Distichia Moralia provides with keen wisdom the following, “Speech is given to many; intelligence to few.” After the European trip of US President Joe Biden, intelligence is in short supply in the White House, the staff, and of course, the US Media! Would someone please tell me how so many can say so much, yo-yo’ing from one point to another, and still make no sense? Honest question, the other day someone told me the patients were running the asylum, and I countered no, the clowns took over the circus. Both sentiments are accurate, but I detest clowns, and mental patients can occasionally do something brilliant.
Now, to be perfectly fair, little Joey Biden has a mental cognition problem that is more than likely some form of senility or Alzheimer’s disease. I am not entirely blaming little Joey; his spouse and handlers bear the full brunt of the blame and deserve their punishment for not allowing this senile old man to retreat to his beloved basement and finish the rest of his days in solitude and grandchildren. May little Joey sniff hair and massage shoulders in a creepy fashion after retirement to his heart’s content. But his handlers, the complicit media, and his spouse need to be hauled in front of a judge for elder person abuse!
From Australia’s Sky News, the BBC, Daily Mail, FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, and Jerusalem News, essentially covering the entire globe, every media channel worth a small moment is complaining about Biden’s European performance. Not all media channels are created equal, but to have them all complaining about Biden in Europe is pretty phenomenal. To have Biden walk back his handlers’ “clarification” and then renounce his previous sentiments in the same speech is nothing short of a full-blown communication failure.
To clarify, I do not care what you embrace for your political party. Any person with half a brain cell can observe what is happening and know instinctively that the elected leaders have no clue and even less intelligence. Worse, their intellectual ability for self-preservation is running on fumes and day-old flatulence. Truly, “speech is given to many, and intelligence to few.” Unfortunately, this is not the tip of the iceberg humanity is headed towards at full speed!
Satire is truth wrapped in comic wit and presented for discussion. Never taken seriously as supported by how many “shock” comedians? Yet, the Babylon Bee is removed from Twitter because some Twitter employees think they have a special mission from their god CEO Parag Agrawal to silence any voice they deem “hostile.” More people prove that “speech is given to many; intelligence to few.” Would someone please tell me how Kathy Griffin can parody cutting off then President Trump’s head, and she can maintain a Twitter account, but the Babylon Bee has their account suspended. Worse, Kathy Griffin, a fully non-humorous comedienne, got a Netflix special, but Dave Chapelle was hounded mercilessly for weeks because he told the truth and was actually funny.
Kathy Griffin, Dave Chapelle, Biden/Trump, Babylon Bee, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple, and others are tied into a Gordian Knot over the topic of controlling speech unconstitutionally. Whether as perpetrators, victims, or politics, every actor mentioned, especially those not mentioned, as this was NOT a definitive list, all share in the ongoing saga over the First Amendment.
A reminder, the First Amendment states:
“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.”
The perpetrators who are pulling the political strings to hinder and thwart the First Amendment hide, like evil thinking cowards, cower behind the shield, “Congress.” Claiming that since they are not Congress, they only prohibit speech on their private platforms conditional as part of the “User Agreement” or as private citizens or businesses. Hence, limiting the speech of others is entirely legal, moral, and socially acceptable, intentionally muddying the lines between legal and illegal for entertainment or some other bloviated excuse. Except, what these perpetrators are doing is stealing freedom from everyone for personal profit.
What is “Hate speech?” Sure, the lawyers have concocted a definition for court, but in practice, “Hate Speech” is anything any person who thinks they possess a modicum of power deems it to be. Any tool that limits speech will be used as a weapon to beat people out of their rights and freedoms and steal the same to enslave all. The Supreme Court regularly hears cases on First Amendment issues, specifically speech. Of the five freedoms protected and enshrined in the First Amendment (Speech, Religion, Press, Assembly, and Petition the government), speech is the one most often attacked. The Supreme Court has wisely used the rule of thumb, “Screaming ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater,” as the basis for whether to rule speech as governed under the First Amendment or not.
