Select Page ::

Small progress in budget standstill as one NJ assemblyman changes vote – New Jersey 101.5 FM Radio

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Michael Symons, Townsquare Media

TRENTON The board that counts votes in the Assembly chamber stayed largely as it was on Sunday from where it was when the government shutdown began with one small difference, a vote moving from the abstention list to those voting in favor of the budget.

Assemblyman James Kennedy from Rahway said that while he knows it may take longer for some of his colleaguesto move on the budget he did what he believed was right, and was going back to where he originally stood on the budget.

Kennedy said after he first cast his vote he noticed the rest of the votes made what he described as a Christmas tree.

It was divided almost in thirds, he said. I believe there were 27 yes votes and 25 no votes and then 22 abstentions.

Christie OKd posters at government offices blaming speaker for shutdown. Is that legal?

After 30 minutes of seeing very little movement on the votes Kennedy said he changed his vote to abstain when he realized things were at a standstill.

The speaker asked me why I had changed my vote, and I told him that we need to go back and negotiate some sort of settlement, he said. The message I was sending to leadership was go back in the back room (and negotiate). It doesnt seem like were so far away from a settlement based on what everybody is saying. Theres gotta be something that makes this move.

Horizon in the conversation as shutdown continues, Sweeney says

When members of the assembly asked about the disparity in votes Kennedy said initially they were told that the divide was not related to Governor Chris Christies plans to overhaul the funding and governance of Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield, but rather to do with an issue of the governor looking for the newspapers or something else that had been previously talked about.

After a full day passed with little to no movement Kennedy said It became blatantly obvious that this was about Horizon, and nothing but Horizon.

I find it difficult to understand why youd shut down government over an issue thats not even in this particular budget, he said. So here we are. Hes down at a state park and nobody else is and the rest is history.

After two decades as the mayor of Rahway, Kennedy is at the end of his first term in Trenton, and said he has heard the concerns of his constituents.

Primarily we were hearing anger over the Horizon bill, he said. Theres a great number of people in New Jersey that are covered by them including myself and others.

While the Horizon bill has not yet been presented to the Assembly, Kennedy said he had heard enough talk about it among his colleagues to believe that a compromise could be reached.

Theres room for negotiation and it seems unconscionable to shut down government on Fourth of July weekend, he said.

Even as Kennedy moved to the yes column and there was talk of a second moving on Sunday as well Kennedy said he knows it could be a long process to get to a final resolution.

Im a realist. I think youll see a few more, but I dont see it reaching 41 that easily, he said. I wouldnt be surprised if I saw at the end of the frustration when the public is totally disgusted with the inaction that maybe the Rs come over and approve the budget.

Even if the budget is approved Kennedy said he and his colleagues are aware there could be consequences if the Horizon bill is not approved as well.

Budget impasse leads to NJ government shutdown heres whats open & closed

Everybody knows the results of that. Its going to be a slash and burn approach instead of realistically looking at this without punishing people whose opinion is different than others, he said. Thats the sad part of government today.

At a time when partisan politics is at a boiling point at all levels of government Kennedy, a Democrat, said he is a team player to a point, but when its irrational Im not.

Theres a lot of Republicans that are like that. Theres a lot of Democrats that are like that. And there needs to be some common sense here, he said. This budget should be approved. Ive talked to colleagues on both sides of the aisle that say hey, this is as good of a budget as were going to carve. They should approve it.

Whenthe shutdown comes to an end and the government reopens Kennedy said there will still be plenty of work for the legislature to do.

Then you go back to governing, he said. Its last weeks news and therell be new issues to deal with. Its not like the state isnt suffering from important things to deal with.

Christie has called for a special session of both houses of the legislature for 10 a.m. on Monday morning to address the shutdown and budget standstill.

With new affirmative action case, no progress – UT The Daily Texan

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Another summer, another affirmative action lawsuit.

Edward Blum, the legal strategist and conservative activist who orchestrated the Fisher v. University of Texas lawsuit, is seeking to sue the University over concerns regarding the admissions process once more. Blum argues this time using the Texas Constitution that UT cannot consider applicants differently because of race and ethnicity.

Blums lawsuit, filed in support of white and Asian plaintiffs who felt disadvantaged by the policy, makes the same denunciation of affirmative action as in the previous Fisher v. University of Texas case. This isnt an issue of whether or not certain groups, including Asian applicants, have a right to feel wronged this is a matter of repeatedly attacking a necessary protection and offering nothing constructive in its place.

Blum, a Texas Ex, isnt a lawyer, but nonetheless has a knack for ushering cases into the federal arena. A seasoned strategist, Blums current mission is to reconstruct the Universitys admissions processes so that they adhere to one interpretation of Texas Equal Rights Amendment (1972). That is, disable the consideration of race when reviewing the 25 percent of students who are not admitted automatically to the University, a process he feels violates the amendments equality protection.

The lawsuits goal of eliminating a system which protects one population black and Hispanic applicants but sporadically hinders another in the eyes of his nonprofit, Students for Fair Admissions, is tantamount to simply shifting the burden of inequality. We need to be constructive instead of targeting already disadvantaged populations when tackling the staggeringly tricky issue of discrimination.

Disabling Texas use of affirmative action is a mistake that will only benefit the select members of Blums nonprofit, students who decry a perceived inequity in admissions when white and Asian students are stacked up against students of other races.

To those who feel wronged by the system, consider the inherent advantage in being white, in being male and white, or even the advantage in being poor and white instead of poor and black or Hispanic. Consider the gradation of discrimination experienced by Asians: Some Asians benefit from affirmative action, while others are less advantaged. Changing the demographics wont alter the far-reaching, and harmful, precedent Blums case hopes to set.

Affirmative action provides Texans with greater opportunity to succeed. Top universities, including Harvard University, Brown University and The University of Chicago, stand firmly in support of affirmative action. Fortune 500 companies support affirmative action. The growth of the UT student body agrees with affirmative action: Diversity increased once the measure was readopted in 2005.

The legal battle over equality in university admissions will not end once the new suit has been filed and resolved. This is a contentious issue with no obvious resolution. Affirmative action is a strong step in the right direction. While I might be counted among those who benefit from a ruling in Blums favor, I know that we must continue to protect diversity in our student body with every instrument available.

We have to stand firmly against discrimination. In the face of pressure to alter admissions processes, we must use affirmative action as a tool to level the playing field for all Texans.

Emily Severe is a Business Honors junior from Round Rock, Texas.

With new affirmative action case, no progress - UT The Daily Texan

Rep. Bailes confirms progress with Dayton train issue – Chron.com

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Bailes addresses Dayton Rotarians last Thursday and announced some important legislation that he authored and was signed by the governor.

t was a full house for Rotarians as they listened to their special guest State Representative Ernest Bailes on his accomplishments in the last session of the legislature.

Rep. Bailes confirms progress with Dayton train issue

Fresh off his first session as state representative, Rep. Ernest Bailes was back in the district to update his constituents on his votes, bills he authored, successes and challenges working within the politics at the capital.

Last Thursday, Bailes spent most of his day in Dayton meeting with Rotarians at noon and educators shortly after and then a drop-in at the Dayton community meeting later that night.

The freshman representative's biggest announcement came with confirmation that progress had been made on the headache at the railroad crossing on US 90 in Dayton.

Bailes said there had been several meetings with officials from BNSF, CMC, Union Pacific and other stakeholders in Austin at the capital to iron out the issue.

"I can't discuss it in full detail but because it's still in negotiations phase, however, I can say with full confidence that UP is at the table, which they have not been before, and willing to work with us," he said.

Bailes also confirmed that TxDOT officials from Beaumont and Austin at the state level were in on the negotiations realizing that the public safety issue and growth coming from new developments and SH 99 resonating with officials.

"They have all agreed to a concept that will move the railroad crossing further to the west on US Highway 90," Bailes told Rotarians.

Bailes said it not only made sense for them operationally inside the rail yard, but also will alleviate the congestion at the current crossing.

He told Rotarians that TxDOT is now in the process of developing a cost estimate for an overpass that would go over the new US 90 location and would be fairly close to the SH 99 area south of Dayton.

Bailes also said that Union Pacific was considering double-tracking into Houston, including through Dayton making it a north-south line. UP would have to acquire some private land that they do not own but no acquisitions have been made to date.

"The overpass will have to be wider than it is on most because of their traffic flows," he said.

Bailes used Plum Grove, a once small logging community, as an example of the shocking growth coming to the county.

"Their population at the last census was 660 or 670 and now their platted for 17,500 half-acre lots and that's growth," he said.

Not all of those have homes on them yet, but the growth has been nothing short of exponential.

