This is an updated and expanded version of a previous blog by me. I hope you will read and consider the ideas put forth. It ought to be noted that this was originally written and published one year ago.
The current topic of controversy that will topple the nation as we know is a small act by a professional football players, that to some is tantamount to the protester in Tianamen Square and to others as an act of treason in time of war.
The taking of a knee, sitting or otherwise not rendering some customary gesture to a symbol of our country is neither of these extremes.
Today, I am going to discuss freedom of speech/expression and also explore some points of civics that seem to be lost.
First, we must remember that freedom of speech or expression isn't for the words, ideas and the like for which we agree with. Please note that while certain acts are not speech per se, they are a form of speech in that the display of them is used to convey a thought or idea in something other than words; from this point forward unless otherwise noted, when I say speech I am also speaking about these other forms of "speech" as well. Free speech is for the things that someone else is saying that we find offensive, inappropriate, reprehensible and despicable. Yes, even then such speech has a limit to which even the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has determined is beyond the pale of being free to express (inciting violence, causing a false panic). There is however no limit because it makes you mad, upset, are offended by it. What it is for is so that the people and groups who find themselves to be weak, the powerless, underrepresented can speak freely and openly in the hopes of starting a dialogue, to express their views, give notice of their concerns and to voice their conscience, when all around them are shouting them down and reviling them.
Do I like the way that Colin Kaepernick went about speaking his mind. Not particularly, as I think he has the resources and the platform to better address his very legitimate and valid concerns about aspects of our society that we would think ought to not exist in modern times. Sadly, they do exist. Whether I like the method that he chose, and that many others have started to follow, is inconsequential, however, as this is how he has chosen to bring those disparities and inequalities to light. I may find that his message is uncomfortable to me, but I totally not only respect his right to say what he wants to say, but would die for his right to say it.
Yes, you read that correctly. I would die to protect his right to do that. It is what my oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States required of me when I enlisted in the Army. To uphold the laws of the US and the laws of my state and community are what I swore an oath to when I pinned on a badge and wore a gun as a police officer. As a citizen of my nation, it is my civic duty to ensure that the liberties that I enjoy are also enjoyed by her other citizens so long as they are practiced responsibly.
Why do i find it uncomfortable, you ask, if I support the message. Because it brings to light the fact that after all these centuries of civilization, and this great experiment in governance and the ideal of the American Melting Pot, that the ideal of all being created equally and having equal opportunity, we really don't. Yes, it is true that for our first 80 some years as a nation, we had slavery, and those that were slaves were only to be considered 3/5ths as equal to the free person, or that women didn't have full and equal access to all benefits of nor duties of being a citizen until the early part of the 20th Century (common era). The ideal was there, though. We have edged closer to achieving it, at least in theory. In practice, maybe not overtly, but still, as a society we do not consider all to be equal to us on the most basic of levels with the rights, privileges and duties as any and all other citizens of the nation and as a human, simply because of (enter your choice of any or all differences that are currently used to separate).
Further, I find it uncomfortable, because a profession I love and hold dear to my heart, is shown such disrespect and contempt because there are members of that profession who egregiously have misused or neglected their duties to hold not only others to these ideals of equality and fairness, but they themselves have displayed such vileness themselves. And while it is wrong to generalize any group by the actions of some small number of its members, Law Enforcement is indeed viewed and given respect or revilement based in large part by the actions of those who bring about a negative light upon that group.
While I am focused solely upon the freedom of speech that is enumerated in the Constitution through the Bill of Rights, this applies to all of those liberties which are mine and all other citizens.
Thus ends the first part of this discussion. Unless anyone has a point to make or a bone to contend, that is all I have for now.
On to the civics lesson. This is brought to you by the extremists of the above "controversy".
Whether you call it hyper-, uber-, or ultra-nationalism, it is NOT patriotism. At least not patriotism as it ought to be known in this country. Patriotism is believing that your nation, even though she doesn't always get it right is trying to live up to the ideals for which she stands, and that you attempt to practice those ideals in how you represent yourself to the world at large, be it the neighbors, your local community or to someone from a foreign land here or abroad. Patriotism IS NOT worshiping symbols that we use to represent the ideals of which are country represents. It is not acting as a robot and automatically, unthinkingly rendering some customary gesture or face some form of punishment. That is what is done in some totalitarian regime such as North Korea, where even the mere suggestion of non-compliance with patriotic "duty" can mean imprisonment or death. These are not ideas, let alone ideals, with which the Founder's had in mind when they formed this nation. They spoke openly about injustices and grievances about government and faced fines and imprisonment, loss of property and prestige at the whims of that government and her representatives. They used words, written and in speeches to denounce that government and ultimately declare freedom from her. Protest of grievance, calling attention to injustice, shedding light upon inequality are hallmarks of our nations, foundation.
