The Free Speech Burden

What is it about the draw Mohammed contests that makes me cheer just a little bit? I am the type of person who turns down his radio when pulling up to a red light so as not to offend someone across from me with my loud music from my car. I drive with the windows down so to be polite I silence the music. It’s become a habit. I’m also careful not to let my grass get too long thereby upsetting my neighbors and making them think they live next to a bum who drives down the value of everyone within view of his unkept property. I tend to think and act like a good citizen to hopefully get back a full measure of respect from others around me. At the risk of sounding a bit prudish and stiff (too late) I hate when my behavior or lack of concern affects others around me. In short, I hate giving offence. It is un-Christian to look for reasons to upset those around you.

 Earlier this year a magazine in Paris Charlie Hebdo was attacked by Islamic radicals offended by the publication’s artwork (example) that featured the prophet Mohammed. Similar in style and tone to Mad Magazine here in the U.S, it skewers popular comedians, politicians, televangelists, athletes, movie stars and religious figures both modern and historic. It isn’t my style. It’s very offensive and tasteless and has heaped scorn on many Christian figures with perverse drawings and sketches. When the artists were murdered I was outraged. I was more outraged in the weeks that followed when most popular newspapers and magazines refused to re-print the cartoons that so offended the murderous cowards who rampaged the offices of Charlie Hebdo. As Western nations dedicated to free press, free speech and free religious expression, newspaper rolls should have run out of ink from printing the offensive cartoons and selling copy after copy. Television newscasts should headlined with comic strips of Mohammed that the French satirical paper had drawn in the past. The response was pretty tame as I recall. CNN pixelated the images but still managed to put the cartoon on a graphic over the anchor’s left shoulder, other newscasts didn’t even show the worrisome cover, just explained the reaction of the terrorists to it.

This is old news now and I realize I’m covering territory that has been covered. I didn’t understand what this new reality of cowering in fear from Islamic radicals has meant for free expression in Europe and the United States until I watched a live speech by Mark Steyn (here) in Copenhagen. His point was that radical thugs get away with killing and scare mongering when only a handful of outfits reprint the cartoons and make themselves a target. Fewer targets equal fewer options for Muslim fanatics to direct their ire. When the Green Bay Packers come to Chicago to play the Bears they bring a lot of fans. When Chicago fans get upset by inevitable beating that the Pack will put on their team, it’s easy to punch the one cheering fan with the cheese wedge hat and the Aaron Rodgers jersey. It is less hard when the cheese hat guy has five or six of his friends along. The media should do likewise and show those fundamentalist clowns that when a Muslim terrorist kills one of their own a whole lot of sketch drawings of their precious Mohammed are about the hit the papers. The news media needs to share the burden and it won’t feel so much like a burden. Besides, this act of support isn’t just a heartwarming tribute to the memory of lost colleagues. It is the best statement of principles regarding the true nature of freedom in a democratic society. It says in very specific terms ‘you do not get to tell us what to print, what to say, what to do’. The result of not doing so throws the weight of holding up freedom of the press to individuals like Pamela Geller (http://pamelageller.com) who is a wonderful champion of free speech but also a pariah. This is the unfortunate point of playing the censorship game; the Pam Gellars of the world become pariahs and get threatened constantly given such a scare team. She is the opposing fan in the bleachers wearing Packers gear at Soldier field whose friends are half-way to Milwaukee after examining the mood of the crowd. It won’t be long before self-censorship becomes business as usual for the press. Writers and editors who call themselves the fourth estate and keep authority figures in check through scathing articles and illustrations, will decide it isn’t worth the trouble. When that happens, other freedoms will start to dry up as they become increasingly offensive and security concerns override freedom.

I support the ‘draw Mohammed’ contests as a statement of principles on liberty, not because I like to offend.      

Pope Rope-A-Dope

Caught this wonderful summation of the Pope and what seems to be his modus operandi on the BIG problems facing the world. 

