That's Senate Bill 1. Call your senators and ask them to vote to remove Section 220. (The bill is actually about lobbying reform, but Section 220 tramples free speech.). . . except that his senators are Boxer and another Democratic woman, and my senators are Hillary and Chuck. And "actually about lobbying reform" pretty much is "trampling on free speech."You know what's most important over at the Upper House. Staying in the Upper House of course.They always have been for free speech...as long as the speech in question recites their talking points. And, they have the cojones to call OUR side of the aisle fascistic.Some would say that they are for their own free speech because they have "the mainstream media" on their side. I put it differently - in promoting itself, Big Journalism promotes cheap talk, and in promoting themselves Democratic politicians promote cheap talk. By "cheap talk" I mean what Theodore Roosevelt meant when he said, "It is not the critic who counts . . . The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . ."Journalism aspires to predominant influence, and yet journalism doesn't do anything. In order to arrogate to themselves more credit than those who produce and distribute our food, clothing and shelter and those who provide security, journalism criticizes the providers relentlessly - and Big Journalism fights against the freedom to publicize views in opposition to that.
Undoubtedly it would not be well for anyone to be totally immune to criticism, so in that sense people with the motive to nitpick no doubt have a role to play. The great problem is that
A move by this political force to muzzle opposition is dangerous; up until 1992 it had been forty years since the Republicans had a majority in the House, and sixty years since the Republicans had been politically dominant in the country. But at least it may get the issue of free speech and press back in front of SCOTUS, with Alito and Roberts on the bench in place of O'Connor and Rhenquist (whose 1-1 split allowed McCain to be upheld on a 5-4 vote).
- Journalism has coalesced into Big Journalism - an entity with a single, self-serving viewpoint organized around the sophistry of the claim that Big Journalism provides, and America must have, objective journalism. And,
- Many people, from the middle class (known as "the poor" but having a standard of living which is the envy of most of the world today and would have been the envy of the rich in 1800) through the strata to the wealthiest, put themselves on the side of Big Journalism and in opposition to those who "are actually in the arena." Even though most of them are themselves "actually in the arena" in some circumstances.
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.""Citizenship in a Republic,"
Theodore Roosevelt,
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam SmithHalf the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin
Great post. Thanks.