TaBoo Tenente TaBoo Tenente

TaBoo's First Amendment to the Constitution

▼

TaBoo's First Amendment to the Constitution

http://tabootenente.tblog.com
from JoeUser Forums
You silly, silly people. What have you done now? All of your focus on saving poor, defenseless American flags has blinded the educational system and warped your children's sense of values. They all believe that killing Iraqi civilians is freedom, while seeing a blurry, surgery-enhanced nipple is worse than. . ..No. It's so bad that there's nothing worse, anywhere.

BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer reports that "more than one in three high school students said it [the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States] goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories."

There's no consistency. You want guns to protect yourself, and such a right was written into the Constitution so you could take up arms against an oppressive government. You want freedom to practice your religion, and such a right was written into the Constitution so your government would not have power over your god--I'm sure you no longer remember, but this was most likely the reason your ancestors tamed the untameable seas. You want the freedom of speech, because. . .because. . ..

Do not worry. I will tell you why. You want the freedom of speech because the freedom of speech provides for every freedom you enjoy. Freedom to speak your part returns your humanity to you. Without this freedom, there are no freedoms left.

Here's the crux: many silly, silly people believe that in order to show your patriotism, you must cede this right to your government. In fact, the American incarnation of Patriotism has perverted everything that made this country great. There is nothing wrong with loving your country: if your country is great, then love it, respect it, and bring your country flowers every week or so before she forgets about you. But if you think blind support of your government is what this country is about, then you are one hundred percent incorrect, and may which ever deity you believe in have mercy on whatever you believe drives the subatomic neural processing of your being.

You silly sod. Your Founders wrote the Amendments so you could be safe from your government. Burning a flag does not make you a traitor. Writing an anti-policy article does not make you a traitor. However, your children think that it might, because of all your gesticulating and your cursing of those hairy, hippie-pinkos. Yes, the superbowl half-time show is a public, family forum. Yes, you are not supposed to see a nipple in a public, family forum. Nevertheless, please be careful when you demand stringent censorship in front of your children.

Which is worse: if your eight year-old son spies a nano-second of nipple and then steps out back to torch a flag (in the official flag-torching manner prescribed by the United States Fire Safety Squad); or if your eight year-old son becomes a fifteen year-old son who has no use for the freedom of speech?

So I'd like to propose an Amendment to the Constitution. The Amendment will allow for your inalienable right to speak your mind, your right to not have your thoughts detailed and copyedited by the government, and to burn a flag if it gets soiled.

Does this sound in any way familiar? Because it probably will not to your children. Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum
politics
29,978 views 55 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Laughing out loud is right.

What a predicament!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #22 By: dabe - 2/3/2005 7:34:34 AM
I'm sorry TaBoo. You should ask drmiler why he had to toss insults at me. ParaTed may not agree with me, and I with him, but we are capable of reasonable debates on the issue.

drmiler does not add to the discourse at all. He just takes it upon himself to toss insults and bullshit. As you can see, he otherwise added nothing. No, NJforever, it was no joke. He called me "blind" because of my liberalism and rather outspoken disdain for dubya & co., and to which I responded accordingly. Again, he otherwise added nothing to the conversation. He's a prime example of blind patriotism, jingoism personified, which ironically, is the topic at hand.

And, I really detest that stupid borderline iliterate sob


It was sarcasm you ignoramus.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
latour: i very much appreciate your comment. are you canadian, and/or currently living in canada? with the ridiculous amount of news sources these days (which, in general, i believe to be a great thing) it is hard to find an objective take on what happens north of the border (or within the border, for that matter). do you have a source that you use?


Yes, I am Canadian. I live in Manitoba. Are you Canadian?

Anyway, for news north of the border, I like www.cbc.ca/news, and watch the National on CBC, however they seem to lean a bit to the left.

