The importance, and sometimes necessity, of anonymity

Why do we have a Constitutional Amendment protecting the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press? Because prior to these protections the government enjoyed censorship and revisionist media. They didn't like folks to speak ill of them or to inform the electorate of their activity. Those who did received retribution and laws were passed to prevent further negative reporting. And not just in our country but all over the world (at the time). And so we have protections and have enjoyed these freedoms for quite some time. Until fairly recently.

When George W. was disgracing the Oval Office he forbid the press from publishing certain things. Most notably images of dead soldiers returning home from Iraq. These images truly drove home to many the meaning of this war and how very unjust and evil it was. And when your are either wickedly religious or courting this base of voters you can't let them see how awful they really are. Truth to these people is like water to fire; dangerous and deadly.

This Mr. Bush also went to great lengths to "claim" executive privilege so that those who sigh his paycheck could not know what he was up to. He's not alone in this, Mr. Obama is also committing to a tenure of protectionism and secrecy worthy of only those whose wicked deeds should remain hidden lest they be found out. Even here in Chicago our elected officials have worked to quash negative press by keeping secrets. Ask Mr. Daley the important questions and you will surely get no answers.

And so we have now resorted to anonymous blogging in order to get out the truth and get AT the truth to what is happening in our government.

What, you may be asking, brought about this particular column on this particular day? As you all should know by this time Sarah Palin has resigned her post of governor of Alaska without fulfilling her very first commitment to the post. A blogger in Alaska has written about a rumor of investigation against Ms. Palin for corruption. A blogger, I'm sure, very few have ever heard of. Sarah's lawyers have already begun cleanup. They have, pre-emptively I might add, already threatened a lawsuit against CNN, MSNBC, FOX, The New York Times, and The Huffington Post should any of them decide to report on this rumored lawsuit. These lawyers are claiming this reporting is defamation and libel. So much for the First Amendment. So much for the Constitution. We can only hope these large media outlets research and report, against the demands of politicians who wish to operate outside the watchful eyes of those who elect them. It would be a travesty if the rumor were true and we only found out after an important event because news outlets caved to government pressure and abandoned our Constitution.

But they've already begun that process. And that is sad and shameful.

Chuck

Happy Holiday

Today we revel in our Independence. Today we celebrate freedom. Today we embrace our country.

We have NAMBLA catholics in America. We have christians and jews. We have mormons and jehova's witnessess. We have agnostics and secular humanists. We have muslims and buddhists. We have every religion imaginable. While we may not agree with some or any we still rejoice in their being and the freedom they have to be who they are in our United States.

We, too, have Republicans and Democrats and Independents. We have the Cool Moose Party and the Green Party. We have parties many of us have never heard of with platforms built of outrageous and bigoted planks. And, also, in these we rejoice their being and the freedom they have to be who they are.

And we have blacks and whites. We see Indians and Asians and Canadians and Native Americans. We have communities of Irish and Italians and Russians and Cambodians. Neighborhoods comprised of Latinos/as and Spaniards and French and Ethiopians and South Africans both black and white.

In America are Elks and Kiwanis and Four H and Knights of Columbus and Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. We have non-profits and for-profits. Big Business and small business. We have cities and countries and rich and poor. In America we have everyone.

Today we will celebrate the differences and the diversity of our Country. We will light fireworks representing our deliverance to freedom. Today is our day of Independence, July 4th. And while there may still be some in our land that are not fully free we smile on our moving forth toward correcting injustice and our yearning that all breathe free.

Today we let the bells of freedom ring. Have a happy and safe holiday.

Chuck

This man is an asshat.

With freedom comes responsibility. And if you can't properly handle that responsibility than you should be slapped. Yes, I know that is advocating violence but some people are just irresponsible assholes that need proper reprimanding. I could say they should not be allowed to write in a public forum or open their mouth if another if human being is within earshot but that would go against all that I hold dear, our First Amendment. I know you are all wondering, "What is he talking about?"

Here it is. You see, Mr. Dahlgren is passing on an e-mail he received and allowing his audience to believe it is truth. Mr. Dahlgren, you do no one, including your audience and your cause, a good service. You are, essentially, treating them with contempt in your assumption that they will believe something simply because you post it on your site. Mr. Dahlgren is a poor poster of "news" and should have given appropriate caveats to this column.

There are some very important fallacies contained in the e-mail he received and he has not only believed them himself but allowed his readers to believe them. The e-mail lists certain paraphilias as sexual orientations. This website goes into great detail as to why these are NOT orientations, and it can be taken as a good source because of the research the writer went through and the appropriate sources she cited for her determination. Mr. Dahlgren should have done even a minuscule amount of research and he would have been able to write a truthful, informative piece. In its stead he chose to purpetuate lies and hatred to further a cause.

