Doctor Laura and the First Amendment

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.

 

Image via Wikipedia

The inspiration for this was a “rant” by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the typical backlash and her response, which led to a second backlash. All along the predictable, liberal v. conservative dispute over political correctness v. common sense. In this era, there were countless reactions online, on television, in print- it's just the way of things.

My feelings on this: she was [mostly] right, while being terribly wrong on a couple points.

To begin, nigger is just a word. Contextually it can be an inflammatory, derogatory, hateful, dreadful, despicable, deplorable, no-good word. Her use of it, altho questionable was ultimately justifiable, whether or not you agree with her reason for using it. Some of her other remarks during the rant were [borderline] racist. End of the day, right or wrong, her gaff should have been cause for discussion, not condemnation.

Dr. Laura, herself, attempted to tie this back to The First Amendment to Our Constitution, but she made a second gaff in her attempt to do so.

“With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility”
-Stan Lee
With any right given explicit provision in Our Constitution, there are implicit responsibilities. We have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, guaranteed to us. The typical reaction to anyone making claims similar to Dr Laura's (about the repression of those rights) is that Our Constitution does not guarantee the right to be heard or the right to earn money from speech.

The thing is, these freedoms are utterly meaningless if we, as an audience, don't put the necessary effort into understanding what's been said and the context in which it was said. That is our responsibility and our challenge, in the era of the sound bite and instant, online publication.

We undermine our values and ultimately our country when we don't step-back, sit-down and figure out what has been said and (perhaps more importantly) what was meant by it, before reacting. This is because, we close the door on important dialogues, we insulate ourselves and our ideologies, undermining our ability to participate, cooperate and realize our potential.

Remember, the punditry within the old-school press, the majority of the blogosphere, talk-show hosts on TV and radio earn a living from having an opinion. They aren't paid to be informative, they aren't paid to be right. They are paid to draw an audience, to sell opinion and to incite controversy. There is not much money in being earnest and rational, so we, the audience, need to be.

Hear.
Understand.
Think.
React.

Skepticism

How can one know what to believe? What is truth? What is reality? The fact is, we take a lot on faith. We accept a lot, simply because it's common, maybe even mundane within our experience, and it's safe within that familiarity. But, we also choose what to believe (I think more typically) by rejecting that which runs counter to our expectations or experiences. Ideologies, philosophies, foods, memes, brands, people, etc. etc. are all rejected, because they're alien entities within our framework of the familiar.

It takes effort to move beyond rejecting that which runs counter to expectation. Skepticism is required and unfortunately, I don't believe skepticism is an innate human trait. Rather, it must be cultivated in children. Practiced and honed by the individual.

Numbers

I haven't delved deeply into the study of statistics, but I know enough and I feel like I know more than most people.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

That quote is the best place to start. A statistics reduce the world to a relational-quantitative perspective. If I tell you that I have 3 apples, I'm reporting a statistic. If I tell you that I have 1% of the apples from my neighbor's tree, I've reported another statistic and providing you with the information needed to infer that that the yield of my neighbor's tree was 300 apples. If I tell you, 1% of the apples from my neighbor's tree were reported stolen, you might be tempted to guess that I stole them; the numbers match up, 3 were stolen and I have 3 in my possession. That is a coincidence, yielding circumstantial evidence.

Better Late...

I've been stuck on the essay this week. We've had family in town and I've been unable to escape it all. I seem to remember, most writers do their stuff late at night or early in the morning, locked away in a private study, or sequestered in friend's summer homes during the winter months or in the back corner of a busy coffee shop.

The point is, writing requires solitude, of some sort. I've learned recently, that silence actually helps, as the effect of noise, especially music, on mood is profound.

Essay: The God I'd Believe In

For this essay, I've expounded on the themes in the last story I posted.  It's tempting, as an author, to keep my personal beliefs private, thereby leaving my writing open to interpretation.  However, there's also merit in intellectual honesty.  People will find their own meanings regardless, that's just how language works, particularly in it's written form.

I came to atheism thru Christianity and a flirtation with Buddhism. Altho it's perfectly accurate, there is a fundamental flaw in that statement, which might undermine my arguments if I don't point it out. This flaw being, that it appears I've put atheism on the same plain as religion, when Naturalism is the equal of religion.

Still, it was Christianity and Buddhism that led me to atheism, which in turn led me to Naturalism. This is more than quibbling over semantics, Naturalism is a belief in a natural origin of the universe and life; it is the foundation of scientific thought. Atheism is a stance on a si
ngle subject (god) which does not address the fundamental of the universe and does not eliminate spiritual or supernatural perspectives on reality. And I, personally, wrestled with concepts of god, before I gave in to a Naturalistic perspective.