Interesting sidenote, during the last election campaign, the National (CBC) did a poll of newspapers for how they looked at the parties and leaders. Both the Liberals and Conservatives had their share of bad stories on them (they were both slightly in the negative, I think Harper a bit more), and the NDP was in the positive, until Jack Layton blamed the deaths of homeless people in Toronto on Paul Martin personally, when it became around neutral. Didn't help Jack Layton any, though. He only won 19 seats.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is everyone under the assumption that the censorship detailed in the article is only nationalistic/patriotic in nature? Far more often I see students and some teachers fall victim to the censorship of political correctness, which is the domain of the left.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
a word about political correctness:

when used to censor, political correctness is a hindrance and a waste. it covers up nuances of meaning that often help the evolution of modern thinking.

however, i also believe that when people say political correctness is stupid as a concept, or pedantic in nature, i think they are missing the point. language is thought. if you spend your life swearing when you are upset, then you prevent yourself from understanding your own feelings. saying "fuck that" does not express what is happening inside. it's the same thing as when someone says, i know how i feel but i cant put it into words. i dont buy that for a second. if you cant put something into words, then you dont "know" it. by attempting to express yourself, you are delving into your real feelings and allowing yourself to evolve.

so, when someone worries about certain language usages, like a woman preferring to use use the term "womyn" it feels silly to us, but it makes sense. there is a reason that the word "woman" contains the root "man". it says a lot about who we are as a culture, and also a lot about the way our minds generate thought.

using political correctness as a censorship technique is very limiting to our thought process; but on the other hand, using political correctness to understand the errors in our thought is expansive to our thought process.

people have a tendency to to view political correctness and freedom of speech as contradictory--and in fact, viewed from a limited perspective, the terms can conflict. but any label you use without really understanding the meaning of what you are saying not only shows the limits of your own comprehension, but also actively prevents you from evolving.

censorship is different, of course, and you should be able to see why. censorship is a way of preventing other people from expressing themselves, while political correctness, at least as a concept, is an attempt at evolution.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
latour:

i am not canadian. i have many friends scattered throughout canada (though none in manitoba) and have done a lot of traveling there (one time, i went as far north as yellowknife. quite an experience).

anyway, the reason i brought it up was because of the difficulty of finding an objective news source here in the states about what is happening in canada. i have traveled to a bunch of places in the world, and i tend to run into canadian travelers in droves. i was in tel aviv maybe six years ago, drinking a beer in a hostel there, and talking with two pretty girls i had just met. . .they happened to be from the states. in walked two men about my age, obviously only english speakers, and overhearing our english conversation they figured it might be nice to understand someone for a change.

they introduced themselves. one was from london and the other was from a town about 90 min south of ottawa and maybe 2 1/2 hours from montreal. one of the girls i was with made a comment like "you're not from the states? never mind" and both guys took the statement at face value, and left.

i ran after them, mortified that they would be offended, and i truly had to convince them that it was a joke (a bad one, perhaps). the canadian became a close friend of mine, and after traveling though israel and egypt together, we spent 2 months driving around canada and the states. the thing is, there is a lot of poor understanding between our two countries. for whatever reason--and im not looking for a political debate at the moment--u.s. has a bad rep. some of it is very well deserved, but it's unfortunate how much effort i need to go through in order to make someone from spain or canada or egypt see me clearly.

on the other side--again, no need to debate this right now--canada seems to feel like they need to do whatever it takes to distance themselves from the u.s.. even more so than us citizens, ive found, canadians like to group their southern cousins into a single, labeled perspective.

none of this means anything, except that it is hard to get objective news about each other.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
so, when someone worries about certain language usages, like a woman preferring to use use the term "womyn" it feels silly to us, but it makes sense. there is a reason that the word "woman" contains the root "man". it says a lot about who we are as a culture, and also a lot about the way our minds generate thought.


It actually reflects how little people know of the soul of language, which is what I studied for years as a linguist. The thoughts come before the words. The thoughts and beliefs exist regardless of the words. Take, for example, gender neutrality in language. There is no correlation, whatsoever, with the position of woman in society and the usage of gender in a language. Language does not operate in a way for each and every word to be analyzed in a socio-poltical experiment.

using political correctness as a censorship technique is very limiting to our thought process; but on the other hand, using political correctness to understand the errors in our thought is expansive to our thought process.


Again, this goes back to the idea that the evolution of language and social beliefs necessarily walk hand in hand. Language does not operate on such a conscious level.

people have a tendency to to view political correctness and freedom of speech as contradictory--and in fact, viewed from a limited perspective, the terms can conflict. but any label you use without really understanding the meaning of what you are saying not only shows the limits of your own comprehension, but also actively prevents you from evolving.


