LOCALNOTIONS

MUSINGS ON A VARIETY OF TOPICS WHICH MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO THOSE CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING. NOT THAT THE WORLD WILL BECOME A BETTER PLACE, BUT, IT COULD BE! AT LEAST THE IDEAS EXIST FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION! ENJOY, T.O.M.

My Photo
Name:
Location: FLORIDA, United States

1) TOO MANY INTERESTS; TOO MUCH EDUCATION; AND NOT ENOUGH ABILITIES OR TIME. HOWEVER, ONE NEVER KNOWS WHAT IS POSSIBLE UNTIL ONE VENTURES INTO THE ARENA. 2)THIS BLOG MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AN EXAMINATION OF THE "OLD SAW" AS TO WHETHER "THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD". 3)THE FEATURE THAT SEPARATES THIS BLOG FROM "THE OTHERS" ARE THE "OPTIONS PRESENTED" FOR IMPROVING THE LOT OF MANKIND. UNTIL "OTHERS" HAVE "BETTER IDEAS", I REMAIN COMMITTED TO THESE. VAMOS A VER! 4) DON'T PARSE! YOU'LL "MISS" THE "POINT(S)".

10/28/2010

THE "LIBERAL" BILL OF RIGHTS

AVITW

I SEE WHERE THE ANOTHER "SPEAKER OF THE TRUTH" (ON THE RECORD RATHER THAN "AMONG FRIENDS" WHICH, OF COURSE, CAN BE DENIED SHOULD SAID FRIENDS LATER FIND IT "CONVENIENT" TO ATTACK THE SPEAKER WHO MIGHT BE SEEKING POLITICAL OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT) HAS BEEN "RELIEVED" OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO AGAIN, BY HIS "GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED" EMPLOYERS WHOM ONE MIGHT ASSUME WOULD BE AMONG THE FIRST TO SUPPORT HIS GUARANTEED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. OBVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD BE A "FAULTY ASSUMPTION".

CONCURRENTLY, WRITERS ON THE WEB ARE BELATEDLY LEARNING THAT THE PRACTITIONERS OF "THE SECOND OLDEST PROFESSION" HAVE DISCOVERED A NEW WAY OF AUGMENTING THEIR INCOME BY ATTACKING THOSE WHO COMMUNICATE THEIR FEELINGS, IDEAS AND OPINIONS VIA THIS MEDIUM, DESPITE THE "ASSUMPTION" (OBVIOUSLY ERRONEOUS) THAT CYBERSPACE PROVIDES A TRULY OPEN FORUM FOR SUCH DISCOURSE.

THE ONLY CONCLUSION POSSIBLE IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT: "COMMUNICATION OF ANY KIND (WORDS/DEEDS/GRAPHICS) CAN BE DANGEROUS TO THE COMMUNICATOR".

CYBERSPACE IS JUST THE "LATEST" VENUE FOR CENSORSHIP WHICH HAS A LONG AND IGNOMINIOUS HISTORY, MOSTLY IN COUNTRIES WITH DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENTS, BUT, NOW RAPIDLY EXPANDING TO DEVELOPED COUNTRIES WHERE THE "RIGHT" TO EXPRESS AN OPINION OR IDEA WAS FORMERLY SOCIALLY (AND LEGALLY) ACCEPTED.

HOWEVER, THIS SHOULD "NOT PRECLUDE" AN EXAMINATION OF THE SUBJECT, INCLUDING THE REALITY THAT "ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF SPEECH" DOES NOT EXIST, DESPITE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES TO THE CONTRARY. IT APPEARS THAT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, E.G. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW . . . ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. . ." WAS "SOMEHOW" ENDOWED WITH THE "INALIENABLE RIGHT" OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION TO CONSTRUE THE PROHIBITION IN SUCH A MANNER THAT "SPEECH" OF ANY KIND, IF IT "OFFENDS" SOMEONE; SOME GROUP; SOME BUSINESS; AND/OR SOME GOVERNMENT, ENTITLES THE "OFFENDED PARTY" TO ATTACK AND DESTROY THE PERSON WHO MADE THESE STATEMENTS.

THE ORIGINS OF THIS CONCEPT APPARENTLY EMANATE FROM THE "TYRANNY" OF ENGLISH COMMON LAW, FROM WHICH THE "TERRORISTS" (AS OUR FOREFATHERS WERE VIEWED BY THE BRITISH) SOUGHT THEIR FREEDOM, AND TO EARLIER CIVILIZATIONS, WHERE THOSE IN POWER USED THE CONCEPT OF CENSORSHIP TO "QUELL UNTO DEATH" THOSE WHO'S VIEWS DIFFERED FROM THOSE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.

