What's on your Brain.

Objectivity affects what force, before Subjectivity is manifest?

First Amendment Principles

I wrote the following, as commentary in reply to an article in Yahoo! Politics, concerning the irresponsible rhetoric of an author, allegedly the President of the First Amendment Center, Ken Paulson.

If I understand correctly according to the text, this article is authored by Ken Paulson, President of the First Amendment Center. Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood, rather, I am uncertain of the Author, and his or her direct or indirect responsibility for either, or both: the Article and the First Amendment Center. As I read, therefore in forming my reply, I believed the author is associated, as President, of the First Amendment Center, an organization on whose behalf a web site is published, the location to which is provided in the closure of the text. I am concerned about the Author, as every reader should be concerned with any text (or rhetoric, message, icons, provocation, [your resident linguist knows better]), for– struggle as I may, presently, to maintain consciousness, momentarily amidst a narcoleptic ‘Sleep Attack’, to follow through with my initiative (perhaps more powerful, here, than debility) to provide reply; the mind’s impromptu composition as commentary, by now so diminished in this bane of Hypnagogia; precarious upon this ledge grasping only out of reach; beaten to fury by it, weeping is wasteful as I shall inevitably be rendered a mere imposition to you; that i must now apologize for digressions, with a fraction of the fiery charge owned when I began, i’ll force myself to finish, because I am a patriot, and since I’ve already bought it, our minute together; paid for these lines, knowing yours is likewise no burden, if you know liberty– as any respondent should, I followed the embedded URL to learn more of this First Amendment Center. I see the author’s name is not listed there, however I admit my research was only cursory, and one is not the other: the web site propagates dissemination of the Center, but it is /not/ the Center itself. And, if I recall, I believe therein lied my question, yet that relevance may be inconsequential, nevertheless, it is important to understand “Who is…?”, our author, and moreover, “What is….?”, his agenda.

The above is a prelude. Or… little more than a convoluted hodgepodge of West-European written-language-characters, strewn about, left to float in the wake of so much battle, “it’s flooding up there”, left to appear as some human language resembling contemporary “English”…

Forget all of the lead-up, and read this part– then go back. Or… do whatever— the whole d*mn point is, as follows: The author, in closing, without a job after today, were he on my panel for such elementary rhetoric, states: “Many Americans will be outraged about the Supreme Court’s decision”. This is a very irresponsible statement. If the author is in fact “President” ; is there is anything valuable about “The First Amendment Center”, I implore you, investigate the matter further. A more responsible representative– one who endeavors upon National concerns of the United States of America, who might exercises his or her Liberty, in authoring public articles, as a veritable CEO on representation of “Freedom of Speech”– would have the foresight; would not make such a mistake as this; would not risk being accused of planting the seeds of misdirection; would know better to differentiate, decidedly, having opportunity to educate the public: it is not the power of the Supreme Court of the United States to make “decision” which is the issue likely to affect public opinion– but the particulars of an occurrence, itself having a far a wide separation apart from the Justices of the Supreme Court– as a singular mind, as to make a singular decision– as to separate the “decision” from U.S. law itself, or to be outraged with the infrastructure itself of American Government, as in the Judicial / Legislative / Executive branches. These are not likely to cause “Many Americans [to be] outraged”. The author has effectively debased such a “decision” to be the same sort I make, whether to eat a Big-Mac. The voice of an estranged Nation should know better.