Fickle Free Speech Warriors Found their Limits, Apparently

We either have free speech in America or we don't.  

Speech that is disgusting, stomach-turning, and vile is precisely the type of speech that requires the protection of a Constitutional Right to vocalize it.  In America we have that protection, it's called the First Amendment to the constitution--a vital part of the Bill of Rights.

But do we really have free speech though, in 2023's America?  Everyone knows there are guideposts and some speech is NOT protected (e.g. yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater)--but what about political speech?

Sometimes it seems as if free speech is only permitted if certain groups, political parties, individuals, beliefs, cultures, constituencies, and ideologies are specifically NOT targeted.

We know about cancel culture.  

We know some comedians get away with saying anything they want, about anyone they want, with no real risk of financially-costly blowback.  Sometimes, folks in this camp financially benefit from their outrageously offensive speech.   Others, however,  have artificially constructed and universally mandated but unvocalized "boundaries" that, if crossed, bring immediate cancellation, stigma, and financial ruin.  Many have met this fate and never recovered.

Christians are routinely targeted for hateful speech, disgusting "artistic" depictions, and shameful cartoons.  Ho hum, nobody cares, and few stand up to decry attacks on Christianity, which is telling.....

Other religions, however, enjoy universally embraced, accepted, and projected "boundaries."  As an example:  the National Endowment for the Arts paid an artist to display a Crucifix in an aquarium full of urine.  They gushed that this was "ART" and a protected form of self expression.

By contrast, when the disgusting spectacle of the buring of the Holy Quran was advertised, promoted, and threatened by a "reverand in Florida"---free-speech warriors were AWOL. 

See how that works?

To be clear:  I do not support disgusting attacks based upon the immutable or specific characteristics of any particular religion, race, culture, or person.  NOBODY should engage in this.  I certainly don't.

But if we truly have free speech to protect disgusting, vile, appalling and gut-turning speech aimed at such persons, institutions, and cultures----------it is only a real thing if it is not selective and not punitive.  

In America--the left, the media, and some special interest groups with smiling faces and determined sincerity say cute things to demonstrate their alleged "support" of the First Amendment.  They say "We have the First Amendment----you can say anything you want but you have to understand there may be real consequences for what you say."  (translation: say something they don't 'like' ----and they will seek your absolute destruction for hate speech----- if they deem it to be 'offensive'....)

No, while they blatantly distort  their support of free speech--they've already tacitly adopted and normalized the European model on "free"speech--which surpresses much of it based upon artificially manufactured and politically correct driven "norms".  

Recently--these very same fickle free-speech warriors have apparently found their limits within a wedge issue among their comrades.  Yes, the left and many media outlets are currently embroiled in what appears to be an uncharacteristic, unusual display of internal squabbling which is driving a wedge through their caucus. (normally, they swim like a school of fish with uber liberals, moderates, and conservative Democrats ALWAYS closing ranks and moving together as a unit--which has been incredibly EFFECTIVE for them.  Republicans, by contrast, never seem to get this--particularly lately--which leads to splinter groups, infighting, and a [figuratively speaking, of course] circular firing squad effect that allows Republicans to LOSE when it counts the MOST).  And I say all this as a LIFELONG Republican!!)  

Now, it seems, the left are divided on the Israel/Hamas war.  And America's handling of it.  And President Biden's response.

Many Democrats want an immediate cease fire and decry the loss of Palestinian lives.  Others, perhaps fewer, openly purport to support "Israel's right to defend herself" while privately (and sometimes publicly) equivocating the violence of the October 7th Hamas terror attack with their perception/understanding of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, historically).  It is ripping the Democrats to pieces and President Biden's re-election polling numbers are showing the outcome.  And it get's even worse for Biden if Joe Manchin runs in the No Labels party next year, to boot.

But setting those political implications aside--here comes something interesting and curious.

As I saw very talented editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez' cartoon going viral (depicting HAMAS doing what HAMAS actually does--hiding behind innocent civilians as human shields)--these same selective free-speech warriors demanded and succeeded in having that cartoon pulled.  And the complicit Washington Post--a  compromised left-leaning newspaper --compliantly pulled the cartoon down and issued a gushing apology to appease the hard left.

This cartoon was attacked by the left and some in the media and subsequently pulled from publications in 2023

The Subject of Poverty Came up at My Coffee Meeting......

Some espouse the flawed notion that being poor in America is no different than being poor in other parts of the world, like in Russia (pictured).  This notion is just not true.

The subject of poverty in America came up during my Coffee with the Commissioner event yesterday morning.  Unfortunately, it is something I know about from my own personal experience, growing up in a broken home in some very tough circumstances.

I know what it feels like to go to bed hungry---I lived that.  I know what it was like to get whipped with a belt for simply getting food from the refrigerator without asking permission.  Yeah, that happened to me until I turned 11 years old.

So I heard there was a luncheon event in downtown on Tuesday where it was stated that "poverty in America is no different than poverty around the rest of the world."

I just have to take exception to that--that is patently false.  Poverty sucks, I know that firsthand as I lived it.  (My Dad[who adopted my brother and I] and my Mom, God rest their souls, worked 5 jobs between them at one point here in Pensacola in 1978--and still we struggled.) But my parents kept at it, and eventually things improved. Slowly. It took a lot of hard work and MUCH sacrifice.

As a family, we overcame poverty.