Language is a tool, not a sociological profile. Language engineers who believe they can change society simply by changing terminology are doomed to fail.



Take a look at something that I wish was available back in my college days. It's rather short, so it shouldn't be time-consuming

On Being A Woman - by Judy Wubnig
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
a very interesting take, diamondback. i read the article, and i found it to also be a very interesting take.

unfortunately i dont have a readied link to provide here, but maybe try googling walter benjamin. many language theorists believe that thought IS language. im not necessarily talking about the classic spoken systems. in general language is thought to consist of two parts: a sign and a symbol. for the sake of not digressing too far from the original thread, let me briefly water it down here:

throughout our lives, our brains encounter stimuli through the filter of our senses. at first, our brains simply store the info. then we begin to categorize. finally we make judgments.

when we first look at a tree, there is just a sweltering collection of stimuli and no concrete object is stored in the brain. eventually, however, we distinguish the sensual data that constitutes tree from the data that constitutes sky and grass and flowers and so on. at this point, when we see a tree, our brain registers the collection of data as a sign. instead of processing every detail of the specific tree (which would make interpreting the rest of the world very time-consuming) we actually call forth information previously stored away for such an occasion. after the sign is created, we are able to produce a symbol that represents similar objects and transcendent definitions (for example, oak and maple and certain flow charts can be defined by the "tree" symbol).

that's language. every conceivable system, from english to mandarin, from sign-language to gruntings, requires that our brains are able to create the sign, and integrate the symbol.

if you take a specific, common system such as english, and study it from a structural standpoint, you can group the roots, and you can determine where certain linguistic threads originate without looking for a second at gender. nevertheless, to imagine that the fact that woman does not derive from the masculine root is a dangerous and inaccurate way to conceive of language.

to do so suggests that young children do not hear and adapt the language of their parents, making judgments about content (subconsciously and consciously).

give me a day or so, and i'll come up with some fascinating links, okay?
\
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was sarcasm you ignoramus.


Coming from you, it does not qualify as friendly sarcasm, you stupid dolt.

using political correctness as a censorship technique is very limiting to our thought process; but on the other hand, using political correctness to understand the errors in our thought is expansive to our thought process


I agree completely with this sentiment, TaBoo. Political correctness does limit free speech, but usually that's about it, "limit" being the operative term here. I'm not so sure about the censorship part. In fact, PC is more a way of trying to eliminate hate speech from everyday discourse. The words, "nigger" and "Jewish fire" come to mind, but of course there are plenty more. PC evolved into more of a kind of self-censorship, by raising awareness of different kinds of disparaging remarks that were otherwise rampant in our daily lives.

Unfortunately, I do think it went overboard, wherein it no longer qualifies as self censorship, but instead became a kind of full blown censorship and hateful in its own right. If you use words and phrases that are not PC, then you can be fired from a job, for instance. I think bosses do not want to be associated with the perpetuation of hate, because they could be held accountable for their employees' hateful remarks. Hmmmmm........... I'm having a tough time writing my thoughts here. But, you get the gist of what I'm trying to say, right? I guess even in this instance, PC isn't such a terrible thing, if the person who made the derogatory remark in the first place truly did so fully aware of what s/he was saying. But then again, there's that pesky lil' First Amendment thang..................

Anyway, I do believe that PC is important. For instance, as a Jew, I'm particularly sensitive to the expression "Jewish fire". Tell me that's not derogatory, yet people use it so often, I am dumbfounded. When I point out that the expression offends me, and why, they are usually quite apologetic, as they had no idea that the expression came from the falsely represented historical connection between Jews and usury, and how antisemetic the statement really is. PC can be used as an awareness thing. And, for that, I support its intent.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
i'll be honest: i've never heard that term. i once got into a fight in highschool because someone on the other team yelled at the ref: "that was a jewish call". it always amazes me that these labels have found so many ways to midify verbs and nouns. but so it goes.

that, of course, is the point. there is a lot of ways to offend someone, and using these terms tends to be the quickest. it labels someone with a group of people with out really illuminating understanding. they are used aggressively instead of informatively. this is the reason that a good editor kills them before they reach print or airways. alienating and infuriating the public is one thing, and with a bit of selective class can be good for business; but labeling slander is not the only thing that gets a red mark in the editor's office.

just to say it again: it's not very useful to censor what what people have to say, this whole pc craze; but it is good to inform people that sometimes (often, in some cases) that he/she may have no idea what/why a certain term emerges from an open mouth.

tbt
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Damn...It's like reading two posts at once here.