SINCE THIS "UNAMBIGUOUS" RIGHT IS CLEARLY NOT PROVIDED TO ALL HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS TREATISE, IT MAY BE "ASSUMED" THAT THIS RIGHT BELONGS UNIQUELY TO CITIZENS SUBJECT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. IT FOLLOWS THEREFORE, THAT ONLY THESE "PROTECTED CITIZENS" ARE SUBJECT TO "PERSECUTION" (AND PROSECUTION) BY THOSE WHO WOULD PROFIT FROM SUCH ATTACKS.

TO DATE, TOM HAS NOT HEARD OF ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FOR PREJUDICE OR "DEFAMATION" (AS IT IS GENERALLY KNOWN) AGAINST THOSE WHO "SUGGEST" THAT SAID CITIZENS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY KILLED FOR THEIR BELIEF IN A CHRISTIAN GOD AND/OR FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF OTHERS WHO WISH TO LIVE IN PEACE UNDER A SET OF BELIEFS DIFFERENT FROM THE "ALIEN COMMUNICATORS".

GIVEN THE UBIQUITOUS NATURE OF CYBERSPACE, ONE MIGHT POSTULATE THAT THOSE SUBJECT TO OTHER SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENTS POSSESS THE "SAME RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH" AS U.S. CITIZENS, E.G. SPEECH IS "FREE" SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT "OFFEND" ANY OF THOSE IN POWER IN THOSE COUNTRIES, MANY OF WHICH ARE PRESENTLY DEEMED "REPRESSIVE" BY THIS COUNTRY. SADLY, "THE DIFFERENCE" IS DIFFICULT TO ELUCIDATE. PERHAPS ONE SHOULD ASK WHETHER THE MATERNAL ADVICE GIVEN TO MOST CHILDREN, E.G. "IF YOU CAN'T SAY SOMETHING NICE, THEN, DON'T SAY ANYTHING" IS TO BE THE "GUIDING PRINCIPLE" FOR THIS CORNERSTONE OF FREEDOM, BE IT IN A DEMOCRACY OR OTHER FORM OF "SELF RULE", WHERE "OPPRESSORS" ARE REELECTED ON A REGULAR BASIS DISTRESSINGLY SIMILAR TO OUR PRESENT SYSTEM.

SINCE WORLD WAR II, WHEN THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY THAT "CENSORSHIP" WAS NEEDED TO "PROTECT THE TROOPS", INDIVIDUALS WHO VOICED OPINIONS AND IDEAS CONTRARY TO SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE (POLITICALLY CORRECT?) NORMS HAVE BEEN INCREASINGLY SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT AND PERSECUTION BY THE GOVERNMENT; BY THE MEDIA; BY ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS AND NOW BY THE LEGAL DETERRENT TO ONES SURVIVAL, IF THE REPORTS ON "BLOGGING" ARE ACCURATE.

IN LESS THAN A LIFETIME, ONE CAN RECALL THE MACARTHUR FIASCO; THE MCCARTHY ERA; RACIAL AMBIGUITY, FROM JIMMY SNYDER TO DON IMUS; RELIGIOUS ADMONISHMENTS FROM CATHOLICISM TO ISLAM; ANITA BRYANT; LARRY SUMMERS; AND EVEN THE CURRENT PRESIDENT ON "LATE NIGHT TELEVISION", TO NAME A FEW WHO EXPRESSED IDEAS THAT BROUGHT SWIFT REBUKES FROM THE "WORD POLICE" AND, IN MOST INSTANCES, MORE SEVERE CONSEQUENCES.

INTERESTINGLY, MANY OF THE "FREEDOMS" THAT ARE SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE TODAY WERE ONCE TABOO TOPICS TO BE AVOIDED IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE (CENSORED?), IF NOT PRIVATE COMMUNICATION. TODAY, ONE OBSERVES INTERRACIAL COUPLES; HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS; INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ACCORDED TO RACE AND GENDER WITHOUT PREFERENCE; EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE WHO LACK NORMAL INTELLIGENCE; AND PERSONAL CONTROL OF "SOME" (IF NOT ALL) OF THE PERSONAL PREFERENCES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO PROCREATE OR TO AVOID THE PROCESS. IT SEEMS SELF EVIDENT THAT SUCH "RIGHTS" DID NOT EMANATE FROM THE "CENSORSHIP" OF IDEAS AND OPINIONS.