It is truly sad when someone puts their own ideal above truth. We should all strive to remain curious for better education about topics we deem important. We should do due diligence before writing or "reporting" on something. I still receive e-mails that Bill Gates will send me money if I forward an e-mail to everyone in my list. Really? Really. And those who send it truly believe it and do no research before sending it along. Have any of these people received their checks? No, yet they continue to send it along EVERY time it pops into their inboxes. The same stupidity can be attributed to Mr. Dahlgren. Why?

Well, this Bill has been floating around for some time. And several of those folks who have written about this whole "pedophile" thing have been proven wrong and hate filled. It stands to reason that someone as "enlightened" as Mr. Dahlgren would have know about those corrections and simply deleted this bogus e-mail. Alas he did what right wing hate filled people do and decided to march on with incorrect rhetoric and spread the hate a little more. As the saying goes, "If you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth." Way to go, sir. Let me guess, you told your wife and kids you love them, too, didn't you? And I would be willing to wager a buck you swear by your religious affiliation.

Chuck

Anti Semites Unite!

This has not been a good week for Jews. Is there no end to the persecution?

Earlier this week Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, expressed disgust over "them Jews" not letting him speak with or see his former parishioner. Now, for those of you who are not familiar with conservative evangelicals, this manner of speech against Jews isn't an anomaly. Growing up conservative baptist I heard this all the time, though it was usually followed up by some sort of praise for the Jews because, after all, they are god's chosen people. And while they may have it all wrong for not believing in Jesus and are most definitely going to hell because of it, god did choose them first so we must not speak ill of them. Well, now Mr. Wright is offering an apology. Nice.

Let us remember another "famous" person extolling Jewish virtue from several years back. Mel Gibson had so many wonderful things to say about these folks that he was forced to issue an apology. Poor guy.

These two guys are very religious. They work very hard to impose their views and moral code on the masses. Both are openly anti-gay. I don't think it would be a stretch to assume they would love more legislation championing their respective religious gods. Yet they spew hatred of others. They say that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission, and perhaps that is true. But what these two religious people should also consider is their own religious text that states, "from the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks." Matthew 12:34. Spoken by their Jesus.

How good can these people be? I'm guessing not much. By their own sword their hearts are wicked.

And this week the national Holocaust Museum was shot up by another anti Semite. Tragic. Once can only guess how emboldened to action he may have been by other's hate speech and rhetoric.

What one says matters. Pat Robertson and his hate might disagree, Jeremiah Wright might not, either, and Mel, well, what can I say about this strict catholic who's divorcing amid infidelity? With morals like these guys have, who needs religion?

Chuck

My apologies

In the writing classes I've taken we rely on honest peer review. These are the equivalents of editors in professional publications and are not only helpful but necessary for quality writing. It has come to my attention that I have more peer reviewers of this blog than I thought and I welcome the critique and correction.

My last post was quite the mess of information. First, I was unclear in stating my point. Second, there was a glaring error. Two readers pointed this out in the comment section and my thanks goes out to them. I would like to fix these two points in this post.

I'm going to start with the error. John is correct in his statement that there is no law preventing freedom of speech. The hate crimes legislation simply considers crime based on certain criteria "hate crimes" against protected peoples. The new legislation is meant to clarify this and specify new classes as protected. It is not attempting to limit the freedom of speech or inhibit it as I might have implied in my previous post. This implication may have been explicit or implicit but was not intended. I should have spent more time reviewing my post before posting it and I would have caught this.

The point of my last post was also muddled. When this was first pointed out to me by Uzza I didn't see it and came across rather harshly. With their clarification I began to understand the point of the comment tried to clarify my post. A favorite quote from a friend of mine when we would discuss personal difficulties of mine would be, "Can you please be a bit more vague, I think I'm understanding you too well." Being sarcastic myself, this often prompted me to be far more specific than I was used to being.

My point from last post: I don't believe in government censorship. I do, however, believe in personal censorship and think that individuals should have private filters that work between their brains and their mouths to prevent certain things from being said. The radio hosts linked to in my last post engaged in their right to free speech when they spoke of beating innocent children simply because they didn't like them. Aside from being mean spirited this kind of talk could, quite possibly, embolden someone to act accordingly. It was this type of talk that "allowed" a school student to kill another student simply because the other student was different. One student was raised hearing homophobic hate speech and, when the other expressed his attraction to this student of the same sex, shot him. The rhetoric he heard regularly "allowed" this action. When anti-choice people consistently label abortion doctors and women using these services "murderers" they diminish their human-ness and reduce them to evil "others" deserving of death. This speech "allows" folks like Mr. Roerden, the gentleman who recently shot an abortion provider in a church, to feel justified in ridding the world of such beasts. When Greenpeace labels lumberjacks "rapists of the earth" they justify the spiking of trees and the injury or death of those "rapists".

