You may have heard that during the past week, Fox News fired popular conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. At the moment, the reason for his dismissal is not crystal clear.
That said, I think it could have something to do with a recent speech that Mr. Carlson made on air.
On the April 19th edition of "Tucker Carlson Tonight", the pundit opened with this monologue:
“Sometimes you wonder just how filthy and dishonest our news media are. You'll be in the shower, and you'll think they're bad. But how bad are they? Ask yourself, is any news organization you know of so corrupt that it's willing to hurt you on behalf of its biggest advertisers?What would that look like? That level of corruption?
If Fox News did that, what would you think of Fox News? Would you trust us? Of course, you wouldn't. Thank heaven, Fox News never did anything like that; but the other channels did. The other channels took hundreds of millions of dollars from big pharma companies, and then they shilled for their sketchy products on the air.
And as they did that, they maligned anyone who was skeptical of those products. At the very least, this was a moral crime. It was disgusting, but it was universal. It happened across the American news media; they all did it. So at this point, the question isn’t ‘who in public life is corrupt’? The question is, ‘who is telling the truth?” (1)
In the news media, “them’s fightin’ words”. You see, the “powers that be” don’t like it when you say certain things; that hurts their image, and their bottom line.
For comparison, let’s look at what the Honorable Judge Andrew Napolitano said in his last broadcast on Fox Business:
“What if you needed a license from the government to speak, to assemble, or to protest against the government? What if the government didn't like what you planned to say, and so it didn't give you the license?
What if you were not secure in your papers, in your person, and in your property? What if federal agents could write their own search warrants, in defiance of the Constitution? What if the government could take your property whenever it wanted?
What if the government could continue prosecuting you until it got the verdict it wanted? What if the government could force you to testify against yourself, simply by labeling you a 'domestic terrorist'?
What if the government could torture you, until you said what the government wanted to hear? What if the government tortured your children to get to you?
What if government judges and government lawyers intimidated juries into convicting the innocent? What if the government could send you to your death, and your innocence meant nothing, so long as the government's procedures were followed?
What if the people had no rights, except those the government chose to let them have? What if the states had no rights, except to do as the federal government commanded? What if the government could write any law, regulate any behavior, and tax any event; the Constitution be damned?
What if you could love your country, but hate what the government has done to it? What if (Thomas) Jefferson was right? What if I'm right? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave?
What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now?” (2)
The two speeches are similar to an extent.
In the former, Carlson implies that the news media is massively corrupt, being bought and paid for by major companies. In the latter speech, Judge Napolitano suggests that the federal government is not only corrupt, but “wrong”, and antithetical (see definition) to the cause of individual rights.
In Napolitano's case, he was summarily fired by Fox News/Fox Business just after the airing of this episode. It seems he ran afoul of that unwritten rule: “never criticize those in charge”.
Could the same have happened to Mr. Carlson? Something appears to be a bit “sketchy” at the “fair and balanced” network.
Do I really have to say this? It's another turn for an already "broken record". I am damn sick and tired of every right I have being violated.
I have recently been told that:
I cannot peacefully speak my mind in public, or express any kind of critical opinion.
I cannot make my own decisions. Instead, the powers-that-be in Hartford will tell me what I am allowed to think.
I'm not even allowed to seek redress of my grievances before meetings of government bodies, because "the topic isn't on the agenda". (Um, is this a public meeting, or simply an echo chamber?)
And what recourse do I have? Virtually none at all. When I try to talk to people in charge, the aforementioned "powers-that-be" ignore me, or give me some half-assed excuse why they think they're in the right:
“Oh well, you can’t be disrespectful. That creates a hostile environment. You have to be positive, no matter what” (see note) (1)
Excuse me?
"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty" - Article I Section 4, Constitution of the State of Connecticut (2)
What do you not understand about that concept? It's not a fluff statement; it's the very bedrock of American society. It's FREE SPEECH, and it applies to EVERYONE.
I'm fed up with this....ridiculousness. I've had it up to here. Stop trying to dictate to me what I should and should not say. And stop telling me how to live my own life.