Why is this a wise rule of thumb? Because creating panic in a population enclosed in a building should not be protected “free” speech as the consequences are dire indeed. But does this mean anything else goes; absolutely! A simple rule exists to explain why, “When you limit the freedoms of a single person in a society, the entire society loses ALL of their freedoms, rights, and liberties.” Democracy is messy! A constitutional republic is doubly chaotic! We, the citizens of either a democracy or a constitutional republic, accept this as a necessity to protect our individual rights, freedoms, and liberties.
This means when Twitter declares something as broaching their “User Agreement” and limiting one person’s speech, as a citizen of the United States, every citizen of the United States loses! When Facebook or LinkedIn practice censorship in the name of “socially acceptable speech,” they are thwarting the US Constitution and decrying they are the wisest of us all and intelligent enough to declare what is and is not “acceptable” speech in a public environment. When YouTube ends people’s livelihood because they do not like the content in a video, everyone loses their right to produce content free from burdensome oppression.
Chris Rock was free to make a joke about Jada Pinkett-Smith as a point of reference. Will Smith was perfectly in his right to first laugh at the joke and then choose to become offended. But, Will Smith’s rights ended when he took action and hit Chris Rock. Speech is a responsibility, and exercising speech properly means sometimes being held accountable for the speech made. Unfortunately, modern society has allowed people to make offensive and degrading remarks without accountability for too long, which is a problem. However, the solution is not to control speech by a business, company, government, non-governmental board/organization, etc. The solution is to remind people of the accountability inherent in exercising their rights to speech.
Speech is never “Free.” Free speech means no consequences to what you say, but the reverse is true, and speech has a significant cost! Ask any disabled veteran about the cost of speech, and let me know if they claim their injuries are free. Worse, ask any person jailed who made a speech if their speech was free, and tell me if their sufferings, depravations, and sacrifices were without cost. Chris Rock was entirely in his right to make an offensive joke. I did not find it funny. But could Chris Rock have been held accountable for his poor sense of humor without being slapped on international television; absolutely. But, name me another group of people who abuse the rights, freedoms, and liberties of others without care and concern than Hollywood. I know of no other industry!
Yet, Hollywood has taken it upon themselves to be the lords and masters over everyone else when they cannot control themselves. Solidifying the permanence in the principle, “Speech is given to many; intelligence to few.” How many known victims of Harvey Weinstein? How many unknown victims are living? How many dead victims? How long was Harvey Weinstein abusing his power to subjugate people to whet his appetites and passions? How many others are currently copy-catting Harvey Weinstein’s example?
The government has failed to police Hollywood, and Hollywood refuses to police itself, but how many in Hollywood are willing to insist that Hollywood needs a deep cleansing, an injection of values, morals, and law; not many, if any. Name another industry so rampant and steeped in villainy, depravity, and disgust that it can escape basic law enforcement. Hollywood spawned Bollywood and how many other incarnations in countries around the globe, all suffering from the same moral vacuum and creating the same social decay without consequence. Spoilt children, parading as virtuous adults, demand their rights, liberties, and freedoms, all while denying others the same rights, liberties, and freedoms. Demanding politicians, the same politicians fawning and feeding the Hollywood monster, to use the powers of government, and big business, to thwart laws for their own profit and gain.
Have you ever heard of a “Casting Couch?” In business, the military, and government, a “casting couch” is sexual harassment, a crime worthy of jail, heavy fines, and social scorn for the perpetrator. In Hollywood, the “Casting Couch” is regular business for those desiring to be in Hollywood, and the victims, if they speak out, are scorned and unemployable. The horror stories about the “Casting Couch” are depraved, disgusting, and the victims’ ages run the gamut, all with little to no consequences for those soliciting sexual favors in return for employment in Hollywood. The case of Harvey Weinstein ripped the scab off the festering wound of Hollywood, but Big Business and Government have helped keep the wound alive and infected, to the shame and horror of the victims.