The Dayton development River Ranch promises to be a little slower with homes being built first on 150 lots on the northwest corner of the property close to SH 146. According to a spokesperson from River Ranch, homes won't be built on that property for another 12 to 18 months.

Another of topics of interest, particularly for educators, was the idea of a consumption tax for public education instead of property taxes.

"The problem with that is that in Shepherd, Texas, for example, where I live, if my wife buys groceries at the Cleveland Walmart, she's actually taking away from Shepherd ISD and giving money to Cleveland ISD with a consumption tax," he said. "The only way to make funding equitable for all students across the state of Texas is to use a Robin Hood system, but we can't go back to a system we have already deemed as not fair."

That was only one of the issues with having to deal with funding education, a huge piece of the pie in the state's budget.

"We're trying to find out how we can get a meaningful fix for school funding," he said.

School choice and vouchers remain at the center of the debate, particularly with the Lt. Governor telling lawmakers that he would not pass any measure that effects school funding without them.

Bailes discussed how many private schools wouldn't be willing to accept special needs students, particularly knowing that they might lose money with their care and education.

Having closed enrollment is not comparing apples to apples, he said.

"Public schools are tied with those strings where they have to," the freshman representative said.

Bailes also announced that negotiations with TxDOT may bring a turning lane on 146 coming in from Hardin into Liberty.

"I've met with TxDOT and they have done the traffic studies on addressing a turning lane there and that will be another help to Liberty," he said.

Bailes also addressed the $1,000 pay increase for teachers across the state.

"No one knows yet how that will be funded and probably won't know until we return for the session and hear if it will be an unfunded mandate on school districts or not," he said.

Another proposal for half a billion to help fix the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) and showing that educators across the state are facing nearly doubling insurance.

"We were only able to put in about two-thirds of that, but teachers will probably face a near doubling of their insurance. If we could have come up with the money to fix the insurance mess, teachers would have been able to keep more money in their pockets and that would have probably exceeded the $1,000 pay raise," he said.

Bailes said the legislature will return to Austin in July and face 20 charges from the governor to address.

"We have a lot of issues to settle, some of these have already been addressed, others much more important than another, but they all must be addressed," he said.

Rep. Bailes confirms progress with Dayton train issue - Chron.com

Teacher’s video highlights progress of bilingual students – SFGate – SFGate

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Teacher's video highlights progress of bilingual students

MOUNT VERNON, Wash. (AP) Judging by their eagerness to answer questions, it's hard to tell that some students in Andy Bishop's fourth-grade class at Jefferson Elementary School once struggled to speak English.

"My sister and my cousin spoke English and I didn't understand a word," said 10-year-old Jizlinn Martinez-Cruz. "It was hard pronouncing the words."

Like many students throughout the Mount Vernon School District, Jizlinn worked hard to learn to communicate not only in English but in Spanish as well.

"When you grow up you could get a better job (if you speak more than one language)," said Kimberly Madera, 10, who not only speaks English and Spanish but Mixteco, an indigenous language from southern Mexico.

In the weeks before school ended, a group of students in Bishop's class made a video to share with their classmates what it is like to grow up being bilingual and at the intersection of two cultures.

"Even though it's difficult, it's part of your life," Kimberly said in the video .

It's a struggle Karla Ayala, a student-teacher working in Bishop's class, can understand.

"Growing up (being bilingual) ... it was kind of tough," she said.

Not only did she struggle to learn English, she had to be the translator for her parents, Ayala said.

Having no one in the classroom who looked like her or understood her struggle also made it difficult.

"If I would have seen people that looked like me, I would have skyrocketed," she said.

She's happy to see a new generation of students being encouraged to embrace their culture.

"I'm glad that it's OK to say it and for the kids to know that they're not alone," she said. "The fact that (these) students are going home excited because they're able to see someone who looks like them who's a teacher ... it's amazing."

Their diversity is what Bishop said he wanted the students to highlight through the video.

"There's a lot of kids that are bilingual that are actually kind of embarrassed about it," Bishop said. "I always try to tell them to be proud of it. I try to empower them."

The video is the latest in a series Bishop makes to help his students succeed.

Principal Tim Newell said the videos give students and teachers something to look forward to.

The attitude toward bilingual students wasn't always so positive, Newell said, and this video helps highlights why the students should be proud.

"The bottom line is we just care for our kids," he said. "Whatever language they can speak, and whatever language they can learn."

For the students featured in the video, they hope their stories help inspire other kids.

"Other kids can see we speak more than one language and they can never give up if they want to learn another language," said Gladys Espinoza, 10. "I would tell them to never think that they're not going to learn to speak Spanish. Never give up until your dreams come true."

___

Information from: Skagit Valley Herald, http://www.skagitvalleyherald.com

More here:

Teacher's video highlights progress of bilingual students - SFGate - SFGate

Transtopianism | Sciforums | Prometheism.net

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Transtopianism. A radical new way of thinking, and which seems to fit many of my own life principles quite nicely.

Intro.

Were at a crossroads. For thousands of years mankind has been the dominant species on earth, the pinnacle of evolution. Now, as we enter the 21st century, this is about to change. A new and radically diffferent chapter of evolution is about to begin, for, as Vernor Vinge put it at the 1993 NASA VISION-21 Symposium:

`Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.

This event, the relatively sudden emergence of superintelligence (SI), is often referred to as the Singularity in Transhuman circles. The longer definition is:

SINGULARITY: the postulated point or short period in our future when our self-guided evolutionary development accelerates enormously (powered by nanotech, neuroscience, AI, and perhaps uploading) so that nothing beyond that time can reliably be conceived. [Vernor Vinge, 1986] (Lextropicon).

Whether these new, Posthuman beings (aka SIs, Powers or PSEs Post-Singularity Entities) will be augmented humans, artificial intelligences (AIs) or some hybrid form, they will no doubt change life as we know it rapidly and profoundly. For better or for worse; what happens to those who are left behind in this burst of self-directed hyperevolution is by definition unknown, unknowable even, but extinction is definitely one of the more realistic options.

Here is the home page

http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/kuwait/557/index.html

Here are their stated principles

http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/kuwait/557/principles.html

And if you dont want to read all that, there is quite a bit, then here is my summary. Ive taken essentially the first paragraph from each of the principles; there is a lot more interesting detail on the site.

Rationalism. Rational thinking is practical; it is the most reliable way to find solutions to problems. Because we are such frail, imperfect creatures, we need science and technology, the fruits of reason, to conquer death, disease and other biological shortcomings, and thus achieve the most rational of goals: a pleasant, eternal existence.

Memetic Evolution. Transtopianism is a continuously evolving philosophy, a logical consequence of the search for perfection which lies at its core. We need to avoid stale, impractical dogmas while at the same time preserving those values that are clearly reasonable and helpful in improving our condition, or at least arent detrimental to this goal.

Intelligent Hedonism. Finding true happiness and fulfillment may not be as difficult as many seem to think; its all in the chemicals. Not very surprising really, we are merely biological machines, after all.

Transhumanism. The belief that we can, and should, try to overcome our biological limits by means of reason, science and technology. Transhumanists seek things like intelligence augmentation, increased strength and beauty, extreme life extension, sustainable mood enhancement and the capability to get offplanet and explore the universe.

Singularitarianism. Vernor Vinge defined the Singularity in 1986 as the postulated point or short period in our future when our self-guided evolutionary development accelerates enormously (powered by nanotech, neuroscience, AI, and perhaps uploading) so that nothing beyond that time can reliably be conceived. More specifically, it is the moment when superhuman intelligence emerges, either as a result of conscious AI, advanced computer/human interfaces, genetic engineering or mind uploading.

Atheism. Transtopianism rejects religious dogma and belief in the supernatural. The rational approach to these things is that they are mere figments of the imagination until proven otherwise. Or, as Occams Razor puts it: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Egoism. There are two primary forms of Egoism, namely 1) Psychological Egoism, which is descriptive and claims that everyone acts in their own self-interest, i.e. everyone is an Egoist at heart, and 2) Ethical Egoism, which is normative and claims that everyone ought to act in their own self-interest.

There are all sorts of excellent arguments both for and against the psychological form, but the best model is probably that of man as an essentially self-serving (egoistic) creature that is hampered by short-sighted, potentially harmful/lethal hedonistic and altruistic urges, caused by a combination of nature and nurture, i.e. genes and environment. Obviously, there are rather significant variations among individuals; but the basic model is presumably the same for all normal human beings, and likely most animals as well.

