"Every time I think of you, I always catch my breath" -- John Waite, "Missing You" (1)
Here we go again; the valentine's day blues have hit me, and pretty hard at that.
I've written at length about how my heart has been broken by a certain female. It isn't totally necessary to rehash that story; I'll simply say that right now, I'm feeling the hurt and the pain that goes along with it.
Perhaps I'm locked into bit of a vicious cycle. I know I have to let this girl go. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, "the devil is in the details".
You see, every time I think I'm finally and completely over her, something happens that gets me to miss her again. Maybe it's being alone on a cold and snowy winter's night. Perhaps it's hearing my friends talk about their families, and how lucky they are to be with their partners. Or maybe it's seeing or hearing from someone who looks like her.
Whatever it is, it triggers those old feelings again. That's something that I've never been able to shake.
And not knowing why is the worst part.
I've always wanted to ask her why she rejected me; not out of some great desire to fix the issue, but out of a need for closure. Even so, I've kept my mouth shut, feeling that it's probably none of my business anyway. It just so happens that today, that "need to know" has manifested itself more than it ever has before. I guess that could be a valentine's day thing, or possibly have to do with the time of the season.
Regardless of what the reason behind my needing to know why might be, this is a question that torments my very soul. Be that as it may, perhaps someday I will have the closure that I've sought for so long.
As a brand new feature of this blog, I'm beginning to look into the financial sources, and the possible biases, of certain notable organizations. I'll call this periodic inclusion "Follow the Money".
Let's start with "PolitiFact", a web site with the goal of "sort(ing) out the truth in American politics" (1).
In my accumulated research on the matter, I have found many instances where the site has distributed false information regarding political statements. The associated reviews are misleading, seemingly intentionally so. Clearly, this goes against the published mission statement of the organization.
So who or what is behind PolitiFact, at least financially speaking? The company is owned and operated by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which is "a non-profit school for journalists" based in St. Petersburg, Florida (1, 2).
Looking through available financial records, it appears that the Institute has a rather interesting list of major donors. These partners include:
"Meta"/Facebook.
TikTok (a social networking platform that is owned by Chinese firm "ByteDance Ltd.").
Microsoft.
AmeriHealth Caritas (a health insurance and health care company).
Google/Alphabet, Inc. (through various investments by Google News).
Examining this, the information concerning TikTok/ByteDance is of particular interest.
Via Wikipedia:
"On 14 August 2020, (President Donald) Trump issued an executive order mandating that ByteDance divest from all U.S. operations of TikTok within 90 days.
On 28 August 2020, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology announced that any sale of ByteDance's technology to foreign firms (was) a matter of 'national security' and would require prior approval"(3).
That said, given the obvious implication that ByteDance is at least funded by the Communist Party of China, one wonders what influence the Party has over the operations of the Institute (as well as PolitiFact itself).
Here's some other noteworthy details about the Poynter Institute.
In addition to their ownership of PolitiFact, the Institute also operates:
The Tampa Bay Times/Times Publishing Company.
The "International Fact-Checking Network".
Florida magazines "Bay" and "Florida Trend".
Florida Spanish-language newspaper "Centro" (2).
PolitiFact "won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 2009" (4).
In2006,Tampa Bay Times/Times Publishing Company CEO Paul Tash was made a member of the Pulitzer Prize Board (5). This stands out as a potential conflict of interest.
Tash's "party affiliation is with the Democratic Party".
"The Poynter Institute received seven thousand thirty-seven thousand four hundred dollars from the (US government's) Paycheck Protection Program during the COVID-19 pandemic" (2). Is it possible that this money could've been a reward for publishing opinions favorable to the government?
The Bottom Line:
The journalism school that runs PolitiFact gets major funding from organizations known to be openly hostile to free speech. One of these may itself be bankrolled (or otherwise controlled) by the Communist Party of China.
Given the implication of major Chinese interest, it is reasonable to ask about the site's true purpose. Thus, a serious question arises; is PolitiFact a legitimate source of news and "fact-checking", or is it merely a propaganda device and mouthpiece?
If it is the latter, perhaps this issue should be investigated on a more official level, and by someone possessing more power than myself.
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.
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 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.
Allow me to share with you my thoughts on the matter.
From the start, I must make it clear that I absolutely do not condone what this man appears to have said. Even so, I question where the governor is going on this. My lack of a law degree notwithstanding, it doesn't appear to me that the person in question violated any law.
To explain this, let's examine the relevant facts.
Every American has the right to free speech, and the right to speak his or her mind without fear of reprisals from the government. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes this clear:
"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"(2).
Moreover, the Constitution of the State of Connecticut also weighs in on the subject:
"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty"(Article I, Section Four)
Obviously, this freedom is not absolute; notice that the state constitution talks about "abuse" of freedom of speech. You can't say things that, reasonably considered, pose a "clear and present danger" to another's safety (think shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre where there is no fire). And you can't express serious intent to engage in any "imminent lawless action". (See: "true threats", Note 1)
That said, let's look at what Connecticut state law says on the subject of "threatening".
According to Section 53a-62 Chapter 952 of the Connecticut General Statutes, a person is guilty of the charge when:
"(1) By physical threat, such person intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury,
(2) such person threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize another person, or such person threatens to commit such crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, or
(3) violates subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection and the person threatened is in a building or on the grounds of a (A) house of religious worship, (B) religiously-affiliated community center, (C) public or nonpublic preschool, school or institution of higher education, or (D) day care center, as defined in § 19a-87g, during operational, preschool, school or instructional hours or when a building or the grounds of such house of worship, community center, preschool, school, institution or day care center are being used for the provision of religious or community services, or house of worship, community center, preschool, school, institution or day care center-sponsored activities".
It seems to me that this person did not pose an "imminent" threat to the governor's physical safety, nor have the clear capability to carry out such a threat. By the accused's own admission, he did not have any clear intent to harm the governor. As such, the speech that this man expressed cannot be construed as a "true threat".
Here's something else to consider. According to a research report by attorney Susan Price-Livingston (representing the State of Connecticut), state courts don't always consider whether or not a perceived threat is serious. "Rather", she says, they "resolve(d) the pure speech cases that (have) come before them under the First Amendment's 'fighting words' doctrine" (3).
I won't get into whether or not the state has erred by applying this criteria as opposed to the "true threat" example. Nevertheless, even by the "fighting words" standard, the accused is innocent of the charge, as the speech expressed does not meet the associated tests. (See: Note 2)
That being the case, what exactly is going on here? "True threat" or not, does Governor Lamont think so little of free speech that he will seek to punish anyone that dares utter a word against him? The answer, apparently (supported by my own experience with him), is yes(4).
You see, in Ned Lamont's world (to paraphrase wrestling personality William Regal; see below) he is "your ruler, your better, and your superior" (5).
All hail "King Ned".
Note 1: See also "Watts v. United States", Supreme Court of the United States, 1969.
Note 2: The "fighting words" doctrine applies only when all of the following conditions are present:
1. The speaker addresses his words directly to a specific individual.
2. The encounter is face-to-face.
3. The words used are likely to provoke the “average addressee” to violence under the circumstances. and
4. The threat of a violent response is imminent (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942)) (3).
Since there was no face-to-face encounter with the governor, and no apparent threat of a "violent response" from such, this test must fail.