APPARENTLY, THE ONLY FORM OF "DISCRIMINATION" THAT IS STILL SOCIALLY (AND LEGALLY) ACCEPTABLE, E.G. PROTECTED FROM "PROTEST" IS "ECONOMIC" IN NATURE, WHERE THOSE WITH MONEY CAN "PRICE OUT" THE "UNDESIRABLES" AND THEREBY AVOID UNWANTED ASSOCIATIONS WITH PEOPLE WHOM THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE BE "FORCED" TO TOLERATE AS "MEMBERS OF THEIR GROUPS; THEIR ORGANIZATIONS" OR AS "NEIGHBORS" IN THEIR EXCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES UNDER THE "LIBERAL BILL OF RIGHTS", BUT, I DIGRESS.

WHAT ARE WRITERS AND/OR SPEAKERS TO DO? OF COURSE, THEY CAN "STOP WRITING OR SPEAKING", WHICH STIFLES MOST INTELLECTUAL QUESTIONING OF "ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR AND/OR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE", AS WELL AS ANY "RIGHTS" INDIVIDUALS MIGHT HAVE TO "DISAGREE" WITH THE "POWERS" WHO DECREE THAT THEY MUST CONFORM IN THOUGHT, WORD AND DEED TO "THE ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS OF THE DAY".

FROM COPERNICUS AND COLUMBUS TO LUTHER AND J. SMITH, ET. AL., ONE UNDERSTANDS THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH "CENSORSHIP". IT IS EVIDENCED IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE GLOBE WHERE CENSORSHIP" REIGNS SUPREME. IS THIS TO BE THE "LEGACY" OF THE "LIBERAL" BILL OF RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY?

FORTUNATELY, THERE APPEAR TO BE "SEVERAL" DEFENSES AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD "SILENCE" THEIR CRITICS. HOWEVER, THE VERY PROCESS OF "DEFENDING ONES RIGHTS" CAN BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO "MATERIALLY, IF NOT PHYSICALLY, DESTROY" A SPEAKER; WRITER; CINEMATOGRAPHER; ET. AL. AND/OR THE DISTRIBUTOR OF ANY COMMUNICATION SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHO ADHERE TO THE "LIBERAL" BILL OF RIGHTS. IRONICALLY, THE OBJECTS OF DISSENT (THE ESTABLISHMENT) OFTEN POSSESS THE "RIGHT" TO USE FUNDS FROM THE DISSENTER INVOLVED IN WHAT IS DEEMED "POLITICALLY INCORRECT COMMUNICATION" AGAINST THEM.

SINCE THE "ELEMENTS OF DISSENT" ARE SELDOM WELCOMED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT, WITH WHOM THE DISSENTERS DISAGREE, A "REASONABLE DEFENSE" AGAINST SUCH ATTACKS MIGHT RELATE TO THE "TRUTH" INVOLVED IN SUCH COMMUNICATION. ALAS, VERACITY SEEMS NOT TO BE A DEFENSE AGAINST "ATTACKS" BY THOSE WHO WISH TO "QUELL THE DISSENTER, EITHER BY INTIMIDATION OR BANKRUPTCY, REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS OF THE DISSENTER'S POSITION.

IT HAS "OCCURRED" TO THE AUTHOR THAT ALL ACTIONS AGAINST THOSE WHO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" SHOULD CARRY WITH THEM A "RECIPROCAL RESPONSIBILITY" ON THE "SUPPRESSORS". TOM SUGGESTS THAT THE ACCUSER(S) AND THEIR "MINIONS", SHOULD THEY FAIL TO JUSTIFY THEIR "ATTEMPTED DESTRUCTION" OF THE DISSENTER (E.G. FAIL TO PROVE THAT THE "OFFENSIVE" LANGUAGE IS FALSE), BE REQUIRED TO REMUNERATE THE "INTENDED VICTIM/DISSENTER" AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE "REMEDY" (USUALLY MONETARY) SOUGHT IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO "QUELL" THE SPEECH.