Regardless of the accuracy of the above psychological model, there is no room for doubt regarding the validity of Ethical Egoism within the Transtopian philosophy; self-interest is the highest good, because pleasure and happiness are the least arbitrary meaning of life (see Intelligent Hedonism). Even if one doesnt believe this to be the case, one must at the very least be alive to seek the true meaning of life. Needless to say, this could very well be an open-ended search. In order to survive indefinitely, one must overcome hard-wired or learned (seriously) harmful behavior, especially altruism, idealism and guilt. Lets start with the latter:

Tough Liberalism (not to be confused with bleeding-heart or leftist Liberalism). Anything goes as long as it doesnt (seriously) harm the others within ones contract group (= a group which people voluntarily join/form to achieve common goals, like surviving the Singularity for example).

Mental, Physical & Financial Empowerment. To quote from Five Things You Can Do To Fight Entropy Now by Romana Machado: To be prepared for a future that may be full of difficult changes, and survive in an entropic world, take personal responsibility for your security. If you are good at self-defense, you need not regard yourself as a powerless victim. Self-defense encourages your sense of autonomy and personal power. Following a course of study in martial arts may help you to develop the proper attitude towards the use of force in self-defense. Learn the proper use of devices and techniques that can protect you from harm. Needless to say, a pacifistic or meek attitude is definitely not compatible with the Transtopian spirit.

No Procreation. Transtopians dont [plan to] have offspring. The (practical) reason is that, assuming that you want to be a good parent, children are a serious drain in terms of time and resources, increase stress, make you more vulnerable, more altruistic, less flexible, and generally more settled and conservative (bourgeois, if you will). When people become parents, they implicitly (and duly) accept that their fun days are over, and that its time to get responsible. Well, screw that! Only a fool would give up his life like that. Better to stay young at heart and unbound forever. The only real value of offspring in modern (Western) societies is enjoyment (hedonistic motive), but due to the significant drawbacks of parenthood it cant be considered intelligent hedonism, and should thus be avoided.

Dynamic Pessimism, aka Cynical Optimism. Though Transtopians have no doubts about mans enormous potential to overcome his biological and social limits, they are generally less optimistic than regular Transhumanists about the future. The chances that our advanced technologies will accidentally or intentionally cause unparalled destruction are, given our historical precedents, much too great to ignore.

Cryonics, aka applied immortalism. Cryonic suspension is an experimental procedure whereby patients who no longer can be kept alive with todays medical abilities are preserved at low temperature for treatment in the future.

Transtopianism | Sciforums

More here:

Transtopianism | Sciforums | Prometheism.net

Politics podcast: Anna Krien on the climate wars – The Conversation AU

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Melbourne-born author Anna Kriens latest Quarterly Essay explores the debates on climate change policy in Australia and the ecological effects of not acting.

She interviewed farmers, scientists, Indigenous groups, and activists from Bowen to Port Augusta. She says climate change denialism has transformed into climate change nihilism.

Krien says the Finkel review provides another opportunity in a long line of proposals to take up the challenge of legislating clean energy. We just need to get that foot in the door. The door has been flapping in the wind for the past decade.

On a current frontline battle the planned Adani Carmichael coalmine she found the people who would be affected were being ignored and blindsided.

Meanwhile, the potential for exploitation of local Indigenous peoples through opaque native title legislation was high. Outsiders are not meant to understand it and to tell you the truth you get the sense that insiders arent meant to understand it either.

See the original post here:

Politics podcast: Anna Krien on the climate wars - The Conversation AU

Hedonism II – Negril, Jamaica The Swinger Cruise

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

by Fred | Apr 25, 2017 | Swingers Cruise Essential | 0 Comments

Wondering about the "ins and outs" on swinger cruise playroom etiquette? We, at The Swinger Cruise, are happy to break down the basics of playroom etiquette. If youve been on a lifestyle cruise, resort based vacation or attended a club then you know what a playroom...

by Lynn | Aug 23, 2016 | Swingers Cruise Essential | 0 Comments

Are you all in for a Kinky Swingers Cruise or does the mere mention of kink send you running for the safe space in your cabin? Well this article is for you! We are kinky swingers. There is actually a term for people like us. You combine the two words into one and...

by Lynn | Jan 22, 2016 | Swingers Cruise Essential | 0 Comments

Swinger Cruise Balcony: Those three words certainly brought an imagine into your mind. Probably an image that even made you smile. Couples Cruise ran an awesome newsletter that contained a list we just had to share! We agree that these reasons match our top reasons...

by Fred | Jan 18, 2016 | Swingers Cruise Essential | 0 Comments

People take vacations for lots of reasons. Sometimes just to relax and recharge, other times to try something new and different or to broaden horizons. The reasons are many and varied. Humans have travel in their DNA. Were grateful for that since weve built our...

by Lynn | Jan 5, 2016 | Swingers Cruise Essential | 0 Comments

Whats the first things all newbies should do? Some people say attend a meet & greet! Go to naked speed dating! How about a seminar on spanking/squirting/dirty dancing? Here is the truth. The #1 thing to do is to Have the Talk. An open discussion between the...

by Lynn | Oct 12, 2015 | Swingers Cruise Essential, TSC-News | 0 Comments

The Secret to Making Consent Hot Yes? No? Maybe? On a ship full of sexy people it's easy to jump right in for a hug, a kiss or a quick fondle. Here is a little lesson based on things I learned in etiquette class blended with protocol from the kink community that can...

by Kevin | Oct 13, 2014 | Swingers Cruise Essential | 0 Comments

(Cross-posted fromwww.Alreadybooked.com a great place to meet other lifestyle travelers on Couples Cruises. After honing your swinger elevator pitch and practicing accepting and declining swinger offers, book your cabinheretojoin us on Independence of the Seas...

by Kevin | Oct 7, 2014 | Swingers Cruise Essential | 0 Comments

by Kevin | Oct 1, 2014 | Swingers Cruise Essential | 0 Comments

(Cross-posted from http://www.Alreadybooked.com - a great place to meet other lifestyle travelers on Couples Cruises. After honing your swinger elevator pitch, book your cabin heretojoin us on Independence of the Seas November 15 - 22!) Nine out of 10 lifestyle bloggers...

by Dominatrix of Ditties | Dec 4, 2013 | Swingers Cruise Essential | 0 Comments

So, you booked your cruise...now what can you do to make the most of it? Perhaps some of these tipsfrom your friendly, local neighborhood Dominatrix of Ditties will help... 1. Smile and compliment. ALWAYS. If you look like you're having fun and you have good...

Follow this link:

Hedonism II - Negril, Jamaica The Swinger Cruise

Would human enhancement create Supermen or super tyrants? – RT

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RTs Sputnik and Al-Mayadeens Kalima Horra.

The dream that we may one day transcend our physical and intellectual barriers through advancements in cybernetics and nanotechnology could became a reality during this century. But would this be a blessing or a curse?

As science expands its frontiers and technology continues to evolve, ideas once deemed fanciful or considered part of science fiction find themselves within the realm of possibility. New discoveries may give rise to unique potential and perils, as the field of ethics struggles to keep pace with the latest technological advancements. The dream that one day we humans may eclipse our physical and mental fetters through augmentation by cybernetics or nanotechnology could become a reality. Although transhumanism and posthumanism are considered modern concepts, the idea of improving or transcending the human condition has been explored in philosophy and literature since at least the mid-19th century.

In his bookThus Spoke Zarathustra, 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche introduced the concept of the bermensch (overman or superman) as a goal towards which humans ought to strive, whereby they take control of their own destinies, work collectively towards the betterment of humanity and create a higher set of ideals to give their existence greater meaning. Nietzsche wrote Man is something that shall be overcome. (The notion of bermensch was later corrupted by the Nazis, who integrated it into their perverse racial theories).

Samuel Becketts playEndgame (1957) suggests some possible outcomes from refining the human body with technology, before rejecting transhumanism as a sinister concept: the very technology which keeps Becketts characters alive, after they have exceeded their natural lifespans, also entraps them and makes them over-reliant upon it. Even as far back as 1839, American writer Edgar Allan Poe made reference to unnatural life extension in a satirical short story The Man That Was Used Up where a mysterious and eulogized war hero, whose body parts have been replaced with prosthetics, needs to be assembled piece by piece each day by his African American valet.

Artificial limbs, mechanical heart valves, and devices such as pacemakers already exist to reduce disability and improve, or extend, an individuals quality of life. British engineer Professor Kevin Warwick and his wife took things to another level in 2002 when they had microchips and sensors implanted into their arms, and connected to their nervous systems, enabling them to feel each others sensations. Professor Warwick could reportedly feel the same sensations as his wife from a different location.

Some might dismiss this project as a curious gimmick, but Warwick has voiced plans to expand the project and develop a community of fellow cyborgs connected via their chip implants to superintelligent machines, creating, in effect, superhumans.