"There is something shallow and decadent about a pontiff who prioritizes "climate change" even as every last Christian is driven from the Archeparchy of Mosul. What will they say of such a pope? That he fiddled with the thermostat while Rome burned?" --Mark Steyn 

here

Great Writing

http://thepointmag.com/2015/criticism/the-magic-of-untidiness

I read this article because it has to do with a new book out explaining how eliminating stuff or 'decluttering' can make a person happier. Fittingly titled The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up, it examines how messes around home can add to stress and anxiety in everyday life. I haven't read the book although it sounds a bit self-help-y with, most likely, a fair amount of psychobabble tossed in for good measure. The reviewer impressed me though; I've always felt that a good writer of fiction could force the reader to use all five senses to experience a time or place. Laurel Berger does this when explaining his (A man I guess?) fascination with old copies of books the way they look, feel, smell and taste. He gives a description of the dust blowing into his face when opening an old discolored copy that belonged to a professor, a collector of books. The richness of the prose forces the reader to continue in hopes of  discovering the mystery of the old book and what happened to the owner. A long-form piece is sometimes a slog for readers but a gifted writer can smooth out the rough patches and keep the surprise alive until the end. Great writing keeps the reader interested, no matter the subject and no matter the text. Berger is great. And to think I wasn't even interested in this new tidying up book.

Are Businesses Getting Lazy?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/travel-economy-david-kong

I just browsed through a position paper from the travel industry on how the government could do more to promote travel across the continental US by fixing decrepit roads and bridges and shortening the process for visa applications. Like most industries the nuts and bolts of the engine driving growth are gummed up by the unattractive aspects of doing business. New money abroad looks for new opportunities everywhere and what makes the United States a good investment are the things that always have. The legal system respects property rights and rule of law while barriers to entry in most markets remain low. For example, an individual that self employs by retrofitting HVAC units or putting roofs on new and old homes could find work easily. Finding this type of work in a slow growth economy is increasingly important for extra income to many families. Large corporations are subject to different pressures and hassles than small startups. The complaints from most industries usually go something like this: the rules on compliance are a nightmare and change frequently, the pay and benefits for employees are cutting into any profit (hello $15 an hour wages),  and the cost of doing business keeps rising. That's why the solution from the travel exec (David Kong), to call for a Secretary of Travel, is a little odd and disheartening given the problems affecting the economy at large. He lays out a wonderful case for reducing barriers to entry and increasing the level of investment from overseas, and in the same breath asks for a federal solution.

When large industries ask for federal subsidies we roll our eyes like a dad who has heard all the excuses for why the last 'investment' was squandered. At some level we understand that massive industries don't move on major projects until the landscape (legal implications, environmental non-sense, up front investment) is understood. The downside of running afoul of some federal authority is years in legal fees, poor publicity and the very likely prospect of circling the drain Lehman Brothers style. Industries are now in the rent-seeking game and it's precisely due to a lack of guts. Here in Oklahoma T. Boone Pickens (oil baron) tried this technique with his Pickens Plan idea for electric cars and ethanol, in part to reduce reliance of foreign oil. This isn't as big a deal anymore since the price of oil has plunged quicker than the mercury on a January night. I am loathe to say anything negative about Pickens (he is a genuine philanthropist) but the plan wasn't sound because it required a large chunk of federal money before he would move on it. This is unfortunately the way many companies seek investments now; find a friendly in Washington and hope for a license to operate. The jump from bailouts like General Motors received in 2009, to 'rent-seeking' like some agricultural giants want is becoming too common. The solution to attracting more investment from abroad is mostly what the travel industry seems to want, less hassle with visa applications and better infrastructure. I would add to it some type of tax holiday on businesses that have left the country because of unpaid dues. Get them back and tell them to hire people.The United States doesn't need another czar, or secretary, or advocate or any person trying to slice off a corner of the shrinking budgetary pie. Simpler and freer please, or watch American business get lazier.

Don't cry for me Rouhani

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/opinion/sunday/israeli-terrorists-born-in-the-usa.html?_r=1


  Using the timing of the Iran deal (also known as the worst deal of the century) the New York Times reminds all of us in the U.S that Israel also has terrorists and 'Oh by the way, it's America's fault!'. Something in the heavily fluoridated water perhaps that encourages ethnic Jews from America to move to settlements (those pesky controversial ones) in Israel and declare war on Palestinians. It shouldn't surprise many people to learn that Israel's second largest contingent of immigrants is from America most years going back to its founding in 1948. That a handful of terrorists were born in New York or San Francisco shouldn't be shocking. What is ridiculous about the article is the elevation of a minor issue, even within the Israeli communities, to top news of the day status. By lifting sanctions on the Iranian regime and turning away from a traditional democratic ally in Israel, the Obama administration is trying to justify the radical departure from sound policy by commissioning (essentially) articles critical of Israel. Where not directly encouraging criticism of the Jewish state, acolytes of the administration are elevating the status of Tehran by taking Jerusalem down a peg. This would be like if television analysts talked about the Toledo Mud Hens ( AAA baseball team) during the game 7 broadcast of the World Series. It is dishonest to examine both Israel and Iran under the same rubric given their dramatically different histories, ethnic groups, culture, contributions to the world, and forms of government. 