Will Smith, enjoy the spotlight your actions created, and may the consequences fit the crime. Chris Rock, you’re still not funny. Wanda Sykes, you lost your funny. The Oscar’s is not worth my time and energy to scorn, let alone watch. But, Hollywood, your industry is sick, and the greatest crime is that your infection is spreading faster than a case of Chlamydia in the Playboy Mansion. Hollywood, you have lost any and all claims to tell anyone else how to live and until you clean up your mess, I will continue to refuse you my money. You might start by remembering, “Speech is given to many; intelligence to few.”
© Copyright 2022 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images. Quoted materials remain the property of the original author.
On the topic of asking questions in my inbox right now, I have two weeks of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) – Office of Inspector General Reports (VA-OIG) where comprehensive healthcare inspections (CHIp) were conducted. Employee morale from distress contributes to employee churn, and leadership is not being held to task. Yet, the chief executive will unconstitutionally call out a “whole-of-government” response to Texas exercising state rights on abortion but not help correct veterans being abused. Why?
Consider the following article title from the BBC, “
When fighting modular language tyranny, we must have a full and complete understanding of the definitions of the terms plasticized. Positivity is mainly defined as a practice of being, or an innate tendency, to be positive or optimistic in attitude. Optimism, understood as a general term, is understood as practicing hopefulness and confidence about the future or a successful outcome. The dictionary has no entries for “tragic optimism” or “toxic positivity.” Hence, the only conclusion is to consider the BBC as practicing tyranny through modular language, or stretching words to meet a political agenda, purposefully causing chaos, and attempting to control people through the misunderstanding of words and language!
In searching less reputable sources online for toxic positivity, I find myself shaking my head and laughing hysterically at the mindset of those who would support thinking positively is toxic. Would one of the modular language tyrants please explain how a person who chooses to look on the positive side of life can be toxic? Would one of the modular language tyrants please explain how optimism can be “tragic?”
One of the most challenging parts of my doctoral degree has been the proliferation of “operational definitions” researchers adopt, which is nothing more than the plasticization of words to fit the researchers’ bias. The BBC’s articles quote researchers, who have drunk their own Kool-Aid, and gotten high off the power of authoritarian thought and the policing of the emotions of an audience. Repeatedly, I have gone to research documents from peer-reviewed resources and found the language used so deplorable that I cannot consider that source reputable, usable, or even worthy of my time. Yet, too often, I have been forced to use materials academically that I would never consider using professionally. The problem always arises from how a researcher plasticizes (operationally defines) a term to fit the researcher’s intentions just as the BBC has done to try and make optimism and positivity wrong and demean people who choose to be optimistic or positive their emotional choices.
Today 03 March 2021, the BBC ran an article titled, “
Let us face the elephant in the room; the BBC is not known for reporting information without personal bias, political opinion, and a hearty dose of fearmongering as tools needed to sell advertising and lure unsuspecting readers to their version of the news. Nothing against the BBC, just acknowledging that when it comes to newspapers and news media, it is always best to understand the basics, corporate media outlets exist to sell advertising. Hence, lurid stories lead!
Finally, let us be perfectly clear, The United States of America is NOT a democracy, but a Republic! America being a Republic is a good thing because democracy is just evil under the guise of freedom. In a democracy, the majority rule, not just a supermajority of 60% of a population or more, but a simple majority of 51 out of 100. Having laws and procedures demanding significant government changes need supermajorities is a protection to the freedom and liberty in a nation, a state, a county, and a city/town.
Returning this discussion to the problems with human rights vs. human obligations. Human rights are laws, and the report is very damning on laws the authors do not like and then claim those laws are anti-human rights. The report’s authors create a couple of human rights from whole cloth to batter politicians they particularly do not like but were democratically elected by their respective populations. The authors’ political bias becomes clear very quickly while reading the report. The report will be like throwing red meat to the political left’s lions and tigers, who will never admit there are biases, issues, and confusion purposefully twisted into facts in the report.