He hopes such future technology might greatly enhance human potential, commenting Being linked to another persons nervous system opens up a whole world of possibilities.

The prospect of attaining superior intelligence or physical attributes may be tempting or appear liberating, but cybernetic enhancement could, theoretically, also be used as a means of control. Whoever manufactures the technologies that augment humans would be in a very powerful position and wield an immense degree of control over their human customers (or subjects). Moreover, cybernetically enhanced humans could see their microchips hacked, have their sensations detected by unwanted parties and stored in a database, or be at risk of receiving unsolicited or unpleasant impulses. Might we evolve from homo sapiens to homo servus?

Ray Kurzweil, American author and advocate for transhumanism, predicted in his 2005 book The Singularity Is Near that within a few decades time the human organism will become upgraded, due to mindboggling advancements in genetics, nanotechnology and robotics, to create, in effect, a new species with superior skills and intelligence, virtually immortal lifespans, and unforeseen capabilities. Kurzweil predicts the Singularity will occur by the middle of this century and realize the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots. There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality.

While considering the possibly that augmented humans might exist within our lifespans, it becomes clear that the technology to transcend our bog-standard homo sapiens existence would not be available to all simultaneously. The wealthy, or otherwise privileged, could become yet more powerful and emotionally distant from those they rule, or over whom they exert economic control. Would the elites use bermensch making technologies to forever establish themselves as a ruling class with God like powers to laud over the Untermensch poor and oppressed who toil until their comparatively short and expendable lifespans give out?

Alternatively, if the means to augment humans became widely available, would there be pressure to convert to a transhuman state? Would those who transcend, or those who refuse to do so, be discriminated against? While many barriers presently divide humans (economic, religious, cultural, political, ethnic), is it wise to introduce what could become yet another excuse for division and antipathy?

Of course, military applications of human enhancing technologies would soon be found. Armed forces across the globe would want to give their soldiers an edge over the enemy. Soldiers having no physical, physiological, or cognitive limitation will be key to survival and operational dominance in the future, says Michael Goldblatt, former director of the Defense Sciences Office (DSO), part of the US Department of Defense's DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). DSOs scientists have reportedly sought ways to make soldiers remain active on the battlefield for up to seven days with little or no sleep, and have considered how neural implants might improve cognitive function or allow future soldiers [to] communicate by thought alone.

Whilst we humans spend much time feuding and fighting, is it wise to give ourselves superhuman abilities before we have developed the ethical reasoning, moral compass, and maturity to wield such power? Upgrading ourselves by way of advances in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics could usher in a new era of ultimate freedom, where even the most oppressed are liberated from their drudgery, or condemn the human race to permanent slavery. Although new technologies can be used for either laudable or nefarious purposes, they are typically used for whatever purpose creates the most profit.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

See original here:

Would human enhancement create Supermen or super tyrants? - RT

LiveJournal’s Goat Mascot Is Back to Protest the Site’s Russian Censorship – Gizmodo

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

All Photos Courtesy Ryan Estrada

The Russian-owned blog community LiveJournal previously banned political solicitation, part of a decade-long effort to censor Russians who were using the platform to criticize the government. Now, LiveJournals former comic artist has returned from an eight-year absence... bringing back LiveJournals Frank the Goat one more time to protest the sites abuses from the inside.

Back in 2006, indie comic artist (and LiveJournal user) Ryan Estrada really wanted to make a series about Frank the Goat, LiveJournals longstanding mascot. So, he worked out a deal with the sites owners: Hed make a commissioned comic about the goat with full creative control over the character and story, and in exchange they wouldnt have to pay him for it. For three years, Estrada charmed LiveJournal fans with a variety of stories about Frank and his friends.

It was a weird experimental series, where each chapter was a different genre. I did a musical, a rom-com, a murder mystery, a kids book, a horror story and others, Estrada told me. It was a fun way to try new things with a character that had a built-in fanbase.

This was right around when the Russian government was really starting to take interest in the site, as it had grown in popularity among journalists and citizens who were trying to circumvent Putins censorship of the media. One year later, everything came to a head. A Russian business bought LiveJournal and began the process of moving it over to Russian servers... meaning everybody who used the service (Americans like George R.R. Martin included) were subject to Russian censorship laws. Estrada ended the comic in 2009.

LiveJournal, a blog community thats hosted a lot of science fiction authors and fans (including

Estrada recently learned about just how bad Russian control of the site has gotten, primarily from a recent episode of the Reply All podcast. He told me he was appalled to learn how the Russian government was actively censoring anti-government and pro-LGBTQ content, which reportedly included a governor hiring thugs to assault a Russian who was using LiveJournal to spread his message, breaking his fingers so he couldnt type.

They were doing all this under the flag of a mascot that I may not have created, but that I had given personality to, Estrada said. The Frank the Goat I know didnt stand for that. I didnt want an outdated comic praising the company under my name to be this sad time capsule that might lead people to believe I support any of it.

When Estrada realized he still had administrative access to his Frank the Goat LiveJournal account, and the contract was never technically canceled, he decided to use his platform to create one final Frank the Goat comic. One that speaks out against what hate and fear turned a beloved site into.

As of now, the comic is still up on LiveJournal. It technically violates the sites rules against political solicitation, particularly involving LGBTQ representation but, since Estrada lives in South Korea, he wouldnt face actual prosecution for it. However, he can be kicked off LiveJournal for posting the comic, and the Frank the Goat account can be shut down. In the meantime, it serves as an homage to a community that was once treasured by scifi fans, and later used as a tool to fight for freedom.

If something isnt right, you should speak up. Use what little scrap of power and privilege you have to raise your voice, even if it is super dumb and involves drawing pictures of goats singing and kissing sheep, Estrada said.

See more here:

LiveJournal's Goat Mascot Is Back to Protest the Site's Russian Censorship - Gizmodo

Free speech takes a hit – Washington Post

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

July 2 at 6:30 PM

The June 20 editorial Free speech wins took the view thatthe Supreme Court decision striking down the restriction on trademarking offensive namessomehow represented an expansion of free speech.But the law at issue, theLanham Act,actually places limits on free speech by allowing trademark holders to excludecompetitors (or innovators, as classical liberals would say) from using trademarked names. Atrademark holder canseek the assistance of thefederal courtsin enforcing that exclusion.

When the statute was written, offensive words could still be banned from public use and were not consideredeligible for trademark protection;free-speech protection has since been expanded to includesuch words. But make no mistake: The court, ostensibly in defense of free speech, has now expanded governmental trademark protection tooffensive speech.

The outcome of the case may be legally correct, but by plugging the disparagementgap in the Lanham Act, the court, ironically, has limited free speech.

Kenneth Hall, Rockville

The rest is here:

Free speech takes a hit - Washington Post

Top Countries with most Freedom of Speech – WhichCountry

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Basically, when it comes to the freedom of speech you must know that it is the political right for communicating ones own option and express the own ideas. Or we can say that the right to speak and express personal emotions is called the freedom of speech. Though sometimes it is used synonymously but it always includes the act of receiving, seeking and imparting the information or ideas regardless of source used. In fact, the right to the freedom of speech is not absolute in any nation and the rights are mostly subject to the limitations as with the slander, sedition, libel and slander.

No doubt the freedom of speech is a much important thing in decision-making at all the levels and it is a significant factor in the deliberation of a representative range of views. Basically the Right to speech is more important factor for the individual liberty. There is no right more important than the right to think what you damn well please and then talk about it. It is not important only for an individual but it is also more important for the different communities living in the different parts of the world. it is the best way to get the new and fresh ideas for that are much important for the improvement of nations and their economies as well as it also affects directly on the political power, development of nations and their characters as well. So no one can deny the importance of the Right to speech freely.

While you are searching for the most libertarian nations on the earth, then you will find great difficulty because there is not any specific and particular way for ranking the nations based on their right to express their opinions and voice. To figure out the list of nations that are considered the freest nations around the globe, you must sacrifice in some of the areas famous for the freedom. Following is a list of top five countries that are considered the freest countries around the globe.

It is one of the most beautiful and richest nations around the globe and for this reason it is a place where anyone would love to go, to live and everyone has the desire to spend his moments in it. It has number of attractions that are making it a beautiful nation on the earth. It is not only famous for its beauty but it is also famous for the liberty of speech. It is one of the most socially free nations in the world. It is providing more freedom to its citizens as compared to many other countries of the world.

United States is also one of the most popular, rich, beautiful and strongest countries in the world. Having a great history of freedom loving, the communication within the country has been pretty astonishing. United States of America may be the most controversial nation in the list, but within the few years, its ranking has dropped more quickly. But still it is on the fourth number in the list.

