sodas and savoring the summer sun in social settings around a BBQ. It will be a gay time for all.

Beneath all of this though, is an underlying current of strain and divisiveness that the mainstream media loves to tout and expand (e.g. Red vs. Blue states, Hillary vs. Obama, McCain vs. conservatives, etc.). Core to this are the social and political movements that fuel politcal debate and speculation. Indeed, these movements are a proud part of American history, but as Thomas Paine frequently likes to point out to me, most movements get hijacked by radicals within their groups. Some cases in point include the labor movement in which the founding principles of a standard workweek, reasonable compensation, and fair working conditions have largely been replaced with demands for non-competitive legacy costs, unfounded rules, and benefits that simply are not sustainable in a global economy where worldwide labor couldn’t care less about whether they are changing batteries or cleaning toilets (see http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2008/04/ridiculous_work.html). Another example is the Libertarian movement that has not been able to produce an electable candidate because the party refuses to post a candidate that isn’t so far off base that 90% of America wouldn’t be afraid of them in power. Similar statements can be made for other credible parties including the Green Party as well as the Socialist and Communist parties in the US.

Mixed in with this however, is a politically correct movement that seeks to limit the speech that Americans engage in making words like “nigger” grounds for international criticism for some (http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/20/kramers-racist-tirade-caught-on-tape/) and sources of controversial, but acceptable, capitalism for others (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572287/20071018/nas.jhtml). Other words, such as “gay”, have been redefined in the latter half of the 20th Century to refer to homosexuals. Though it is largely rejected by the LGBT community (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay), it remains largely in the dominion of sexual preference. Can you imagine being named Gay (http://www.classmates.com/directory/public/memberprofile/list.htm?regId=228705661)? The connotations of the word – transformed in a few short decades – are amazing.

While it is sad that movements get hijacked, there is a subtle side-effect as well, where the language gets hijacked as well. The politically correct movement has not helped this. However, as part of a free country, whose Bill of Rights have not completely been shredded, we as individuals have the right to use the English language in modern contexts as well as antiquated meanings.

Therefore, let us be in gay spirits this 4th of July. Let us find find gayness in the right to free speech and let us celebrate independence with gay pride.

Indeed, I would like to begin exploring a list of words that have been hijacked to the point that their original meaning has been lost. To start the list…

1). Gay

2). Democrat – a proponent of democracy – generally these are founded upon equal access to power in government and universally recognized freedoms and liberties. However, modern democrats do not equal access to power frequently choosing selected access to power (e.g. affirmative action and special minority programs) as well as skewed liberties (Kramer can’t say “nigger”, but Kanye West can). (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)

3). Liberal – One who supports classical liberalism including individual freedom AND limited government (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism). By in large, modern liberals are fierce opponents of laissez-faire and free market economies as well as largely supporters of big government solutions such as universal health care, social security, etc.

Please feel free to comment with additional words and why you believe their meanings have been hijacked.

Absolutely, the 1st Amendment is American

In reference to an article in the IHT (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php), there seems to be a significant debate over what one can and can’t say outside of the United States. Sadly, our neighbors up north are victims of their own government’s inability to secure their rights to free speech.

There are some fundamental issues at play here. I think many of them can be summed up in the phrase by Lewis, a defender of free speech, “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.”

Free speech, along with the other protections of the 1st amendment, does not live “in an age”. They supersede time and are suspended only on the most temporary of bases (e.g. wartime). I struggle to agree with the imminence exception and loathe efforts to limit speech based upon the feelings of others. I should be allowed to walk up to a Jew and call him a Jew. I should be able to walk up to a cop and call him a pig. I should be allowed to walk up to Obama and call him a socialist wannabe nigger who is a pathetic disgrace to the proud history of true African-Americans.

However, I should be prepared to accept the consequences of my speech including social ostracization, lost business, and possibly complete emotional isolation.

The problem with exceptions to rules is that everybody feels that their opinion represents an exception. And while mine certainly does, the changing of the rules to protect the feelings of others is pointless.

The 1st amendment does truly distinguish us from the rest of the world. We should remember that the next time we allow a foreign leader to come onto our soil and call our President the devil and our country the devil’s home base. That is, of course, news but not hate speech. What would Canadian courts say to us about our leader going into Quebec and claiming that the French leaders were pansies and that Quebec is a wannabe France without the guts to even enter wars to be able to wave a white flag? My guess is that they would call that hate speech.

It’s the double standards that come into play that make these exceptions impossible to reconcile and therefore a danger to all of us. Indeed, if you limit my speech, you are one step away from limiting my thoughts. But wait, that is actually the goal isn’t it? Therein lies the truth. Free speech laws are not about changing people’s expression patterns in an effort to protect others in society. In reality, they are there to change people’s thoughts. Truly though, the founding fathers knew that a right to free speech was essential to the right to free thought. Ergo, in many countries, including many in the Western world, free thought has been outlawed.