IF THERE IS ANY VALUE IN "FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION", VERACITY SHOULD BE THE "PRIMA FACIE" DEFENSE AGAINST ALL ATTEMPTS TO SUPPRESS SUCH COMMUNICATION OR DESTROY THE COMMUNICATOR. TOM ALSO POSTULATES THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF RECIPROCAL RESPONSIBILITY, IF APPLIED TO ALL LEGAL ACTIVITIES, HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ELIMINATE VIRTUALLY ALL LAWSUITS (FRIVOLOUS AND OTHERWISE) FOREVER, BUT, THAT IS ANOTHER TOPIC.

ANOTHER "REASONABLE" DEFENSE AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD "QUELL" PEACEFUL DISSENT, AS COMMUNICATION IS DEEMED, WOULD SEEM TO BE WHETHER THE "STATEMENTS" WERE ONES OF "OPINION" OR "FEELINGS" TO WHICH THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS "TRULY FREE CITIZENS" HAVE THE RIGHT OF EXPRESSION IN WHATEVER FORM IS AVAILABLE TO THEM. UNDER THE CURRENT "LIBERAL" BILL OF RIGHTS" EVEN THIS "EXPRESSION OF DISSENT" IS FRAUGHT WITH DANGER SHOULD ONES FEELINGS AND/OR OPINIONS BE CONSTRUED AS "OFFENSIVE" TO THOSE WITHIN THE "ESTABLISHMENT" OR THOSE WHO MIGHT PROFIT FROM SUCH "QUELLING". AS WITH THE CONCEPT OF "TRUTH", THE EXPRESSION OF "FEELINGS; BELIEFS; OPINIONS; IDEAS, ALBEIT CONTROVERSIAL ONES, SUCH AS A "FLAT EARTH" OR A "MOON OF GREEN CHEESE" OUGHT TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF A "FREE SOCIETY" AND NOT SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION BY OTHERS OR BY THE GOVERNMENT.

A RATHER FAMOUS "TERRORIST" (VOLTAIRE PARAPHRASED?) ONCE VOICED THE OPINION "I DISAPPROVE OF WHAT YOU SAY, BUT I WILL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT". SHOULD NOT THAT BE THE "OPERANT CRITERIA" FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

ONE WOULD THINK THAT OPPOSITION TO THE DELIBERATE "MISSTATEMENT OF FACTS" AS IS CUSTOMARY ON THE POLITICAL SCENE (AS OPPOSED TO "LIES" BY THOSE OUTSIDE POLITICS), WITH THE "INTENT" TO MISLEAD OR DO HARM TO OTHERS WOULD CERTAINLY SEEM TO BE A "REASONABLE LIMIT" ON FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION, BUT, THIS APPARENTLY IS NOT THE CASE EITHER.

IN FACT, THIS SEEMS TO BE THE "STOCK IN TRADE" OF GOVERNMENTS AND LARGE CORPORATIONS MORE INTERESTED IN THEIR OWN WELFARE, RATHER THAN THE DAMAGE THEY CAUSE TO OTHERS. OBVIOUSLY, IT IS MORE THAN "HELPFUL" IF SUCH CONDUCT CAN BE STAMPED "TOP SECRET" (OR TRADE SECRET) AND ACCESS TO THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE CONDUCT CANNOT BE OBTAINED, OR CAN BE "DELAYED" FOR MANY YEARS, BUT I DIGRESS. SADLY, THIS REALITY MEANS THAT MANY LIVES CAN BE LOST AND MUCH MONEY CAN BE ACCUMULATED BY THE "PERPETRATORS OF SUCH DISINFORMATION".

IT IS "STANDARD PRACTICE" TO HOLD THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO "PROVE INTENT" SO THE "PRACTITIONERS" OF THIS FORM OF CHICANERY, IN ADDITION TO COVERING THEIR ACTIVITIES WITH "TOP SECRET OR TRADE SECRET LABELS, ARE SELDOM HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. ANOTHER MODERN STRATEGY DESIGNED TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUTRIGHT LIES, IF NOT INCOMPETENCE OR GREED, IS THE APPOINTMENT OF A "COMMITTEE", WHICH MAKE THE "GUILTY" VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY, MUCH LESS, HOLD ACCOUNTABLE.