Switzerland is considered a peaceful nation in the world. Do you know what the reason behind this beautiful reality is? Basically it is only because it has about 200 years without war and this is a greatest record in the world. It is also one of the most beautiful and richest countries in the world. Its inhabitants have the right to raise their voice and every individual has the liberty to speak and raise his own voice.

Canada is one of the famous countries for the best education in the world. It is taking a great part in the most libertarian countries in the world. Here every person has the liberty to speech and express and has the right to work and perform his own ideas. And as the result Canada is given the second rank in the list of countries that are famous for the most speech freedom.

Ireland is considered one of the most socially free countries in the world. Here the inhabitants enjoy all type of freedoms that are making it one of the best and free countries in the world. People have the right to speak, right to share their ideas and to raise their voice. Ireland is also one of the richest countries in the world. All the people are enjoying the freedom of speech and it is the freest country in terms of liberty of expression.

Also See :

See the original post here:

Top Countries with most Freedom of Speech - WhichCountry

Freedom of speech does mean freedom from consequences …

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

A favorite retort from those who believe in policing the speech of others is:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

This has become a thought terminating cliche for many which prevents deeper consideration of the ethics and morality involved.

Unless there is some way to make certain actions physically impossible, the way to prevent people from performing these actions is to inflict consequences on those who do so. We cannot make murder impossible so, instead, we punish those who murder. The idea is that the threat of punishment will make people restrict their own behavior.

It is exactly the same with speech. We cannot actually prevent forbidden words and ideas from being uttered. Instead, speech is restricted by inflicting consequences on those who utter them. The intention is to make people self-censor, to restrict their own speech in order to avoid punishment.

This is how governments police speech. Yes, some have enough control over the media to prevent things being published but, even then, they are still not able to prevent individuals from saying those things.

When we talk about restrictions on speech we are talking about applying consequences to speech. If saying certain words or expressing certain ideas is punished then speech is not free, restrictions have been applied. Therefore, freedom of speech does mean freedom from consequences.

Those who recite the idea that "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" really mean "freedom of speech only means freedom from consequences inflicted by the government."

It's really just another way to say "it's only censorship if the government does it." This thinking is usually supported by pointing to the US constitution and explaining that the first amendment only says that the government cannot restrict speech. However, this is only a specific protection of freedom of speech, not a definition of the concept.

The US constitution defines only the rules the US government must operate under so naturally its protection of freedom of speech is limited to attacks from the US government.

If you justify restricting the speech of others with arguments based on the limitations of the US constitution then you don't actually believe in freedom of speech. You just believe in the constitution.

Freedom of speech is more than an amendment. It's a principle, that those with power over us should not use that power to restrict what we can say and, similarly, if we have power over others, our power should not be used to restrict what they can say.

The government is not the only thing with power over us. If you can inflict consequences, you have power. If you can pressure someone's employer into firing them, you have power over them.

Does this mean that we cannot respond to speech in ways which might negatively affect the speaker? Of course not. If someone says something you find distasteful then you have every right to judge them for it and express and act on that judgement. What crosses the line is action deliberately intended to punish the speaker and make people afraid of repeating the speech.

Obviously this only relates to speech in public. It's perfectly reasonable to police speech in your home or business, although even then the consequences should be limited in scope to your home or business. If someone uses racist language in your house, there's no issue with you telling them that they are no longer welcome. What is not reasonable is calling their employer to tell them what they said.

Yes there are grey areas. Is it reasonable to tell mutual friends about their behavior and have them ostracized from the group? Maybe. However, much of what internet activists are doing is well outside of these grey areas.

Am I saying that there should be laws preventing people from punishing speech? Am I saying that there need to be punishments for those who punish the speech of others? No. This is not about legality. It is about ethnics and morality. It is about what should not be done, not what must not be done.

Those who point out that these internet activists are merely exercising their own freedom of speech are right but that does not mean what they are doing is not despicable. Someone who uses racial epithets is exercising their freedom of speech but their behavior is not morally defensible.

Basically:

Freedom of speech does mean freedom from consequences ...

Freedom of Speech Essay – 2160 Words – StudyMode

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Freedom of Speech

With varying opinions and beliefs, our society needs to have unlimited freedom to speak about any and everything that concerns us in order to continually improve our society. Those free speech variables would be speech that creates a positive, and not negative, scenario in both long-terms and short-terms. Dictionary.com defines Freedom of Speech as, the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc. Freedom of speech is also known as free speech or freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is also known as freedom of expression because a persons beliefs and thoughts can also be expressed in other ways other than speech. These ways could be art, writings, songs, and other forms of expression. If speaking freely and expressing ourselves freely is supposed to be without any consequence, then why are there constant law suits and consequences for people who do. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression should be exactly what they mean. Although most people believe that they can speak about anything without there being consequences, this is very untrue. One of those spoken things that have consequences is speaking about the president in such a negative way that it sends red flags about your intentions. Because of the high terrorist alerts, people have to limit what they say about bombs, 9/11, and anything they may say out of anger about our government or country. In the documentary called Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore spoke of a man who went to his gym and had a conversation with some of his gym buddies in a joking way. He made a joke about George W. Bush bombing us in oil profits. The next morning the FBI was at his front door because someone had reported what he freely spoke. Although the statements might have been derogatory, they were still his opinion, and he had a right to say whatever he wanted to about the president. In the past seven years there have been laws made that have obstructed our freedom of speech, and our right to privacy. Many of us have paused in the recent years when having a conversation because we are afraid that we are eavesdropped on. Even the eavesdropping would not be a problem if it were not for fear that there would be some legal action taken because of what you say. As mentioned in TalkLeft about the awkwardness in our current day conversations, We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered. This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives. Because of tighter security and defense by the United States there have been visible and invisible changes to the meaning of freedom of speech and expression. One wrong word or thing could lead to a disastrous consequence.

Another topic that has been limited for a long period of time is religion. Speaking about religion in certain places is severely frowned upon. One of those places is schools. Since I could remember, schools have always had a rule that certain things could not be spoken of related to religion. If they were, that person could receive consequences. As a young child I could never understand why students and staff members could not openly express their love for God. I also thought that prayer was not permitted in schools when they are. Prayers are permitted in school, but not in classrooms during class time. Also wearing religious symbols or clothing is banned in schools. If we are free to speak our thoughts and feelings, then how are we banned to do these things? It is like saying that we are free to speak whatever we want, but we may not say anything. In the article A...

{"hostname":"studymode.com","essaysImgCdnUrl":"//images-study.netdna-ssl.com/pi/","useDefaultThumbs":true,"defaultThumbImgs":["//stm-study.netdna-ssl.com/stm/images/placeholders/default_paper_1.png","//stm-study.netdna-ssl.com/stm/images/placeholders/default_paper_2.png","//stm-study.netdna-ssl.com/stm/images/placeholders/default_paper_3.png","//stm-study.netdna-ssl.com/stm/images/placeholders/default_paper_4.png","//stm-study.netdna-ssl.com/stm/images/placeholders/default_paper_5.png"],"thumb_default_size":"160x220","thumb_ac_size":"80x110","isPayOrJoin":false,"essayUpload":false,"site_id":1,"autoComplete":false,"isPremiumCountry":false,"userCountryCode":"US","logPixelPath":"//www.smhpix.com/pixel.gif","tracking_url":"//www.smhpix.com/pixel.gif","cookies":{"unlimitedBanner":"off"},"essay":{"essayId":33424465,"categoryName":"Fiction","categoryParentId":"17","currentPage":1,"format":"text","pageMeta":{"text":{"startPage":1,"endPage":6,"pageRange":"1-6","totalPages":6}},"access":"premium","title":"Freedom of Speech Essay","additionalIds":[9,103,2,3],"additional":["Entertainment","Entertainment/Film","Awards u0026 Events","Business u0026 Economy"],"loadedPages":{"html":[],"text":[1,2,3,4,5,6]}},"user":null,"canonicalUrl":"http://www.studymode.com/essays/Freedom-Of-Speech-Essay-223535.html","pagesPerLoad":50,"userType":"member_guest","ct":10,"ndocs":"1,500,000","pdocs":"6,000","cc":"10_PERCENT_1MO_AND_6MO","signUpUrl":"https://www.studymode.com/signup/","joinUrl":"https://www.studymode.com/join","payPlanUrl":"/checkout/pay","upgradeUrl":"/checkout/upgrade","freeTrialUrl":"https://www.studymode.com/signup/?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.studymode.com%2Fcheckout%2Fpay%2Ffree-trialu0026bypassPaymentPage=1","showModal":"get-access","showModalUrl":"https://www.studymode.com/signup/?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.studymode.com%2Fjoin","joinFreeUrl":"/essays/?newuser=1","siteId":1,"facebook":{"clientId":"306058689489023","version":"v2.9","language":"en_US"}}

See the original post here:

Freedom of Speech Essay - 2160 Words - StudyMode

The First Amendment and Limits on American Freedom of Speech

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

written by: Lynne Ringle edited by: Amanda Grove updated: 8/2/2012

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects free speech, but there are exceptions that are not protected. Defamation of character, obscenity and making false statements that result in a clear and present danger are examples of speech that are not protected by law.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental American right, but limits on American freedom of speech also exist. Throughout American history, the Supreme Court has ruled on the types of speech and other forms of expression that are and are not protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Even though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the rights of Americans to express themselves, there are limits on this freedom. The Constitution states that the government cannot make any law that restricts free speech or freedom of the press. This means that the government cannot censor what Americans read in newspapers or other forms of media and the government cannot arrest citizens for speaking about their ideas and opinions, even if they differ from those of the government. However, this does not mean that Americans are free to say whatever they want at any time they want to say it. There are situations where some types of speech is illegal.