It's unfortunate that these are repercussions of our First Amendment. It would be fantastic of people understood and considered the consequences of their actions before committing to them audibly or in written form but, alas, we aren't all the concerned with consequences these days.

I hope this post is clearer than the last and I apologize for that miscommunication. Thank you for your honest peer review and thank you so much for reading.

Chuck

"Yes, we can!"

But that doesn't mean that we should. With freedoms come responsibilities. When we are children we are taught respect for others and acceptance of different cultures and peoples, with their religions and cultures and ways of live. We are America and consist of myriad ways to enjoy our being. Part of that enjoyment is being able to express ourselves freely however we choose. Some of us write, some of us draw or paint. Some utilize other media such as photography or acting. However it is you choose to express your opinions and thoughts and ideas is protected with our First Amendment.


Well, in the over two hundred years since this was firmly established within our Constitution and practiced by the many in our country, there are those who feel there are no responsibilities attached to these freedoms; that their freedom to speak and to be heard should allow them to run unencumbered by any responsibility for their speech whatsoever. And, as they say, one bad apple...


Many of those folks are religious and feel that speaking hatred about the "other" with whom they don't agree is not only their right but their "god"-given duty. Take Pat Robertson, a very outspoken televangelist I have mentioned here before. He is, once again, speaking out about the danger of homosexuality and it's impending slippery slope of aberration. Yes, the godless fags will soon be having sex with all manner of animals; and he specifically mentions ducks. And, of course, at the same time mentions pedophilia because, as statistics show, gays must molest children in order to recruit. They can't just breed the little fuckers to increase the gay population, after all. You would think he would reserve that for the NAMBLA catholics but, alas, that may be just too close to home.


Others who like to spread the hate are radio talk show hosts. Theirs is a little more dangerous because they like to incite violence against "others" they don't like. Pat Robertson may want to listen to this little diatribe against children. These radio hosts honestly believe that beating innocent children is a worthwhile endeavor if it achieves the desired results. They learn well from the "ways justify the means" crowd and all the ethics and morals that go with it.


And then you have the anti-whatever groups. Like right-wing right to lifers. A doctor was killed IN CHURCH last week. He performed late-term abortions and religious nuts didn't like him. He had a history of violence and hate speech perpetrated against him so often that he had body guards. Last week they got him; because killing a live person who's business you know very little about is better than aborting a fetus that won't live outside the womb. Greenpeace is like this, too. For them it's better to beat a harp seal hunter to death with a club than it is for a hunter to beat a harp seal; humanity is worth far less than harp seals. They also peg trees with large metal spikes, trees that are marked for clear cutting on private property by privately owned companies. Again, Greenpeace thinks it's better to violently harm humanity than it is for people to chop down a renewable resource.


Many of these groups are now on the defensive because of the doctor who was killed IN CHURCH last week. They are defending their freedom of speech by claiming that they never called for violence against anyone. But when you define someone as a "murderer of children" or a "baby killer" or another hateful moniker you are encouraging violence. Freedom of Speech is not a no-strings-attached freedom. We are all held accountable for what comes out of our mouths in one way or another.

This image could, very well, be adjusted to any number of hateful organizations in the world today. It would fit Pat Robertson to a "T", as it would fit those disgusting radio hosts or pro-lifers or Greenpeace or Focus on the Family or Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps.

So, while we are able to say whatever we like we should also remember that there are affects. Someone will feel it. Hate speech legislation is important for this reason, to keep people accountable for what they say. And it protects those who are against this legislation, too; religious folks. And while I'm no fan of censorship I am a fan of personal responsibility. Something some folks who talk know nothing about.

Chuck

Are Republicans relatable any longer?

There's a lot of talk about the sinking ship that is the Republican Party. They're losing the voting base and, because of dwindling support, are grasping at straws to be something meaningful. The religious part of their support has turned into a pariah for most people. Is it the GW debacle that has turned people off to religion and the GOP? They shifted too far to the right and narrowed their views too much for main stream voters.

So they chose an African-American as their chairman. A desperate attempt to draw in more minorities without alienating the male-centric ego and giving the white affluent male a warm fuzzy feeling. Too bad this guy is just a dancing monkey. His performance so far has been less than stellar and borderline embarrassing. But check out his latest effort to demonize the homosexual community and rally the money-men; he says that if you allow same-sex marriages than companies that once didn't recognize them or allow same-sex benefits would now be forced to. This would increase expenditures and reduce the bottom line.

I find this fitting for the party of religious kooks to reduce marriage to a monetary drain on society and eliminate any love and commitment in the institution. Marriage is one gigantic financial burden on companies now. So that's what is so sacrosanct, that is what is so important to married couples. While we all knew this to be the reason for matrimony it's nice to see the GOP finally saying it aloud. It's not the religious ceremony that makes marriage sacred but, in stead, the bottom line.

Way to go!