SINCE THE FOREGOING VIRTUALLY ELIMINATES ANY "REASONABLE DEFENSE" FOR "FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION:, IT SEEMS THAT THE "ONLY DEFENSE" AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD "QUELL" FREE SPEECH IS "OVERWHELMING FORCE" OR "ABJECT POVERTY" (WITHOUT THE PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH). AT LEAST, TOM CANNOT RECALL ANY NOTABLE "CASE LAW" WHERE A "DOMESTIC INDIGENT INDIVIDUAL" WAS ATTACKED FOR EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO "FREE SPEECH", REGARDLESS OF THEIR NATURE. NEITHER CAN HE RECALL ANY CITIZEN OF ANOTHER NATION BEING "HAULED INTO COURT" AND "RELIEVED" OF HIS WORLDLY POSSESSIONS, IF NOT DEPRIVED" OF HIS FREEDOM. OBVIOUSLY, "OUR SYSTEM" HAS NOT YET EVOLVED TO THE EXTENT THAT SOME OTHERS HAVE, BUT, WE SEEM TO BE "CATCHING UP".

IT IS A GIVEN THAT "ORGANIZED SEDITION" IS GENERALLY NOT WELL TOLERATED BY THOSE IN POWER, BUT, THE "ISSUE OF FREE SPEECH IN SEDITION" IS SELDOM A CONSIDERATION IN "MODERN QUELLING". FORTUNATELY, THERE EXISTS, WITHIN A DEMOCRACY, THE MEANS FOR "OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT "SIMPLY BY CASTING YOUR VOTE FOR OTHERS "MORE TO YOUR LIKING". UNFORTUNATELY, THERE SEEMS TO BE A DEARTH OF SUCH INDIVIDUALS IN OUR CURRENT "POLITICAL POOL" OF CANDIDATES, BUT I DIGRESS.

TERM LIMITS IMPOSED BY THE VOTERS SEEM LIKE A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE" AND IS COVERED IN ANOTHER TREATISE, SUGGESTING THAT "VOTERS" JOIN THE "T.I.O." (NOT THE TEA) MOVEMENT.

A SECOND STEP TOWARDS A "CITIZEN FRIENDLY" GOVERNMENT WOULD BE TO "REMOVE" THE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF "SECURITY" AND "FRONT OFFICE DRONES" WHO ARE THE "HALLMARKS" OF ANY TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT. THEY EXIST SIMPLY TO PROTECT THE "UNELECTED" ESTABLISHMENT OFFICIALS WHO CREATE "CHAOS"(ISSUING "EDICTS" AND WRITING INTERMINABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS) FROM WITHIN THEIR "IMPREGNABLE SANCTUARIES". IT IS "POSTULATED" THAT A "FRUSTRATED ELECTORATE", GIVEN ACCESS TO THEIR "TORMENTORS", WOULD SOON PUT A STOP TO THE "SHADOW GOVERNMENT" THAT PRESENTLY EXISTS.

RETURNING TO THE "CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT" TO FREE SPEECH, ONE MUST SERIOUSLY ENTERTAIN THE REALITY THAT "NO SUCH RIGHT EXISTS", EXCEPT IN THE ABSTRACT. THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES WHERE "REPUTABLE" PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ESSENTIALLY "DESTROYED" FOR "SPEAKING OUT" ABOUT SUBJECTS THAT ARE "DEEMED DAMAGING" (OR OFFENSIVE) TO OTHERS AND/OR THE ESTABLISHMENT. EVERY "WHISTLE BLOWER" KNOWS FULL WELL THAT THEIR LIVES WILL BE FOREVER CHANGED (USUALLY IN A NEGATIVE DIRECTION) BY THEIR CONCERNS RELATED TO "NEFARIOUS ACTIVITIES" IN THEIR AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT OR PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT.

ONE SURMISES THAT THIS IS THE "DRIVING FORCE" BEHIND THE "ROBOTIC BEHAVIOR" ONE ENCOUNTERS WHEN INTERACTING WITH GOVERNMENT OR BUSINESS. THE CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT OF SUCH "ROBOTS" DEPENDS UPON "ADHERING" TO THE "RULES AND REGULATIONS" DESIGNED ONLY TO PREVENT THEM FROM BEING "HONEST AND/OR EFFICIENT" IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH THE PUBLIC, BUT I DIGRESS.