It is not denigrating and deriding a person or group of people who are speaking up, and speaking out. Because you are uncomfortable doesn't mean you can shut them down and shut them out. No, it requires you to fully examine your own thoughts and beliefs and the systems, policies or other causes that brought up their grievance to begin with. Maybe we do find that their point is frivolous and self serving. Maybe. More likely though the reason we are uncomfortable with their claims is because there is truth to them, and we have failed to speak up. There is truth that the only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing. And we don't like to think that we personally have done nothing as evil, in the guise of injustice, inequality, or imbalance continues to work around us.
A few last comments, which are more opinion than anything, but I believe they are valid. In a free society there are certain duties that we as citizens must take up to ensure that the freedoms remain. We don't have too many of those in this modern day and age, but they are still there and must be recognized. The first one is probably the one most familiar to everyone. Jury duty. Because we believe in the ideal that we are a classless society, we are all peers, and therefore we must be willing to sacrifice our time to perform this duty when we are called upon to do so. The next one is voting. And it is not just enough to go and make marks upon a ballot and say you have done your job. No, it requires you to learn about issues and candidates and then vote in the way that you determine to be the most morally responsible not just for you, but for society as a whole and for the future of the nation and her coming generations of citizens. Third, is acting to ensure the safety and peace of your community. No, I am not taking about vigilante justice. I am talking about speaking up and speaking out against those elements be they a single criminal actor or some group that demoralizes and terrorizes for their own benefit while negating the liberties of honest and otherwise law abiding citizens. We do indeed have police who are trained to investigate, and report and if possible detain those who commit crimes. But they cannot be effective when the people whom they are sworn to assist and protect will not render their own part of the process. And finally, which is also most controversially a civic duty...we must be willing to defend those liberties of which we are so proud and would be the most loud should they be denied us.
Thank you for your time.
The current topic of controversy that will topple the nation as we know is a small act by a professional football players, that to some is tantamount to the protester in Tianamen Square and to others as an act of treason in time of war.
The taking of a knee, sitting or otherwise not rendering some customary gesture to a symbol of our country is neither of these extremes.
Today, I am going to discuss freedom of speech/expression and also explore some points of civics that seem to be lost.
First, we must remember that freedom of speech or expression isn't for the words, ideas and the like for which we agree with. Please note that while certain acts are not speech per se, they are a form of speech in that the display of them is used to convey a thought or idea in something other than words; from this point forward unless otherwise noted, when I say speech I am also speaking about these other forms of "speech" as well. Free speech is for the things that someone else is saying that we find offensive, inappropriate, reprehensible and despicable. Yes, even then such speech has a limit to which even the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has determined is beyond the pale of being free to express (inciting violence, causing a false panic). There is however no limit because it makes you mad, upset, are offended by it. What it is for is so that the people and groups who find themselves to be weak, the powerless, underrepresented can speak freely and openly in the hopes of starting a dialogue, to express their views, give notice of their concerns and to voice their conscience, when all around them are shouting them down and reviling them.
Do I like the way that Colin Kaepernick went about speaking his mind. Not particularly, as I think he has the resources and the platform to better address his very legitimate and valid concerns about aspects of our society that we would think ought to not exist in modern times. Sadly, they do exist. Whether I like the method that he chose, and that many others have started to follow, is inconsequential, however, as this is how he has chosen to bring those disparities and inequalities to light. I may find that his message is uncomfortable to me, but I totally not only respect his right to say what he wants to say, but would die for his right to say it.
Yes, you read that correctly. I would die to protect his right to do that. It is what my oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States required of me when I enlisted in the Army. To uphold the laws of the US and the laws of my state and community are what I swore an oath to when I pinned on a badge and wore a gun as a police officer. As a citizen of my nation, it is my civic duty to ensure that the liberties that I enjoy are also enjoyed by her other citizens so long as they are practiced responsibly.
