The Freedom of Speech Awards

Posted on January 24, 2006 by me

I love the concept of “Freedom of Speech,” at least the way it was originally conceived. Freedom of Speech was granted by the First Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

Of course, the founding fathers would probably have been a bit more concise in their wording had they conceived of the kind of perversities now considered to be “free speech” (some of which do not involve “speech” at all…), but that’s a topic for another time. I suspect they had in mind the abuses they had just fought against, specifically right to speak against the government without being shot or hanged (by the government, that is…).

Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing. So wonderful, in fact, that I have decided to establish my own “Alden’s Blurt Freedom of Speech Awards.” This just means that whenever I feel like it, I will pick someone who is exercising their Constitutional right of Free Speech, and spotlight them here. There will be no trophies, money or other prizes, just the prestige of being mentioned here.

Now, I should perhaps clarify my own perception of who best uses their freedom of speech. My own slightly warped definition of Freedom of Speech is “the right to say really stupid things in front of millions of people.” I believe that this proves and champions America’s Freedom of Speech better than anything. I am limiting, at this point, the potential candidates to those speaking about political issues, but I reserve the right to amend this at any time.

The problem, of course, is that there are just so many people to choose from.

I am very pleased to announce the first ever Alden’s Blurt Freedom of Speech Award is going to none other than my old Senator from California, Diane Feinstein. She was speaking about why the Democrats are likely to vote in a party-line vote against Samuel Alito. The issue, of course, is that he is simply not a liberal.

According to the AP, she “said things are different from when the Senate considered Breyer and Ginsburg, who were confirmed 87-9 and 96-3 respectively.” She stated:

“There was not the polarization within America that is there today and not the defined move to take this court in a singular direction …“

Like Ginsburg was nominated because she was so moderate? And, like the “polarization” is something out of the Democrats’ control?

This absolutely brilliant statement by Ms. Feinstein, in my opinion (which is all that really matters here), has earned her this most prestigious honor, in proving that Free Speech doesn’t have to be true, thoughtful, or even logical. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what Freedom of Speech is all about.

Posted in Politics/Current Events, The Freedom of Speech Awards | 1 Comment

More on evolution

Posted on January 20, 2006 by me

I woke up fairly early this morning thinking about the whole evolution thing – that was before I went back to sleep and had that really annoying dream, but that’s another story. I haven’t finished reading that Dover court decision yet (it’s not very entertaining reading – Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is much better), but I will at least skim the rest. In my first post on the issue, I accused Gary Trudeau of being clueless, and thought I should explain what I mean.

First, it should be noted that there are many varied definitions of “evolution,” so there’s a good chance that any discussion on the topic (including testimony at the Dover trial) will involve people using the same words, but talking about very different issues. A very basic “scientific” definition is “any change in gene (allele) frequency in a population over time.” Another definition, by Ernst Mayr (considered one of the premier evolutionary biologists) is the “gradual process by which the living world have been developing following the origin of life.” So far, it’s pretty hard to argue with these rather open definitions.

Creationists and non-scientific folk, on the other hand, typically define evolution as the process by which “primordial soup” morphed into contemporary life-forms, including a process by which man and apes evolved from common ancestors.

Then, there are varying interpretations of microevolution and macroevolution. The above “scientific” definitions would tend to encompass both of these, whereas Creationists see totally separate concepts. The typical Creationist would define microevolution as the changes (adaptations) that occur within a species, which most would accept as pretty obvious, such as people being taller on average today than 100 years ago. Macorevolution, on the other hand, means one species morphing into a new, genetically separate species.

It’s impossible to discuss without first agreeing on the definitions. What Trudeau doesn’t understand is that you can accept intra-special evolution (that is, changes to a species over time without becoming a different species) while still holding that God created Adam and Eve as stated in Genesis, and proving one doesn’t disprove the other.

But, no one (especially the evolutionists, I’m guessing) wants to clearly define the terms; it’s harder to keep the myth alive if everyone knows what you are talking about.