THE EXISTENCE OF A "LAW TO THE CONTRARY" OFFERS LITTLE REAL PROTECTION TO THOSE WHO EXPRESS VIEWPOINTS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT FROM THE "PARTY LINE" OR REVEAL "HIDDEN AGENDAS" WITHIN THEIR SPHERE OF KNOWLEDGE, AS IS EVIDENT IN RECENT "OFFENSIVE" (TO THE PERPETRATORS) REVELATIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
A) "COST CUTTING" AT THE EXPENSE OF SAFETY;
B) ACTIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT OUTSIDE THE "BOUNDS OF HUMANITY";
C) BRIBES (SWEETHEART DEALS?) BETWEEN "CONTRIBUTORS" AND THOSE WITH ABILITY TO INFLUENCE DECISIONS FOR THE "BENEFIT" OF SUCH "CONTRIBUTORS"; AND
D) THE ACTIVITIES OF LOBBYISTS WIELDING POWER OVER THE SWORN "PROTECTORS" OF THE CITIZENS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEIR CLIENTS; AMONG OTHERS.

FINALLY, THERE ARE THE "REPUTABLE INDIVIDUALS" WHO "MISSPEAK" IN THEIR LINE OF WORK, BY "COMMUNICATING" WHAT IS CONSIDERED "OFFENSIVE" (POLITICALLY INCORRECT?) TO SOME INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS. OF COURSE, THEY ARE "SUMMARILY" REPRIMANDED (OR FIRED) FOR THEIR "INDISCRETION". TWO "BROADCASTERS", ONE OF EITHER GENDER, READILY COME TO MIND.

SINCE "CONDUCT" IS ALSO CONSTRUED AS "SPEECH", OTHERS, ESPECIALLY IN THE "ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS, ARE OFTEN CASTIGATED, SHOULD THEY "MOUTH" VARIOUS "TABOO WORDS" OR "EXPOSE" CERTAIN "FORBIDDEN PARTS" OF THEIR BODIES IN THE COURSE OF THEIR CHOSEN WORK (OR RECEPTION OF AWARDS FOR THE SAME). FORTUNATELY (FOR SOME) THERE DOES SEEM TO BE A "DOUBLE STANDARD" WITHIN SOCIETY, WHERE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ARE "FORGIVEN" FOR USING "PEJORATIVE TERMS", WHILE OTHERS ARE HELD UP AS "PREJUDICED BIGOTS" SHOULD THEY CHOOSE THE SAME WORDS.

THIS "DOUBLE STANDARD" ALSO SEEMS TO PERMEATE SOCIETY WHERE ORGANIZATIONS (FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY) ARE CONCERNED. ONE QUESTIONS THE LEGAL RATIONALE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS ENHANCING AND PROMOTING AN AGENDA BASED ON RACE, WHILE OTHERS, OF DIFFERENT RACES, ARE DENIED SIMILAR "RIGHTS TO ASSEMBLE".

THAT THE "SAME YARDSTICK" SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL IN A "JUST SOCIETY" SHOULD BE A GIVEN. HOWEVER, IN ADDITION TO THE RACIAL DIVIDE, ONE IS ALSO RIVETED BY "GENDER" DISCRIMINATION, WHERE IT IS "ACCEPTABLE" FOR ONE GENDER TO ORGANIZE TO "ENHANCE AND PROMOTE" ACTIVITIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF "THEIR GENDER", WHILE THE "OTHER GENDER" IS CASTIGATED AND/OR DENIED THE SAME LICENSE.

IN ACADEMIA, THE MERE "POSTULATION OF DIFFERENCES" BETWEEN RACES AND GENDERS IS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY "VEHEMENT ATTACKS" AND TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE "DISSENTING VOICE". ANY REASONABLE PERSON KNOWS THAT THERE EXISTS AN "ACADEMIC NECESSITY" FOR UNLIMITED THOUGHT AND CIVIL DISCOURSE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS, SHOULD THERE BE ANY HOPE FOR "PROGRESS" IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY OR CIVILIZATION.

THE "MUCH BALLYHOOED" SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT) ALSO SEEMS TO BE IN THE FOREFRONT OF NATIONAL ATTENTION. THERE ARE "SOME RELIGIONS" (USUALLY FUNDAMENTALIST IN THEIR PERSUASION) WHO BELIEVE THAT OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD "ADHERE" TO THEIR PARTICULAR BELIEFS, MUCH AS THE TALIBAN BELIEVES THAT GOVERNMENTS IN THE ARAB WORLD SHOULD ADHERE TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. THIS "ATTITUDE" DEVOLVES INTO MANY AREAS, NOT ONLY IN THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF "PLACES OF WORSHIP", BUT, INTO THE FUNDING OF "SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH" AND THE "CONDUCT" OF PROGRAMS THAT "MIGHT" PROTECT INDIVIDUALS FROM EVERYTHING FROM "UNWANTED CONCEPTION" TO "FATAL DISEASES".