Because human obligations are a reflection of the morals of a population, these do not change, nor should they change, which means that there is a constant method to care for the sick, the afflicted, and the downtrodden. The problem inherent in human obligations is those who consider that it is the government’s job to care for their populations cradle-to-grave when this is simply not possible! No government should ever be saddled with morals, or care for human obligations, as human obligations are individually fulfilled, not government programmed.
The report states, “As COVID-19 spread during the year, governments across the democratic spectrum repeatedly resorted to excessive surveillance, discriminatory restrictions on freedoms like movement and assembly, and arbitrary or violent enforcement of such restrictions by police and nonstate actors.” All of which is true and distressing in the extreme. Yet, the rest of the paragraph twists a couple of half-truths into facts and closes with how non-democratic governments went to the extreme to punish their citizens during a “global pandemic.” Still refusing to believe, or even consider, that the government response to COVID has been the problem from the beginning of Sars-COV-2 spreading from China across the world.
Since the authors got the social unrest in the United States wrong, how can anyone have verity that the rest of the report was right? More, where human rights and human obligations cross, how can the authors get away with spreading half-truths as facts and diminish any country through a couple of authors’ personal biases and opinions? Since the matrix for measuring “democracy” is not revealed, how do the authors make the conclusions they make with unsubstantiated data?
Honoring human obligations leads to greater freedoms and liberties for the entire society, not merely those who fit into one government program or another. Better, liberty and freedom built upon honoring human obligations allow for reduced government size, leading to less opportunity for governmental abuse and injury. The shift in growing liberty is not found in human rights laws compelling behaviors through forced state penalties. The change in growing liberty starts as people honor their obligations to each other and reduce reliance upon government handouts.
The BBC is reporting that one of the possibilities for the next pandemic will arrive through 
Yet, if 2020 is any example, the government, fed by the hysterical media, including the BBC, will impose new rules, new restrictions, new problems, new actions, wasting more money and other precious resources, and will remain 100% ineffective. Consider what the citizenry was promised January and February 2020, a “two-week shutdown to flatten the curve.” The curve was never flattened. The government has botched everything. Common sense effective drugs and treatments were replaced for experimental options that cost exorbitant amounts of money, and the media has fueled fear in populations worldwide. Can anyone indeed defend the actions of the majority of governments where COVID-19 is concerned?
Speaking of mosquitos, it took a private company (Disney) to prove that mosquito populations could be controlled, and the government continues to ruin that simple program to the Nth Degree! Why did Disney need to control bugs, especially mosquitos, to make money. Why has the government failed to control bugs carrying diseases; because all a government can ever do is injure!
While I am grateful to the BBC for alerting me that new mosquito variants are being found in North America, and these new mosquitoes can carry more dangerous diseases, the emotional hyperbole passed along with the BBC reporting is beneath contempt! The world has been fighting viral diseases, bacterial diseases, and so much more for all recorded history. We have learned what works and what does not work, we have science trying to create new methods of fighting diseases, and we have individuals acting to protect themselves and their neighbors. Ancient Egypt is famous for the bug problems they experienced. Many movies have been made about the bugs Ancient Egypt endured. Sadly, the same problem from Ancient Egypt survives today: government!
As for the government, please heed the citizenry. “Cease the COVID silliness!” Viruses undergo evolution and natural selection, just like all cell-based life, and most viruses evolve rapidly; this is a common known truth. We do not need more COVID mandates restricting life and injuring citizens! What about COVID is new? The common cold, which has been around and used to kill people, occurs due to rhinovirus, coronavirus, and adenovirus. Why the lockdowns, why the hysteria, why the political gamesmanship?
The CDC continues to affirm, “Antibiotics do not work on viruses, such as those that cause colds, flu, bronchitis, or runny noses, even if the mucus is thick, yellow, or green. Antibiotics are only needed for treating certain infections caused by bacteria, but even some bacterial infections get better without antibiotics.” Will the corporate media please learn these facts, ask better questions, and demand better answers on behalf of the citizens affected? Essentially, will the media, do your bloody job!
DNC-Consulting 