After all, I don't tell you how to live yours.
"(You) can't even run (your) own life, I'll be damned if (you'll) run mine"
-- "Sunshine", Jonathan Edwards(3)
Note: I have included the e-mail that this language came from in the sources below. However, for privacy reasons, I have opted not to link to the e-mail itself.
It's just about that time again; time for those that are in power to tell us how great things have been going in Connecticut. They call this the "State of the State" address.
This year, perhaps no formal speech is needed, as I can already tell you what the situation is.
In a word, the state of the State of Connecticut is...horrendous.
Allow me to elaborate.
First, let's talk about the economy. Businesses continue to leave this state at an alarming rate, and that's an understatement. Our sky-high taxes have driven many companies away, the latest of them being Pepperidge Farm ("remember when it was a joy to live here? Pepperidge Farm remembers") (1)
Add to this the fact that Connecticut is one of the unfriendliest states for businesses, and you begin to understand why U-Haul trucks are usually traveling outbound, not in.
Nevertheless, there is some good news on the economic front. It seems that Governor Lamont has seen fit to propose a round of tax cuts...that is, now that he's been assured of four more years in office.
Those that listened to Lamont during the last gubernatorial campaign would've thought him to be channeling (Hall of Fame men's basketball coach) Jim Calhoun; "not a dime back"! (2)
This proposed cut comes about six years too late for companies such as GE, Aetna, and Sikorsky Aircraft. Nevertheless, aren't we so lucky that our "king" has changed his tune?
"Take this tax cut and shut up, peasants!" - The Gov'na
Now, a word or two in advice to those who might be traveling to "the Constitution State".
Despite the state's nickname, you should know that constitutional rights don't exist here. At least, they are not respected and protected the way that they are in other states.
You think you have the right to free speech? "Not so fast, my friend". In Connecticut, you can be arrested merely for making a ethnic joke, even one that is not targeted at any specific person (racial ridicule law). (3, 4)
What about COVID; aren't we done with that? Not in Connecticut. In fact, the entire reason that we have a "surplus" is because of money that the state gets from the federal government.
This funding is contingent on the continuation of the declared "emergency" regarding the illness, which is still in place. It's the only reason why state government has any money whatsoever; if not for federal funds, we'd be broke.
And being that this "gravy train" rolls on (how much debt are we in nationally again?), don't expect this issue to go away anytime soon.
By the way, be aware of your surroundings when you're in Connecticut, and be sure to lock your doors and windows when you go out. Otherwise, you might find yourself getting jumped, or missing various belongings.
The governor's response to this is that violent crime is "exaggerated", and actually going down. Sure; when's the last time you heard a news report that DIDN'T mention two shootings and a stabbing in a downtown area (for example)? (5)
The simple fact is that life in Connecticut has become almost unbearable. What once was a great place has become a shell of its former self, devoid of any sense of freedom.
To this, I must now repeat the words that future president Ronald Reagan said back in 1964: "if we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to" (6).
Reagan was right; the spread of "woke-ism" has resulted in few places to which "Nutmeggers" can flee.
Living in Connecticut is like living in a nightmare.
Here’s what the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut say on certain matters regarding speech:
"Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such persons or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor" (1).
Now comes a challenge to the constitutionality of this statute, known as the “Racial Ridicule Law”.
In the course of deliberations on this issue, the court has asked the state to elaborate on the meaning of said law. More precisely, the presiding judge asks about the term "by his advertisement":
"Does the speech alleged in Cerame's Complaint (paragraphs 13-18) come within the scope of the phrase 'by his advertisement' as that phrase is used in section 53-37 of the Connecticut General Statutes?"(2)
Notwithstanding the confusion over the phrase being discussed, this specific question strikes me as irrelevant.
You see, it's not so much the definition of the word "advertisement" that matters here. What matters is whether or not the associated statute impermissibly treads in the area of protected speech. Being that the law prescribes a criminal penalty for such, I believe that it does.