Freedom of speech does not permit someone to make a false statement about another person that could damage his or her reputation. This applies to the spoken word, which is called slander, as well as libel, which is defamation in print. Making these false statements must also be done with the intent to harm another. In one of the most important libel cases in the U.S., a police commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan sued the "New York Times" for making inaccurate statements about the police department. The Supreme Court ruled that the newspaper did not commit libel because the statements were a mistake, not intentional, and that it could be more difficult to debate public issues if those who work in the public can sue anytime a false statement is made.

Americans are not free to make false statements that could cause panic or place others in danger. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1919, in the Supreme Court's ruling in Schenck versus the United States, that there are times, particularly in times of war, when the government must restrict speech to protect the safety of the country and its citizens. In this case, the court unanimously ruled that Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer did not have the right to distribute leaflets encouraging Americans to avoid the draft. It is within this ruling that Holmes wrote his often-quoted phrase about the First Amendment not protecting "a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic." Creating a clear and present danger is not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

In 1973 in Miller vs. California, the Supreme Court ruled 5 - 4 that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. Defining obscenity can be difficult and the court did state that obscene is not necessarily the same as indecent, which is material intended for adults, not children. The Supreme Court also noted that caution has to be used in limiting personal expression, particularly when determining what is obscene and what is not. However, the court ruled that if the average person would find the speech or expression obscene and if it cannot be considered art, it is not protected by the Constitution.

We are fortunate to live in a place where we are free to express ourselves, within limits. These limitations do not take away from the meaning of the First Amendment. The right to free speech is a fundamental American right and a big part of why Americans cherish their freedom.

What do you think of these exceptions to the rule? Do you think they should also be protected by freedom of speech? Are their other instances you believe should not be protected?

Link:

The First Amendment and Limits on American Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech Analysis and Significance

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Imagine a life where you had no freedom to speak what was on your mind, and imagine what it would be like to live in a world like this. Noam Chomsky, a linguistics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a big supporter with the idea of free speech. He is known across the globe for his activism and outspoken criticism. He is also said to be the most often cited living author and one of the most respected and influential intellectuals in the world. (MinnesotaState) Chomsky is very respected in the area of free speech, which is why so many people criticize him as well, because he does have some extreme forms of free speech which he thinks how it should be. To show the view Chomsky has, there is one very extreme example of what he thinks should be allowed in society today.

In the year 1979, a French professor of Literature named Robert Faurisson published two letters in Le Monde. These letters had statements about how gas chambers used by the Nazis in World War 2 to get rid of people of the Jewish faith did not exist. After publishing these letters, there was a huge outrage almost worldwide. Faurisson was convicted for Defamation and also fined and given a prison sentence. A man by the name of Serge Thion, a French Libertarian socialist and Holocaust denier ask Noam Chomsky to sign a petition along with hundreds of other people who signed it to support Faurissons right to freedom of speech. After Chomsky had signed the petition, people were already attacking him. Jewish-French historian, Pierre Vidal-Naquet saw this petition to be a legitimization of Faurissons denial of the Holocaust and also as a misrepresentation of his intentions. Because Chomsky signed the petition, he also wrote an essay called Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression which was very critical of the French intellectual response. This also stated that Chomsky did not support Faurissons ideas but strictly his right to freedom to speech. This essay however was used by Faurisson in his book which intended to defend his rather obscure views. Vidal-Naquet attacked Chomsky in his essay and thinks Chomsky could have signed other petitions defending the right to freedom of speech without presenting Faurisson as a legitimate historian. Chomsky has stated that he believes in the absolute freedom of speech and also states I see no anti-Semitic implications in the denial of the existence of gas chambers or even the denial of the Holocaust. (CriticismsWiki)

The example of Faurisson is a clear picture to show Chomskys view on free speech. Chomsky explains what freedom of speech should be by saying it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended (SomeElementary) Noam Chomsky strongly believes that everyone has the right to freedom of speech, even that of people who we do not agree with. Chomsky being Jewish himself, supported Faurisson and his right to that freedom, which people interpreted as him supporting his ideas, which is false. Chomsky signs petitions all the time trying to support the peoples freedom of speech.(Democracy)

A question that can be raised from all this is, can Chomskys understanding of free speech be allowed in todays society? The answer is yes it can be allowed, and should be allowed. Everyday people are discriminated by other people because of what they think and what their opinions are on different topics. If someone doesnt agree with something you say or think, that shouldnt mean you should not have the right to express yourself. Although sometimes it could be dangerous depending on the topic your arguing or talking about, because there are some people in the society today that think there is only one side to things. Faurisson was a Holocaust denier, and even though many people disagreed with him and his ideas, they supported his right to speak what was on his mind and get his opinions across. The fact that he was considered anti-Semitic and given a fine and sentence in prison is ridiculous. He is not hurting anyone when he is doing his own research and trying to look for alternative sources and opinions. By not knowing all opinions and narrowing your knowledge on all topics, you cant really make a reasonable decision on what you think is right without knowing both sides. After 9/11 there were many opinions expressed that didnt agree with each other, and the ones that the Americans didnt like were somehow in some shape or form put aside, ignored, or penalized for having a different thought than the majority of the population. It might take some adjusting and such to get used to the absolute freedom of speech, but without it were shielding ourselves from other ideas that could prove to be good and interesting as well. If two people were to get into a fight at a school, and no witnesss were around to see it, the principle would listen to both sides most likely before making a decision and what he or she believes. This can be related to the idea of free speech, and Chomskys understanding of it, in which if you dont hear both sides of things, how can you make an honest decision on whats right and wrong, or what should be or shouldnt be.

The world would be a much different place if people werent allowed to express their thoughts and were only given stuff to think about, instead of actually looking into things and understanding the whole situation. Without Freedom of speech many great philosophers and other great beings would not have made a difference in the world. Martin Luther King Jr. Expressed his thoughts and made a difference to millions of people for the better, even when at the time many of thousands of people did not agree with him and were actually mad at him. Same thing with Bob Marley, he spoke his mind and how everyone should get along and be able to express themselves, even after getting shot at he still stood by what he believed. There are so many examples where individuals around the world made a difference by speaking up and questioning things even when people frowned apon it. Without this freedom, society would be very dull and probably not as harmonized as it could be. Chomskys understanding might be extreme, but with a little effort, it could be allowed in our society today and good would come from it.

Continued here:

Freedom of Speech Analysis and Significance

Free speech is only for conservatives – Daily Kos

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Rep. Robin Vos, a sponsor of Assembly bill 299, explaining why lberals have no right to free speech.

The first amendment guarantees that the government will not restrict the speech of its citizens (with some exceptions). Republicans in the state of Wisconsin have passed legislation that restricts the speech of those who disagree with them. Assembly Bill 299 states that if a speaker comes to a University of Wisconsin campus, and their speech is disrupted, the students involved in the disruption can be expelled.

The policy must include a range of disciplinary sanctions for anyone under an institution's jurisdiction who engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct that interferes with the free expression of others. In addition, the policy must provide that in disciplinary cases involving expressive conduct, students are entitled to a disciplinary hearing under published procedures that include specified rights. Also, the second time that a student is found responsible for interfering with the expressive rights of others, the policy must require the student to be suspended for a minimum of one semester or expelled.

During the debates on on the legislation Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, asked the author of the bill, Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, if a geology professor, under the bill, would be able to correct a student who said the earth is only 6,000 years old. To which Rep.Kremer responded, "So, this bill stays out of the classroom. Yes, the Earth is 6,000 years old, thats a fact. But, we can discuss that outside of this room."