Why do i find it uncomfortable, you ask, if I support the message. Because it brings to light the fact that after all these centuries of civilization, and this great experiment in governance and the ideal of the American Melting Pot, that the ideal of all being created equally and having equal opportunity, we really don't. Yes, it is true that for our first 80 some years as a nation, we had slavery, and those that were slaves were only to be considered 3/5ths as equal to the free person, or that women didn't have full and equal access to all benefits of nor duties of being a citizen until the early part of the 20th Century (common era). The ideal was there, though. We have edged closer to achieving it, at least in theory. In practice, maybe not overtly, but still, as a society we do not consider all to be equal to us on the most basic of levels with the rights, privileges and duties as any and all other citizens of the nation and as a human, simply because of (enter your choice of any or all differences that are currently used to separate).
Further, I find it uncomfortable, because a profession I love and hold dear to my heart, is shown such disrespect and contempt because there are members of that profession who egregiously have misused or neglected their duties to hold not only others to these ideals of equality and fairness, but they themselves have displayed such vileness themselves. And while it is wrong to generalize any group by the actions of some small number of its members, Law Enforcement is indeed viewed and given respect or revilement based in large part by the actions of those who bring about a negative light upon that group.
While I am focused solely upon the freedom of speech that is enumerated in the Constitution through the Bill of Rights, this applies to all of those liberties which are mine and all other citizens.
Thus ends the first part of this discussion. Unless anyone has a point to make or a bone to contend, that is all I have for now.
On to the civics lesson. This is brought to you by the extremists of the above "controversy".
Whether you call it hyper-, uber-, or ultra-nationalism, it is NOT patriotism. At least not patriotism as it ought to be known in this country. Patriotism is believing that your nation, even though she doesn't always get it right is trying to live up to the ideals for which she stands, and that you attempt to practice those ideals in how you represent yourself to the world at large, be it the neighbors, your local community or to someone from a foreign land here or abroad. Patriotism IS NOT worshiping symbols that we use to represent the ideals of which are country represents. It is not acting as a robot and automatically, unthinkingly rendering some customary gesture or face some form of punishment. That is what is done in some totalitarian regime such as North Korea, where even the mere suggestion of non-compliance with patriotic "duty" can mean imprisonment or death. These are not ideas, let alone ideals, with which the Founder's had in mind when they formed this nation. They spoke openly about injustices and grievances about government and faced fines and imprisonment, loss of property and prestige at the whims of that government and her representatives. They used words, written and in speeches to denounce that government and ultimately declare freedom from her. Protest of grievance, calling attention to injustice, shedding light upon inequality are hallmarks of our nations, foundation.
It is not denigrating and deriding a person or group of people who are speaking up, and speaking out. Because you are uncomfortable doesn't mean you can shut them down and shut them out. No, it requires you to fully examine your own thoughts and beliefs and the systems, policies or other causes that brought up their grievance to begin with. Maybe we do find that their point is frivolous and self serving. Maybe. More likely though the reason we are uncomfortable with their claims is because there is truth to them, and we have failed to speak up. There is truth that the only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing. And we don't like to think that we personally have done nothing as evil, in the guise of injustice, inequality, or imbalance continues to work around us.
A few last comments, which are more opinion than anything, but I believe they are valid. In a free society there are certain duties that we as citizens must take up to ensure that the freedoms remain. We don't have too many of those in this modern day and age, but they are still there and must be recognized. The first one is probably the one most familiar to everyone. Jury duty. Because we believe in the ideal that we are a classless society, we are all peers, and therefore we must be willing to sacrifice our time to perform this duty when we are called upon to do so. The next one is voting. And it is not just enough to go and make marks upon a ballot and say you have done your job. No, it requires you to learn about issues and candidates and then vote in the way that you determine to be the most morally responsible not just for you, but for society as a whole and for the future of the nation and her coming generations of citizens. Third, is acting to ensure the safety and peace of your community. No, I am not taking about vigilante justice. I am talking about speaking up and speaking out against those elements be they a single criminal actor or some group that demoralizes and terrorizes for their own benefit while negating the liberties of honest and otherwise law abiding citizens. We do indeed have police who are trained to investigate, and report and if possible detain those who commit crimes. But they cannot be effective when the people whom they are sworn to assist and protect will not render their own part of the process. And finally, which is also most controversially a civic duty...we must be willing to defend those liberties of which we are so proud and would be the most loud should they be denied us.
Thank you for your time.