To explain my opinion on this, let's examine speech and matters of expression somewhat more thoroughly.
It has long been established that there is a line between freedom of speech and criminal behavior. For instance, you generally have the right to call a black man by a name that starts with N, and rhymes with "rigger"
(I hear it all the time in my neighborhood, mostly from one black man to another).
However, you don't have the right to (for a hypothetical example) burn a large cross in the front yard of a black man's residence, as that might put that person in fear for their safety. If what you say or express poses a clear danger to someone else, it may be criminally penalized.
Having said this, we must again turn to the language of the statute in question.
Most of the time, uttering a insult does not endanger others, even if that insult is an obvious epithet. Neither does it communicate a threat of "imminent lawless action". As such, the state cannot legally prohibit such words from being spoken, nor can it prescribe criminal penalties for such speech. That much is forbidden by both the national and state constitutions (3).
Indeed, "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment more than any other, it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought (or thoughts) that we hate" (4, 5).
The court should do the right thing here; give the plaintiff the relief sought, and strike down this law.
This afternoon, I visited Fairfield University to check out the Leo D. Mahoney Arena. Here are my thoughts about the new facility.
Upon entering the arena, I was immediately struck by the layout of the building. The design is quite impressive; everything's where it's supposed to be, and brand spankin' new at that.
A huge video board and scoreboard highlights center court, and a ribbon display which encircles the arena helps fans get into the action. The building is state-of-the-art, and looks great from top to bottom.
Nevertheless, the new home of the Stags has a few issues; these start with arena parking. The lots are somewhat distant from the main entrance; this might cause problems for those with disabilities.
Also, general accessibility seems to be a problem. Although the facility has side doors and rear entrances, fans are only allowed to access the building via the front lobby. This could make for long entry lines on certain game days.
Here's a bit more information about the thirty five hundred seat arena. (1)
Longtime Stag fans will note that there are significant differences between Mahoney Arena and its predecessor, Alumni Hall. The first of these, of course, is the facility's name.
The family of former University trustee Leo Mahoney was the largest donor to arena construction; as such, it is their name that appears on the marquee, so to speak. Keeping your boosters and donors happy is, apparently, a key task for any college athletic program (which I don't really have a problem with). (2)
General seating is another point of difference between the two arenas. Unlike Alumni Hall, the new building includes a club section, as well as tabletop seats. Also, the wooden bleachers are gone, which makes for a much better game-viewing experience.
The Fairfield University student section is gone as well; there doesn't seem to be any designated area for this purpose. I'm told that students are offered discounts on tickets in lieu of this.
Still another difference involves the location of restrooms. Bathrooms at Mahoney Arena are centrally located throughout the main concourses; compare this with Alumni Hall, where you actually had to go below court level to find a place to "answer the call".
Overall, although Mahoney Arena is quite less intimate than its forerunner (the refs can't hear you complain now!), it is also a much more modern and polished facility. Hopefully, this will have the effect of attracting better recruits, and contributing to a more successful basketball program.
Alas, Fairfield went down to defeat today, losing to the Siena College Saints by nine points. (3)
Be that as it may, I completely enjoyed my first visit to the on-campus venue. If you're a fan of college hoops, a trip to "the Leo" would be well worth your time.
For a few years, there has been a fierce battle raging in the arena of scholastic athletic competition. At issue is the participation of transgender athletes, and whether they can deprive a biological woman of any chance at victory.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit just said that they can. Let's look at the ruling in this matter, and break down the associated opinion (1).
First, the Court said that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to sue the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (who are the defendants in this case; Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools) (2, 3).
In this, it is argued that the plaintiffs did not suffer any "injury in fact", and were not "deprived of a chance to be champions", as their complaint alleges.
I find this to be an asinine statement.
Biologically speaking, it is a scientific fact that males are bigger, stronger, and faster than women. Therefore, a female athlete has almost no chance to defeat a male or transgender counterpart.
The two genders are simply not on a "level playing field"; there is nothing that judges and politicians can do that will ever change this. Be that as it may, it seems like the Court believes that this is simply hyperbole (see definition 1), and an overstatement of the situation.