The Earth is not 6000 years old, it has been determined scientifically to be 4.543 billion years old. A Wisconsin Assemblyman who believes the Earth is 6000 years old has written legislation that has passed both chambers of the Wisconsin Legislature that would allow a speaker like Ken Hamm come to the University of Wisconsin and state that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and no student could stand up and say, Bullshit.

To say Rep. Kremers comments created a kerfuffle in the local news media, would be an understatement.

Later on Rep. Kremer released a statement, titledBeyond Parody: Liberal Media Shocked to Discover Christians Exist, where he states,

I appreciate the concerns of my Democrat colleagues and the liberal media for providing some well-timed lightheartedness and comedic relief with their inquiries and stories related to a vital policy issue - the age of the earth. Wisconsin has completely skipped fake news and progressed to no news. Apparently this crisis trumps the need to report on the increase in shootings, carjackings, or the drug epidemic, and our Republican led solutions.

Interestingly enough, my hypothesis regarding the need for 1st amendment and free expression protections on our college campuses was made abundantly clear by the lefts unhinged attacks following the reporting on a different point of view.

This was not fake news, this was not, no news, an elected representative in the state of Wisconsin lacks the scientific education to know that the Earth cannot possibly be 6000 years old. That is news. He went on to say,

What happens to a UW geology student who is a creationist? What happens to the student who hands out a copy of the Bill of Rights or a Bible on the campus? What happens to a meteorology major who defies global warming as settled science? Simply because one doesnt elicit their belief system means, once again, that differing beliefs and viewpoints shall not be heard.

I am not sure how a geology student at the University of Wisconsin could get a passing grade if they were a creationist, especially if they believed the Earth was only 6000 years old. Just because one believes something, does not make it a valid opinion. By his logic, flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, and all kind of other crackpotunpopular beliefs should be held in the same esteem as scientific knowledge.

Do people who believe this garbage have right to speak their mind? Sure they do. They also need to be aware that those crackpot unpopular opinions will receive a certain amount of pushback. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences:Just ask Bart Sibrel. In 2002 he confronted Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, by demanding Mr. Aldrin admit he never walked on the moon. Buzz Aldrin, then 72, punched Mr. Sibrel in the face. I am not one to condone violence but, Mr. Sibrel had it coming.

People who push conspiracy theories, creationism, flat-earthism, climate change denial, young earthism, and a host of other crackpot unpopular opinions do not deserve a seat at the table. I know I will hear about this in comments, but these people need to be ridiculed. If they want a public audience it should be on a street corner, not a University campus.

The bill also states that all University institutions must remain neutralon public policy controversies. The problem with that statement is many things that are settled science, or what are generally thought of as societal norms, are considered controversial to many on the right. Climate change, evolution, womens rights, civil rights, and a host of other topics would fall under this umbrella. If a student group invited the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, you could not shout him down in the lecture hall.He would be allowed to have free speech; however, a student would be denied his or her free speech rights.

Assembly Bill 299 is an affront to the FirstAmendment, if it passes the Senate (which is likely) and if Governor Walker signs it into law it will be challenged in court;it will cost the taxpayers in Wisconsin millions of dollars to defend a law that Iikelywould not pass Constitutional muster.

This is just another gambit by Wisconsin Republicans to silence dissent, andto allow their crackpot unpopular beliefs and theories to have an equal seat at the table of sound, researched facts. They cannot accept that their beliefs are challenged. They have been trying for years to discredit climate change research. Now, if a climate change denier is invited to campus, a student majoring in atmospheric and oceanic studies cannot challenge the speaker and his/her misguided beliefs. Dissent is not always pretty, it is sometimes loud and uglybut it is necessary for a democracy to function.

Free speech is only for conservatives - Daily Kos

Gyllenhaal: Do we still value free speech? – Spartanburg Herald Journal

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Were coming up with all sorts of ways of blocking ideas we dont agree with.

After a century of building free speech rights into our laws and culture, Americans are backing away from one of the countrys defining principles.

Set off by the nations increasingly short fuse, students, politicians, teachers and parents are not just refusing to hear each other out, were coming up with all sorts of ways of blocking ideas we dont agree with.

In high schools across the country, teachers say they stay away from hot topics such as immigration and health care because so many parents complain when their kids encounter emotional issues in class.

At colleges from Berkeley to Middlebury, a year of protests, many aimed at blocking controversial speakers on campus, led to congressional hearings recently that could end up in sanctions against some of the schools.

On the internet, scores of anonymous posters are drumming targets into silence. In one case, actress Leslie Jones temporarily fled Twitter, feeling like she was in a personal hell from an onslaught of hacks and hateful posts. In another, a congressional candidate in Iowa quit the race in early June after receiving calls and emails that included death threats.

The American concept of free speech was built into the Bill of Rights in 1789 and forged into laws over the past 100 years to become a global icon of freedom. Those who study history and the Constitution worry that in the past year weve done real damage to a notion at the heart of democracy.

I do think the First Amendment tradition is under siege, said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

Pamela Geller, a firebrand commentator and founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, said, Freedom of speech has never before been so poorly regarded by such large numbers of Americans.

Where will this country be if its speech tradition falters? We can already see an awkward dynamic taking shape. In social settings, when we come face to face, were hesitant to say what we think, while online in mostly anonymous exchanges all manner of spite and bitterness pours forth.

This raises a question worth thinking about as we celebrate Americas birthday Tuesday: What are the chances of resolving the countrys differences if we no longer talk or listen to one another?

We cant lose sight of the fact that the ability to speak our minds is one of the fundamental freedoms in self-government, said Gene Policinski, chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute in Washington, D.C.

A mix of developments, incidents and trends put us on this path.

At many colleges and universities, students say they shouldnt have to put up with views they find offensive, racially insensitive or wrongheaded. The thinking arose over time, and then gained momentum with the Black Lives Matter movement and the stormy politics of the year.

The sometimes violent protests have drawn lots of reaction, condemnations and solutions but not much consensus.

I find this really hard, said Edward Wasserman, dean of the graduate journalism school at Berkeley, where protests earlier this year blocked conservatives Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking. But I dont think the world is a worse place because Ann Coulter doesnt get to say something shes already said a thousand times.

Others see a fundamental failing at work.

Its hard not to conclude that too many of our students havent had a civics course in junior high school, said Floyd Abrams, the pre-eminent First Amendment lawyer who handled cases from the Pentagon Papers to Citizens United and just published a new book, The Soul of the First Amendment.

If the high school curriculum is part of the problem, that may be because teachers are hesitant about their roles. David Bobb, head of the Bill of Rights Institute, funded by industrialist Charles Koch to provide training to schools, said he hears regularly from teachers who avoid topics for fear of backlash.

They have to wonder, If I get into this controversial topic, am I going to be backed up by my department chair, or the principal? he said. Or are the parents going to come after me and say its not your place to talk about this?

The internet is helping fuel whats happening by creating a mob mentality and adding enormous speed and reach to what people say. Its become so much more chaotic, said Lee Rainie, who directs Pew Research work on technology, science and the internet.

Almost every conversation on the state of free speech ends up on the question of what can be done.

Embarrassed by whats happened, universities are writing new student codes and rules of engagement for visiting lecturers. Were working hard to get our act together, said Wisconsin political science professor Donald Downs, who has led a push for civility.

Organizations such as the Constitution Center and the Bill of Rights Institute see solutions in education programs and better curriculum for schools. In 18 states, legislatures think the problem rests in the unruly protests and are preparing laws that would limit mass gatherings.

Still, more than a dozen observers from every perspective interviewed for this piece said we should expect more rocky times ahead. They cite a political climate with a historic level of rancor, a president whos been mostly on the attack since his inauguration, and a media thats embraced the conflict with a fervor that has brought record viewership and readership.

When people quit listening to each other, theres that lack of discussion and a lack of understanding, said Bradley A. Smith, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. Thats when theres a growing tendency to think the other side shouldnt be able to say what they think.

If America becomes torn against itself, I think free speech sort of goes out with it, said Downs.

Sometimes Im genuinely anguished over the kind of society were going to have if this keeps going, said Christina Hoff Sommers, an author and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. Its easy to take it for granted and not recognize that were jeopardizing these freedoms.

Summing up: Its worth remembering that free speech rights were built over decades of conflict. Theyve been tested in every generation, through wartime, civil rights, the rise of new technologies and the threat of terrorism, and have been solidly supported by U.S. Supreme Court rulings as recently as last month.