If we want to find truth, it would help if people would agree that truth is the real goal. This means accepting the risk that one or both (or all) are possibly – even probably – wrong about some things. Creationists tend to fall back on theological presuppositions, and scientists resort to faulty logic and playing with definitions. It’s a useless debate, at this point, except that the public is as clueless as usual. Most people will just pick whatever they find the easiest (least personally painful) to believe in, although I doubt that most could talk intelligently about their particular belief.

The side that defines the issues usually controls the issues; to this extent, the evolutionists appear to be winning. However, these victories do nothing to advance truth, since truth is not the goal, or even the issue. Rather, the goal – apparently to both sides – is merely control.

Posted in Politics/Current Events, Random Thoughts | 1 Comment

Channel Surfing

Posted on January 18, 2006 by me

I don’t know about you, but I can’t stand Raymond.

I even find the title of that show annoying (not to mention presumptuous). That’s all I really have to say, except that when I’m looking for Seinfeld re-runs, and 3 channels are all showing Raymond, it’s frustrating.

So, when you see “Everybody Loves …,” don’t believe it. It’s a lie; it’s just another case of the liberal media messing with your mind.

Posted in Random Thoughts | Leave a comment

“The system’s kind of broken”

Posted on January 13, 2006 by me

Yesterday Joe Biden was talking about the Alito confirmation hearings with Katie Couric, and suggested that “the system’s kind of broken.”

Well, duh. My question back to him would have been, “so, who broke it?”

These confirmation hearings aren’t required, but they’ve become SOP for the Senate Judiciary Committee, mainly, I think, due to the fact that they are televised. It was clear from questioning by Biden, Ted Kennedy, and others, that they were not really interested in learning anything from Alito. Rather, they were interested in 2 things: “Borking” Alito (seeing if they could get him to to say something stupid that would destroy his chances for confirmation), and in grandstanding. The grandstanding was obvious, even to the liberal press, who had to admit that some of the Dems were going over the top in their carryings-on (except for NPR’s All Things Considered, of course).

Biden took 8 of his allotted 30 minutes to ask his first question. We learned more about Biden’s views than Alito’s, and not because Alito was being non-responsive. Kennedy spent most of his time ranting about that red herring conservative Princeton group, demanding documents be subpoenaed, and in general just being Ted Kennedy. Either Kennedy is a pure idiot, or he just plays one on TV.

Kennedy should apologize to Alito and to the Judiciary Committee for his tantrum about the CAP documents. It turns out that the documents that he wanted to subpoena were freely given to him (which Kennedy’s staff, along with Committee staff members reviewed until 2 A.M. looking for smoking guns). What they found was what Alito had suggested – he didn’t appear anywhere in the documents. So, all that for nothing, except Kennedy got to accuse Alito of being a bigot, with no basis whatsoever. And again, no apologies, because after all, he’s Ted Kennedy, and he apparently doesn’t have to apologize for anything.

Also, consider the fact that no one actually expected Alito to answer the majority of questions he was asked. No judge can “guess” how he will rule on imaginary cases, nor should he. Only a fool would try – and in that regard, I guess the hearings worked to show that at least Alito is no fool.

The system is indeed broken – or at lest badly dented. Just compare the last 2 hearings (and don’t forget the Bork hearings) with earlier confirmation hearings (especially of Democratic-appointed judges). It used to be that Judges were evaluated on their qualifications, and confirmed whether they were liberal or conservative. It was the President’s call to nominate who he wanted, and this was accepted; now, the Democrats simply won’t vote for someone unless they show a streak of liberalism. Like Bush would nominate a liberal judge, just to please Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer.

Alito will be confirmed, probably along party lines, which shows that these hearings were little more than a platform for the Democratic Senators to grandstand. As I’ve said before, it is the 2-party system that appears to be broken. If this us vs. them mentality continues, it’s only going to hurt the country.

Posted in Politics/Current Events | 1 Comment