It appears that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths; on page 21 of the opinion, the Court actually acknowledges that injury may have been done. Nevertheless, they assert that "not every harm is an injury".
Excuse me? By definition, when you "harm" someone, you cause them "physical or mental injury" (3).
Thus, on this subject, the Court appears to have taken leave of all sense of logic.
Regarding standing, the Court also said that even if there was an injury, it cannot be redressed by granting the relief that plaintiffs seek.
To bolster their argument, the Court cited precedent in the case of Steel Co. v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), as such:
"Relief that does not remedy the injury suffered cannot bootstrap a plaintiff into federal court".
Here, the Court conveniently ignores the very crux (see definition 2) of the matter, and the fact that a ruling in the plaintiff's favor would force CIAC to re-write their record books. It is exactly this outcome, and this "remedy", that plaintiffs seek.
As such, I must again scratch my head at the Court's conclusion.
Finally, the Court said that the plaintiffs failed to "state a claim upon which relief (could)be granted".
In doing so, the Court cited precedent in a case that they refer to as "Pennhurst", saying that in order for plaintiff's claim to advance, it must be shown that the defendant "had adequate notice that they could be liable (under Title IX)".
To this, the Court stated that "OCR" (the US Department of Education's "Office of Civil Rights") "never clearly provided that allowing transgender students to participate...violated Title IX".
This is, however, incorrect. Under the presidency of Donald Trump, the Office did in fact state this as a matter of policy. This is something that the Court itself acknowledged, specifically in a footnote to page 24 of the opinion.
Therefore, it seems that CIAC did indeed have "adequate notice" of possible liability. Accordingly, the plaintiffs did in fact "state a claim", and the Court's argument must fail.
Obviously, I am shocked/appalled/outraged by the decision of the Appeals Court in this matter. It seems that the honorable judges have said that there was no harm done, and that even if there was, there's nothing that the Court can do about it.
By ruling in this manner, the Court has effectively declared that high school and college women's sports don't matter.
There are but two methods by which this injustice may be rectified.
One is through the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court. The other is through the State of Connecticut passing a law saying that transgender persons who wish to compete athletically must do so based on their biological status.
While there is a small chance for the former to occur, the latter event doesn't seem likely.
And that leaves biological females with "no chance in hell".
Back in 2001, the rock band Aerosmith released a song called "Jaded". You'll have to excuse me, but that is an appropriate description for the way I feel right now (1).
You see, I'm so tired of hearing the same old talking points from the same lame politicians. They talk about positive change until they're practically blue in the face. Yet every time it comes down to brass tacks (so to speak), it's always "thank you sir, may I have another?". NOTHING EVER CHANGES!
What's worse, it used to be that some politicians truly cared about serving their communities; no longer. These days, everybody's in it for themselves, and themselves only. It's all about looking good for the camera, raising one's own social and professional profile, and "never mind the public...what's in it for me?"
And politicians that actually look out for our interests? Brother, please. Hartford and Washington know full well what they are doing, yet do it anyway.
If not, then please explain to me how the US Secret Service and FBI knew about the "January 6th incident" before it happened, even planting an instigator (by the name of Ray Epps) among the protestors. Was it time travel, maybe? (2)
If not, then tell me how there can be on-record visual evidence of wrongdoing by those in charge of the 2020 presidential election; yet that evidence is routinely dismissed. And yes, it does matter...but "nothing to see here, move along", right? (3)
And if not, then explain to me how the Chinese lab that produced COVID-19 was funded (for the most part) through money from American taxpayers. How is that even remotely possible? (4)
Also, just by a show of hands, can I see how many average people think that this last election was "free and fair"?
(crickets)
Nobody? OK then.
Politics is a dirty business. To quote the late Glenn Frey, there's "lots of shady characters, lots of dirty deals. Every name's an alias, in case somebody squeals. It's the lure of easy money; it's got a very strong appeal" (5)
It is image, power, and control that drives most politicians, not a desire to make things better.