Todays conflicts are the most complicated yet and show no sign of easing. But as more than one scholar has pointed out, free speech is the starting place for all our other rights. We shouldnt lose sight of whats at stake: Without the free flow of ideas, the American experiment cannot succeed.

Anders Gyllenhaal is a senior editor at McClatchy and former editor at the Miami Herald, the Star Tribune in Minneapolis and the News & Observer in Raleigh. Reach him at Agyllenhaal@McClatchy.com. This op-ed was distributed by Tribune News Service.

View post:

Gyllenhaal: Do we still value free speech? - Spartanburg Herald Journal

Atheists are less open-minded than religious people, study claims – The Independent

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

Religious people are more tolerant of different viewpoints than atheists, according to researchers at a Catholic university.

A study of 788 people in the UK, France and Spain concluded that atheists and agnostics think of themselves as more open-minded than those with faith, but are are actually less tolerant to differing opinions and ideas.

Religious believers "seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives", according to psychology researchers at the private Catholic University of Louvain (UCL), Belgium's largest French-speaking university.

Filip Uzarevic, who co-wrote the paper, said his message was that "closed-mindedness is not necessarily found only among the religious".

He told Psypost: "In our study, the relationship between religion and closed-mindedness depended on the specific aspect of closed-mindedness.

Somewhat surprisingly, when it came to subtly measured inclination to integrate views that were diverging and contrary to ones own perspectives, it was the religious who showed more openness."

Dr Uzarevic's paper, called "are atheists undogmatic?", states that "irreligion has become normative" in some Western countries.

He inspected three aspects of mental rigidity in 445 atheists and agnostics, 255 Christians, and a group of 37 Bhuddists, Muslims, and Jews.

The study claims that non-believers measured lower than religious people in "self-reported dogmatism", but were higher in "subtly-measured intolerance".

Dr Uzarevic said: "The idea started through noticing that, in public discourse, despite both the conservative/religious groups and liberal/secular groups showing strong animosity towards the opposite ideological side, somehow it was mostly the former who were often labeled as closed-minded.

Moreover, such view of the secular being more tolerant and open seemed to be dominant in the psychological literature.

The findings also said that the strength of a person's belief in either atheism or religion is directly correlated to how intolerant they are.

Atheists are less open-minded than religious people, study claims - The Independent

Atheism on the rise as number of Catholics and Anglicans fall – Wollondilly Advertiser

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

3 Jul 2017, 9:55 a.m.

Census data reveals the number of people identifying as members of traditional churches has declined.

Keep the faith: Reverend Nigel Fortescue, of St Peters Anglican Church, Campbelltown. Picture: Simon Bennett

Campbelltown has seen a spike in the number of atheists in the area whilethe number of those who identify as Catholic or Anglicanhas dropped off.

Figures in the census released last Tuesday show the number of Catholics and Anglicans in Campbelltown has decreased by 2434 and 6804respectivelyfrom 2011 to 2016.

The decline occurred even though the population grew by more than 11,000.

On the other side of the coin the number of atheists grew by almost 10,000 people.

Reverend Nigel Fortescue, of St Peters Anglican Church located on the corner of Cordeaux Steet and Moore Street in Campbelltown said the statistics showed people were consideringtheir faith more rather than just ticking the box without thinking.

I think people are now giving more thought to their religious belief, he said.

Previously people were baptised Anglican so they just ticked the Anglican box. Now they are thinking what do I believe?.

Congregation: St Peters Anglican Church, Campbelltown, parishoners Reverend Nigel Fortescue (centre). Picture: Simon Bennett

While the number of official Anglicans may have decreased, Reverend Fortescue didnt believe the number of those attending local churches had followed suit.

Churches throughout Campbelltown are holding their own in terms of the numbers growing, he said.

There are churches opening up and more people are coming into the church.

In our church dozens of (new) people have become Christians this year.

The head of the Catholic Diocese of Wollongong which encapsulatesMacarthur Bishop Peter Ingham, said the figures do not come as a surprise.

There is a disenchantment with organised religion and a growing interest in unorganised spirituality, he said.

These days, many people want belief without belonging and belonging without belief.

You've gotta have faith: Bishop Peter Ingham, the head of the Catholic Diocese of Wollongong. Picture: Robert Peet

Bishop Ingham said the busy nature of peopleslives had left little or no time for God.

He also said the Catholic Churchs involvement in theRoyal Commission into institutional child abusehad not helped in terms of parishioners.

Theres no denying that since the last census the reputation and moral standing of the church has taken a huge battering, and for good reason, with the revelations of the Royal Commission, he said.

And for many, this has been the last straw, and we have to acknowledge the truth of that and acknowledge that we are currently being rightly humbled.

Bishop Ingham said the figures served as a wake-up call.

Although it is not a popularity contest for us, we need to be committed more than ever to see these figures change, not so we can win in the next census, but because we want those around us to know the joy of the Christian life, he said.

Read the original here:

Atheism on the rise as number of Catholics and Anglicans fall - Wollondilly Advertiser

NATO Considering ‘Petya’ Malware a Potential Act of War – Gizmodo – Gizmodo

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Danzig

On Saturday, Kevin Scheid, a Department of Defense veteran, was placed in charge of NATOs cyber operations. The appointment wouldnt be big news if it werent for the fact that hes joining the organization at a hair-raising point in history. The vicious malware triggered NATO to announce on Friday that the attack is believed to be the work of a state actor and is a potential act of war.

The 90s cyberpunk thriller Hackers is used too often to illustrate the fearful future of cyber

There was a lot of ruckus back in May when Donald Trump met with the leaders of NATO and failed to confirm that the US is committed to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Thats the clause of the agreement that pledges the members of NATO to mutual defense. Legally speaking, if Article 5 is triggered by an attack on one member, the other members are required to join in retaliation. NATOs Secretary General confirmed this week that a cyber operation with consequences comparable to an armed attack can trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and responses might be with military means. But Fridays press release emphasizes that we dont know enough about the origin of NotPetya or the intentions behind its release at this time.

NATO researchers have concluded that the malware can most likely be attributed to a state actor, and if a nation is determined to be responsible, this could be an internationally wrongful act, which might give the targeted states several options to respond with countermeasures. What sort of countermeasures? Well, pretty much anything. Independently, the UKs defense secretary announced this week that his country was prepared to respond to cyber attacks from any domain - air, land, sea or cyber.

If our unhinged president in the US wants to start a war for the hell of it, he pretty much has the power to do that. But NATO functions on strict rules. Tom Minrik, a researcher at NATO CCD COE writes:

If the operation could be linked to an ongoing international armed conflict, then law of armed conflict would apply, at least to the extent that injury or physical damage was caused by it, and with respect to possible direct participation in hostilities by civilian hackers, but so far there are reports of neither.

Minrik is outlining what would justify full on IRL military conflict. That doesnt, necessarily, mean that NATO couldnt respond in the cyber-realm if it determined that a government was responsible for NotPetya. He continues:

As important government systems have been targeted, then in case the operation is attributed to a state this could count as a violation of sovereignty. Consequently, this could be an internationally wrongful act, which might give the targeted states several options to respond with countermeasures.

NATO doesnt know whos responsible for NotPetya, and no experts have attributed the attack to one actor with any certainty.

Its one of the most fascinating pieces of malware to ever wreak havoc on a large scale. At first, people thought it was ransomware, then it was more likely to be a wiper with some ransomware code. Its become clear that it uses the EternalBlue and EternalRomance exploits that were pilfered from the NSA and released by the hacking group the Shadow Brokers in April. But intriguingly, it appears that whoever created NotPetya had access to those exploits two weeks before they were given to the public.

Another puzzling factor is the motive for releasing this malware that doesnt seem to benefit anyone. No one is getting paid. Its just a really destructive worm that locks up systems. It was first released in Ukraine, and that countrys security services are blaming Russia. But Russians were victims of the attack as well. Its such a pointless and nasty worm that the crime group behind the original Petya actually jumped in and volunteered to help victims. Lauri Lindstrm, a researcher at NATO says, it seems likely that the more sophisticated and expensive NotPetya campaign is a declaration of power - a demonstration of the acquired disruptive capability and readiness to use it.

According to Bloomberg, attacks on NATOs electronic infrastructure increased by 60 percent last year. If its true that a state actor is responsible for NotPetya, its possible that NATO taking notice and talking up Article 5 could make the perpetrator think twice. Then again, if the responsible party gets away without a trace, theyll know that theyre untouchable.

[CCDCOE via Security Affairs, Bloomberg]

Read the original:

NATO Considering 'Petya' Malware a Potential Act of War - Gizmodo - Gizmodo

Select Page ::