Because Facebook Is Being Snotty....

...I'll post it here.

Facebook is making it more difficult to share posts now...but I had to share this.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iMbRfAO1z-DFT7Z7HsFmadldPCUrVrcR/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VEFL62PPtmd1odEd6AxnRR8XLGV3b2QU/view?usp=sharing

Commentary: Opinion, Free Speech, Choice, and "The Right To Lie"

 In reply to this article in the "CT Examiner" (1).  

We are indeed faced with great troubles and challenges in the America that we call home.  In Connecticut alone, crime has greatly increased, not to mention the ever-rising cost of living.  Education is now a controversial subject, as is whether or not one chooses to be vaccinated against COVID.  And in Hartford, many of our elected politicians only give lip service to the idea that the people have a voice.  

Against this backdrop, Mr. Deshefy opines that liberty and freedom of speech are outdated notions.  Using big words like "cavalcading", he tries to convince the reader that these ideas are examples of "extremism", even going so far as to call critics "stupid".  

Allow me to address some of Mr. Deshefy's statements.  

• "Cancel culture" is a "myth"

I guess the author forgot about Disney and Dr. Seuss being overwhelmingly censored, simply because of (for example) there are illustrations depicting characters who are Chinese.  And actress Gina Carano has been "canceled" not for saying outlandish statements, but for posting facts on various social media accounts (2).  Perhaps I'm wrong, but these instances of censorship don't seem like myths or "tall tales" to me.  

• "When we give license to the injurious and facts take backseats to belief, freedom of speech becomes gnarly and twisted"

Opinions and beliefs notwithstanding, what does the author believe is "injurious" (that is, causing injury)? I submit that it is not his place to decide for others what is opinion, and what is fact.  

• "No one has First Amendment rights to defraud by lying, or (to) falsely accuse a citizen"

Let me clarify something here.  The First Amendment protects one's right to worship in accordance with their beliefs (or if they choose, not worship at all).  It also protects rights to free speech, a free press, peaceful protest, and the right to ask the government to do or not do something.  Nowhere does it speak of lying, or saying things that some might find to be "offensive" (3).  Thus, the author himself is making a false claim; he is assigning the Amendment a meaning that does not exist.  

• "Legal entitlements to public self-expression are neither constitutionally guaranteed nor vital to the nation, if...they spawn dangerous elements"

On this topic, I find myself to be in agreement.  As with most other rights, the rights of free speech and free expression are not absolute.  You don't have the right to express yourself in any manner that might endanger the safety of others, or infringe on their own free speech rights (this is where the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" example comes in).  Similarly, you can't express serious intent to commit any "imminent lawless action".  

• "Freedom of speech isn't a license to beguile or deceive"

Perhaps not, but it doesn't disallow possible deception, either.  Again, there is nothing in the First Amendment that precludes lying.  Whether or not to be honest is a choice that the Constitution leaves to the individual.  In my opinion, this is right and proper.  

• "There was a time when Americans routinely doffed their hats and extended common courtesies without feeling stripped of their rights. We could improve by such politeness again"

Yes, we probably could improve in this way.  In recent years, manners and chivalry seem to have become things of the past, at least to some extent.  Holding a door open for someone, or silencing your phone at dinner, isn't just good etiquette; it's good sense.  

• "After all, how hard is it to be politically correct, protect one another...wear masks and avoid prolonging a pandemic?"

Regardless of how difficult it might be to do as such, these choices are up to each of us as individuals.  If you choose to wear a mask, I'm not going to say that you can't, as it's not up to me.  In the same manner, if I decide not to wear a mask, the author shouldn't demand that I do so.  After all, we're talking about my life, not his.  As long as someone's choices don't clearly physically harm another, they should be left to their own devices.  That's what liberty is all about.   

Reading the Riot Act

I've said this before, but it bears repeating.  

Right now, things in Connecticut are in a tailspin; they've been that way for the last three years.  In my opinion, the proper remedy for what's happening would be to at least impeach the governor, and force him to answer to the state legislature.  Unfortunately, the General Assembly's hands are effectively tied, since they cannot meet unless the governor calls them into special session.  

I find that the situation is approaching that which led to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.  Allow me a moment to explain this.   

The purpose of the Declaration was to disclose the tyrannic practices of King George, and assert that due to this tyranny, it had become "neccessary" for the thirteen colonies to govern themselves.  In a similar manner to the Declaration, "let facts be submitted to a candid world" (1).  

The history of the present governor of Connecticut is a "history of repeated injuries and usurpations".  He has:

• Refused his assent to laws that are neccessary for the public good. 

• Made municipalities obtain his permission to enact neccessary laws.  Where such permission has been sought, the governor has utterly neglected to attend to such matters.  

• Effectively abandoned legislative representation, because some members of the General Assembly have opposed "with manly firmness" his invasions on the rights of the people (1, 2). 

• Made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices.  

• "Sent hither swarms of officers to harass the people, and eat out their substance"

• Suspended operation of the legislature unless they, on his whim alone, are called into special session.  

• Declared himself invested with power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.  

• Unreasonably infringed on the rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom of religion. 

• Encouraged violent crime by tying the hands of law enforcement, and refusing to address the safety and protection of the people (3, 4).  