Others have overcome poverty in America as well.  Many by following what Ben Shapiro calls his three simple rules to escape poverty in America.  During my coffee yesterday I offered a slightly skewed version--1.Don't do Drugs  2. Work a Job  3. Don't have Children You cannot afford to care for.  4.  Get Married and stay married.  Work and marriage are the key to escaping poverty.

It isn't that difficult to understand, and it isn't that complex-because we live in a great nation that is extremely generous and benevolent that is full of opportunity for those that are willing to work hard.

So how do I know poverty is not the same here as it is in Greece, Turkey, or Mexico, anyway?  Uh,

Learn from History-Don’t Erase It!

Although America is the greatest nation in the history of mankind-our history is one of violence and cruelty to many.  But we have evolved and improved as a country.  Some want to erase history by tearing down statues and taking down monuments for political correctness' sake.  I think this is dangerous, and I DO NOT support this....History is what it was, not what we wish it had been...

In 2021, the  $427 Million replacement bridge now under construction over Pensacola Bay will be completed.  Current FDOT policy and practice dictates replacement structure(s) carry the same designations as the original structure(s) replaced-absent any new legislative action.

In this instance and by an act of the Florida legislature in 1961-the bridge connecting Pensacola with Gulf Breeze is officially recognized as the “Philip D. Beall Sr. Memorial Bridge”—although most locals call it the “3-Mile Bridge.”  (Sen. Philip D. Beall was a State Senator from Pensacola from 1935 until 1943.)

But some folks now insist we give this replacement structure a new name—stripping the Beall family name and re-naming it the Daniel R. “Chappie” James bridge.  (Chappie James was a decorated combat aviator, the first black man to become a 4-star general in the U.S. Military.)

I believe a better tribute for a great man like Chappie would be for us to rename Pensacola’s airport in his honor—after all, Chappie was an aviator!  If Louisville Kentucky can rename their city’s airport for their favorite son, Mohammad Ali, then why can’t Pensacola do this same thing for Chappie James?

Beall’s descendants have suggested a fair compromise amidst all this rancorous debate—a dual designation of the bridge, honoring both men. 

Unfortunately- this magnanimous, common-sense gesture was rebuked.

Our legislative delegation, meanwhile, has signaled its willingness to introduce legislation to change the bridge’s official designation-- if this is the will of the four interested communities.

Pensacola and Santa Rosa County have already taken formal votes on this.

Escambia County and the city of Gulf Breeze, however, have wisely moved forward with a committee approach for considering this issue--allowing individual citizens a voice in this decision.   (citizens may send their thoughts to:  namethebridge@myescambia.com )

I’m hopeful this committee will listen to all sides of this matter with open minds.

Because sadly--some folks that are supportive of changing the bridge’s name have now resorted to denigrating a family’s legacy by calling Sen. Beall a “racist”- an insidious claim that has no basis in fact!

This negative turn in the discussion has been devastating to Beall’s descendants. 

Senator Beall’s daughter sat in my office going through memorabilia recently—and emotionally asked me this: “Why do they want to erase my family’s history-our family wasn’t racist?”

Nevertheless-- individuals pushing to tear Beall’s name from the bridge continue assaulting his legacy, pointing to legislation the senator sponsored in 1935 that made Democratic primaries statewide "white only."

But these primaries were ubiquitous in the 1930s south; the Supreme Court decision in Grovey v. Townsend ruled that such primaries were lawful and didn’t deprive citizens of their 14th or 15th Amendment rights.  It was about party politics of that time, not race.

Meanwhile-- every racist injustice committed by Andrew Jackson, FDR, Robert Byrd, and other historic figures that have monuments locally and nationwide---apparently, these are a non-issue.  (Jackson owned slaves, FDR force-segregated black troops and illegally interred American Citizens of Japanese descent. Byrd was in the Ku Klux Klan—yet all these guys’ monuments stand proudly?)

It’s rank hypocrisy that’s borderline delusional.

Allowing ANY angry mob to become the de facto “monument police,” re-writing our history to suit their agenda and ideology, condemning selected historical figures while ignoring historical realities, acting as judge, jury and executioner to erase history—this is wrong!  

I don’t-- and we shouldn’t—countenance the sanitizing of history by condoning the forceful destruction of statues, the removal of monuments, and/or the stealing of families' memorial designations----on the orders of ANY angry mob. 

The New American Educational Aristocracy

Is inequitable educational opportunities in America leading to a calcification of an elitist class?

This is the interesting opinion with lots of very valid points in yesterday's edition of The Economist.  from the article

  "A young college graduate earns 63% more than a high-school graduate if both work full-time and the high-school graduate is much less likely to work at all. For those at the top of the pile, moving straight from the best universities into the best jobs, the potential rewards are greater than they have ever been…None of this is peculiar to America, but the trend is most visible there.America is one of only three advanced countries where the government spends more on schools in rich areas than in poor ones. Its university fees have risen 17 times as fast as median incomes since 1980, partly to pay for pointless bureaucracy and flashy buildings... Many schools are in the grip of one of the most anti-meritocratic forces in America: the teachers’ unions, which resist any hint that good teaching should be rewarded or bad teachers fired. To fix this, and the scandal of inequitable funding, the system should become both more and less local…Dollars should follow pupils, through a big expansion of voucher schemes or charter schools. In this way, good schools that attract more pupils will grow; bad ones will close or be taken over. Unions and their Democratic Party allies will howl, but experiments in cities such as battered New Orleans have shown that school choice works…Finally, America’s universities need an injection of meritocracy. Only a handful, such as Caltech, admit applicants solely on academic merit. All should."

Read     America's New Aristocracy