THERE ARE OTHER RELIGIONS THAT SIMPLY WISH "THE ESTABLISHMENT" WOULD ALLOW THEM TO "WORSHIP" AND LIVE AS THEY BELIEVE IS CORRECT FOR THEMSELVES AS INDIVIDUALS. WHILE ONE MIGHT QUESTION THE "SELF-SERVING" NATURE OF "CHURCHES" THAT BELIEVE IN LIFESTYLES WHICH ARE "DIFFERENT" FROM MAINSTREAM LIFESTYLES (INCLUDING DRUG USE AND VARIOUS FORMS OF FAMILY ORGANIZATION), THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE "NO EXCUSE" FOR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THESE PEOPLE, MUCH LESS MILITARY STYLE ATTACKS, AND "POLICE HARASSMENT" OF INDIVIDUALS WHO "VOLUNTARILY" CHOOSE TO "DRINK THE COOL AID", AS IT WERE. THE PERCEPTIONS OF VOLTAIRE PERSIST AS THEY "STUBBORNLY RESIST" THE HEAVY HAND OF GOVERNMENT IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS".

IF HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE ANY VALIDITY, THEN THE FREEDOM TO "CHOOSE" IS FUNDAMENTAL TO EVERYTHING ELSE. WITH APOLOGIES TO THE "NINE OLD PEOPLE IN LONG ROBES", IT IS "SUGGESTED" THAT THE "FREEDOM" OF THE POWERFUL TO "IMPOSE" THEIR "CHOICES" ON OTHERS IS "NOT" THE WELLSPRING OF FREEDOM AS ENVISIONED BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

ONE "UNDERSTANDS" THAT CITIZENS STRUGGLE MIGHTILY, UNDER THE TRIUMVIRATE OF AN "EXECUTIVE BRANCH" CAPABLE OF EXERCISING WHATEVER FORCE IT DEEMS "NECESSARY", BE IT CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT; A LEGISLATIVE BRANCH THAT IS "BEHOLDEN" TO SPECIAL INTERESTS AND GROUPS WHO PROVIDE "CONTRIBUTIONS" IN EXCHANGE FOR "FAVORABLE TREATMENT" IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF LAWS; AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH THAT "PRONOUNCES" THE EXTENT TO WHICH SAID GOVERNMENT MAY "REINTERPRET" THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ONCE AFFORDED TO ALL CITIZENS. IN OUR FAST FADING "NOBLE EXPERIMENT" IN SELF-GOVERNANCE, INDIVIDUALS "EXERCISE THEIR FREEDOMS" AT THEIR OWN PERIL.

SADLY, THE "HYDRA" MUTATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE "EMULATED" BY THE VARIOUS STATES AND "THEIR" PROGENY, THE COUNTIES AND CITIES. ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT EXERCISE "UNBELIEVABLE POWER" THAT "CURTAILS" (NOT ENHANCES) THE FREEDOM OF EVERY CITIZEN AT EVERY POINT IN THEIR LIVES WHILE THEY "EXTRACT THEIR TRIBUTE" IN EVERY FORM OF "TAX AND FEE" THAT THEY CAN CONJURE UP SO LONG AS IT CAN BE "HIDDEN" FROM THE VICTIMS WHO VOTE FOR THEM.

THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT "A LIMITED FORM OF GOVERNMENT" IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A VIABLE NATION, BUT, IT IS THE SHARED VIEWPOINT OF MANY THAT "OUR GOVERNMENT" HAS BECOME AN "EXCESSIVE BURDEN" WHICH "ORDINARY CITIZENS" NOW SEEM READY TO REIN IN. SADLY, AS WITH LEMMINGS APPROACHING THE CLIFF, IT MAY BE TOO LATE.

OTHER THAN THE AFOREMENTIONED "INDIGENT INDIVIDUAL", ONE SEEKS IN VAIN FOR A SOLITARY HUMAN BEING WILLING TO "EXERCISE" THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN "HOLDING ACCOUNTABLE" THOSE WHO HAVE ABROGATED THE TRUST PLACED IN THEM. OBVIOUSLY, HE/SHE WILL NOT BE FOUND IN THE "ESTABLISHMENT" OR TOLERATED BY THEM.