The author of the piece (Hirschhorn) criticizes the settlers for seemingly explaining away terrorism among Jews. "Settler rabbis and the leaders of American immigrant communities in the West Bank have either played down their crime or offered muted criticism." The incident in question is a fire in a town called Duma that claimed the life of a Palestinian toddler and has been blamed on settlers; no reason is given for why the fire might have been started. Hirschhorn even has to go back two decades to find a comparable example of American-born Jews committing terrorism. Criticism from Rabbis and others might be muted and 'played down' but so far no parades have been planned in the streets of Jerusalem celebrating their brave heroics the way Hamas does in Gaza or Hezbollah does in Beirut. Tehran actively promotes terrorism around the world while Israel builds housing close to disputed territories, which one do you prefer.  Condemnations could be stronger perhaps, but articles like this are meant more as a way of taking some of the shine off America's good buddy in the Middle East instead of honest storytelling and relevant information gathering. 

The Story We Tell Ourselves

I work out at a gym that tries to entice non-gym goers into feeling comfortable with their surroundings. Messages that discourage muscle-head type grunting adorn the walls in bright purple while a siren lights up when weightlifters drop dumbbells too loudly. The building is full of treadmills and cardio machines, televisions and even tanning beds; it is light on free weights and bar bells to keep the hard-core weightlifters out and promote a type of 'everyman' ethic to the surrounding. This level of softening the rough edges of the workout community is meant to gain in-roads into the occasional gym goer but instead encourages a false sense of reality among the overly self-conscious. In order to believe the environment is safe for working out, (i.e. no insulting meat-heads will notice how ridiculous and out of shape you are) you must believe that in a normal situation those buff weight lifters would criticize and mock you. I imagine most people have some level of body consciousness that leads them to feel like others are judging them, whether at the pool or in the summer when many wear shorts and sleeveless shirts. Feeling like it's true doesn't make it so however, and by tapping into fears about self-consciousness and creating a narrative around a non-issue is dishonest.
 It is impossible to tell what a person is thinking at a given time but assuming that everyone is looking at you and judging you for your lack of a noticeable diet and for having a dumpy body is quite narcissistic. I've been a member at a gym in most places I've lived and I was heavier in college both because I lifted weights and also because of diet (beer and pizza). Some of my friends back then could have been considered meat-heads, guys who spend hours in the gym getting ripped and taking supplements to increase the size of whatever muscle group was being targeted that week. Some were vain and some were not, I can't remember any of them giving a damn about out of shape people at the gym trying to improve themselves. If anything, they were too focused on themselves and whatever training program or carb cycle they were on at the time. Sometimes the story you tell yourself is a fiction no one has read. I understand how marketing works, take a view about the world that many people share and exploit it for maximum profit. This sounds like a cynical take on all advertising but it is really just a way to understand selling and being sold to. Notice I didn't write 'take a view about the world that is TRUE and exploit it for maximum profit'. I am not picking on the fitness industry, gyms are more utilitarian than they used to be. One used to have to choose between the racquetball clubs with saunas or the weightlifting facilities like Gold's Gym that catered to specific groups. The mixed use clubs of today are more family friendly and encourage new types of exercise and class courses like zumba. Don't buy into the non-sense that everyone is snickering at your flabby stomach and laughing like high school bullies who just yanked some kids pants down during orientation. Fear not, be yourself, try new routines.

Traditional Marriage

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422391/ryan-anderson-gay-marriage

I don't know who this author Ryan Anderson is but I enjoyed the short Q&A about his book on the future of marriage to American culture. To sum up, Marriage is an idea that has made sense between males and females across all racial, religious, and historic periods of time for many obvious reasons including raising children. He mentions some of the contradiction in societal beliefs and current laws, for instance, how can Americans say fathers matter in the lives of children and in the same breath make them optional? I am interested in how he thinks the country got to this point where marriage is redefined in the highest court. Mostly though I want to hear his prescription for those who don't agree with the Supreme Court from a moral or legal perspective on how to turn the cultural ship around. Understanding how we got here isn't as important as knowing how to get out.