• Declared the right to bear arms to be non-existant (5).  

• Plundered our towns, and "destroyed the lives" and livelihoods of the people (2).  

In doing these things, the governor has "undermined the integrity of his office, betrayed his trust, and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury..." of the people of the State of Connecticut (6).  

Furthermore, "in every stage of these oppressions", the people "have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms".  As it was in colonial days, "repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injur(ies)" (1).  

So, how do "we the people" of Connecticut change the current situation? How do we make things better, and get the state back on its feet again? The only way to do this is to demand accountibility from our government, and "vote the bums out" in 2022.  Otherwise, to quote the late comic George Carlin, things will "never get any better.  Be happy with what you got".  

It's now or never, folks.  It's time for a change!

(Apologies for the vulgarity in the video below; remarks cited start at 1:36) (7)

Just Another Rant (Or Two)

Just when you think life in the State of Connecticut can't get any worse, it does.  

Let's talk about it:

• Draconian and continued restrictions on business (not to mention sky-high taxes) have sent the state's economy into a tailspin.  

Here's a quick example of what local businesses are facing.   It appears that the small store across the street from me will be closing up for good at the end of the year.  They're already down to almost bare bones, and the owner of the place says that continued operation is "not worth it".

• Connecticut is in the midst of an epidemic of violent crime.

One day, it's "somebody got shot at one of the casinos" (1).  The next time, it's "somebody got their car stolen"; the next, it's "cops on a routine traffic stop were shot at".  Nevertheless, something happens every single day.  Yet by recently enacted state law, there's almost nothing that law enforcement can do to address this issue.  All the while, the liberals that run this state say "we've done what we can" (2).  A word of advice to those visiting Connecticut: "watch your back, Jack"!

• There is no form of state-wide representative government in existance. 

Stop me if you've heard this one before; every state is guaranteed to have a government "of the people" (3).  That apparently doesn't apply to Connecticut.  I can hear you now; "well, what about the legislative branch"? Ah, "there's the rub".  

Normally, the General Assembly would be the organ of representative government for this state.  So what's the problem? Namely, it is that the Assembly doesn't meet regularly; they're not allowed to.  Yes, you read that correctly; the Assembly may meet only when called into special session by the governor.  That doesn't quite sound like "representative democracy" to me; it sounds more like one-person rule.

•   Regarding COVID, the state has overreached in its powers.  

This one isn't even a question anymore, at least not in my mind.  State workers have been told to either get the vaccine, or lose their jobs.  So you want a religious exemption? Sorry; those don't exist here.  

And don't try going to the courts for relief, because they all say the same thing; "although we have 'grave concerns' about the matter, it's within the government's power to mandate vaccinations" (4).  I would say that they are in the governor's pocket; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the governor is in theirs.  

Also, now we're talking about "vaccine passports"? "Oh, they won't be mandatory" (5).  Give me a break! Do I look like I was born yesterday? Moreover, is this what the state has come to? A Nazi-like regime that says, "papers! Show me your papers"? 

This is getting...no, this IS ridiculous.  When will enough be enough?

____________________________________________________________

Oh, you thought I was done? "But wait, there's more"!

I guess it's time for me to relate a little story.  

This past Thanksgiving Day (as is my usual routine), I went down to my alma mater to check out the yearly rivalry game in football.  It wasn't much of a contest; the "good guys" (so to speak) were getting blown out, and frankly, it didn't appear to me that they were even trying hard.  

Eventually, halftime rolled around.  The referee's whistle blew, play stopped, and the two teams went to their respective sidelines.  That's when I piped up that the "good guys" should "have some pride" and "be embarrassed".  After all, they were letting their arch-rival do a number on them, and on their home field too.  

All of a sudden, one of the home coaches bolted off the sideline, and yelled at me to "shut the hell up".  You should've seen the look in this man's eyes; it was like his name could've been "Mr. Psycho".  Not backing down, I gave him a few "fighting words" (I regret doing that, but what's done is done).  

So what happened next? Apparently, "Mr. Psycho" decided it was a good idea to at least attempt to rush the stands.  If he had not been held back, I'm pretty sure we would've come to blows.  

It's my opinion that the coach got a little hotter than what was appropriate.  My "fighting words" notwithstanding, he had no call to rush off the sideline the way that he did.  The coach could've just ignored me, and gone to the locker room with his team.  If he had done this, there wouldn't have been any sort of issue.  However, the coach chose to try to confront me; by doing so, he placed myself (and possibly others) at clear risk of imminent harm.  

Yet when it was all over, I found that I was escorted off the school's premises.  Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to say that my behavior here was saintly.  I realize that I'm partially to blame for the situation unfolding as it did.  For that, I apologize to all concerned.  

Nevertheless, I find myself somewhat disturbed by what happened here.  I've never been kicked out of any high school sports event, not even when I was in school.  Some people don't like my mouth, but I say it comes with the territory.  If you're in the field of competition, you should expect this kind of thing (at times).  

In any event, I think that the coach (I'm not sure what his name is) owes me an apology.  When a man is wrong, a good man will have no problem with admitting the same.  I have apologized for my actions; it would be a class act for him to do likewise.