AS ALWAYS, THERE ARE "REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES" TO THE PRESENT "INDENTURED SERVANT" TREATMENT OF CITIZENS BY GOVERNMENT, BUT, AS WITH "ALL REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES", THEY USUALLY ARE NOT "ENTERTAINED" BY THOSE IN POWER, UNTIL CONDITIONS DETERIORATE TO A POINT SIMILAR TO THOSE THAT PRODUCED THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. TOM HAS POSTULATED FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS THAT THE "LET THEM EAT CAKE" POINT JUST MIGHT ARRIVE ABOUT 2015. FOLLOWING THE "DEBACLES" OF THE LAST 2 YEARS, HE NOW HOPES THAT THIS WAS NOT "TOO OPTIMISTIC".

ONE MIGHT ALSO FIND SUCH A "REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE" TO THE PRESENT ABRIDGMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH (CENSORSHIP VIA ALL REPRESSIVE METHODS) IN THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT HEINLEIN WHERE HE PRESENTED HIS VIEW OF A "'UTOPIAN SOCIETY" FOLLOWING THE OVERTHROW OF THE THEOCRACY THAT SUCCEEDED (REPLACED?) OUR CURRENT OMNIPRESENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT WITH THEIR OWN INTOLERABLE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. AS ALWAYS, SUCH TOTALITARIAN INSTITUTIONS ARE REPLETE WITH "EXTENSIVE SECURITY" (SIMILAR TO PRESENT DAY CORPORATE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS) DESIGNED TO PROTECT THOSE IN POWER FROM THEIR "LOYAL SUBJECTS". THE "SPECIFICS" MAY BE FOUND IN THE RATIONALE FOR FREE SPEECH OF AN "INGENIOUS LITTLE GIRL" NAMED PERSEPHONE WHO LIVED IN THE NETHER LAND OF "COVENTRY".

REMEMBER! FREEDOM IS AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT, AS ARE JUSTICE AND EQUALITY. TO STRIVE TO "PROTECT" FREEDOM IS A CONTINUAL PROCESS, WHICH OFTEN GETS LOST IN THE "CONTENTMENT" OF AN OVERFED POPULATION, BASKING IN THE LUXURY OF "TOO MANY" FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENT PRODUCTS. STUDENTS OF ROMAN HISTORY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS VERY WELL.

IT IS POSTULATED BY THE AUTHOR (AND OTHERS) THAT THE "DELICATE BALANCE" WHICH DETERMINES WHETHER THERE WILL BE AN "UPRISING" BY THE "CITIZENS" HAS BEEN MAINTAINED FOR DECADES BY A GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR ABRIDGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS OF MANY, INCLUDING THE USE OF "SMOKE AND MIRROR FINANCING". THIS PROCESS HAS CREATED AN "INSURMOUNTABLE DEBT" THAT WILL "SUPPOSEDLY" BE "PAID IN FULL BY OUR GRANDCHILDREN, BORN AND UNBORN AND THE "BILL" IS COMING DUE.

SINCE 1967, TOM HAS POSTULATED THAT THESE "DEFENSELESS" HUMAN BEINGS WILL NOT TAKE "KINDLY" TO THE "OBLIGATIONS" BEING FOISTED UPON THEM BY "THE POWERFUL" AND "THE GREEDY", WHO HAVE BENEFITED FROM THIS TREACHERY. THE ONLY "OPTIONS" SEEN AT THE PRESENT TIME ARE LIMITED TO: 1) "REPUDIATION" OF ALL SUCH DEBTS (A PHENOMENON NOT WITHOUT PRECEDENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES) OR 2) THE EXPENDITURE OF LARGE SUMS OF MONEY FOR INK (TO PAY FOR PRINTING MONEY AS FAST AS POSSIBLE) TO "PAY OFF" THE "LESS THAN ASTUTE" HOLDERS OF WORTHLESS PAPER" AS PAYMENT IN FULL FOR THEIR "FOLLY". NEITHER PROSPECT WOULD SEEM TO HOLD MUCH PROMISE FOR "PEACE AND PROSPERITY" IN THE FUTURE AND THAT IS REASON FOR "SERIOUS CONCERN "IN MY OPINION".

OF COURSE, IT "MAY BE" THAT THE AUTHOR IS NOT ENTITLED TO VOICE HIS "OPINION". VAMOS A VER.

ENJOY,

TOM

localnotions.blogspot.com