Dabe? Miler? How about i give you each a 2x4 and lead you out behind the barn, count to 5, and let you kick the crap outta each other?

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK, now that i have that outta my system...

History is full of examples of what can happen when we blindly follow our political leaders without question. And it rarely is for the best. As americans, it is our right and our duty to question our leaders when their judgement is suspect. Presidents like TR and Thomas Jefferson have even said so. (jefferson's quote about it is my favorite)

Regardless of who, where what, how and why we question, it does not make you less patriotic to do so. I think it makes you MORE patriotic for the most part.

If we do not put our leadership under the microscope on a regular basis, all kinds of wacky shennanigans can happen.

VERY good thread BTW!
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #37 By: thatoneguyinslc - 2/4/2005 12:32:48 PM
Damn...It's like reading two posts at once here.

Dabe? Miler? How about i give you each a 2x4 and lead you out behind the barn, count to 5, and let you kick the crap outta each other


Okay by me but I highly doubt that she would appreciate it.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well give her the first shot...Be a gentleman miler.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #40 By: thatoneguyinslc - 2/4/2005 12:42:46 PM
Well give her the first shot...Be a gentleman miler.


Would I be giving her the shot because
1. She's female
2. she's a lady?

I'll give you the first one, but I'm not sure about the second.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think her poor choice of words may have gotten her into trouble



Reply #18 By: dabe - 2/2/2005 10:19:30 PM
Then how do you account for your blind self?


Fuck you
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
thanks for your post, thatoneguy, and i agree.

theres no need for 2 x 4s, dr. miller. while i wish dabe would quit fueling the conflict, shes made several interesting comments here.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks, TaBoo.

And, I have no interest in pummeling drmiler with a 2x4. Total waste of energy.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anyway, for news north of the border, I like www.cbc.ca/news, and watch the National on CBC, however they seem to lean a bit to the left.

Gee, that's kinda like saying that water is a bit wet. I can't remember the last time that I watched anything on the CBC, but then again I have very little interest in television as a news source.

Jack Layton blamed the deaths of homeless people in Toronto on Paul Martin personally

Layton is a real opportunist.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do not worry. I will tell you why. You want the freedom of speech because the freedom of speech provides for every freedom you enjoy. Freedom to speak your part returns your humanity to you. Without this freedom, there are no freedoms left.

Amen Brother!

Here's the crux: many silly, silly people believe that in order to show your patriotism, you must cede this right to your government.

Having a great constitution is not a good substitute for education or critical thinking. It does not gaurantee that your people will all be smart of act wisely.

So I'd like to propose an Amendment to the Constitution. The Amendment will allow for your inalienable right to speak your mind, your right to not have your thoughts detailed and copyedited by the government, and to burn a flag if it gets soiled.

Freedom of speech can be a double-edged sword; you may be held accountable for what you say. You may be shunned if what you speak is deemed unacceptable to others, or they may not even listen to begin with. There's nothing to force them to.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
on the other side--again, no need to debate this right now--canada seems to feel like they need to do whatever it takes to distance themselves from the u.s.. even more so than us citizens, ive found, canadians like to group their southern cousins into a single, labeled perspective.

Some Canadians maybe - there have always been some that act/feel that way - but they don't speak for all of us.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
you make a good point; reading what i wrote there makes me feel silly. there's your proof that the freedom of speech doesnt ensure wisdom.

people should be held accountable for what they say--but censoring them is not only wrong but dangerous. if i spend public air time defaming someone without proof or cause, then i must be accountable, i dont think that this is an infringement of the first amendment. by speaking on a public forum, i must represent myself accurately and let my statements be judged on their accuracy. this is not an infringement, either. . .i do not think.

tbt
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
people should be held accountable for what they say--but censoring them is not only wrong but dangerous.

Yes, I believe in censuring where appropriate, not censoring.

this is not an infringement, either. . .i do not think.

Never forget the beginning words to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law..." (emphasis mine) when considering whether something is an infringement.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
well said. i think that your differentiation is key.

TBT