Carr Alarm

The noise

around

silencing speech

may reach

a tipping

point.

The joint

astonishment

and grief

may be

brief

as the next

one to fall

will call

our attention.

While there’s

no comparison

between the firing

of a comedian,

or two,

and the firing

of a gun,

we can’t run

from this

crisis.

Opinion

has been

the dominion

of the comedian,

even mocking

the politician.

It’s free speech

in action

and a cultural

tradition.

But the addition

of retribution

to our polity-

once

the contribution

only

of the most

violently

disturbed-

comes from

the top guy,

perpetually

perturbed.

The Federal

Communications

Commision

is now

on a mission

to stifle.

Instead of

a rifle,

or other

violence,

the way

to silence

criticisms

is to fire

the guys

whose

wittisms

are bothersome

to some;

or maybe

just

to one.

Carr’s action-

Kimmel’s subtraction-

in reaction

to the comic’s

wit,

is every bit

a lack of

grit

and merely

a fit

of alarm

of the president

who sees

speech

as harm

and uses

it

to harm others.

Is this retribution

or fear?

Who can hear

over the alarm

over the act

of commission?

Kirk’s Enterprise

Charlie Kirk’s 

horrific demise

as he pursued

his enterprise

as a conservative force

through

political discourse,

should be

our turning point,

USA.

This school shooting,

unlike the other,

was political;

an intentional

act of violence

to silence

debate-

the latest

in a spate

of hate

crimes

against

political

figures.

The triggers

may be

multiple

but when

the political

is emotional

and what 

seemed

impossible 

is no longer

notional,

anything

becomes

motivational

against

a perceived

enemy.

Because

the hate

is visceral

when our

discourse

is so 

uncivil,

we can’t be

casual

about this

hit,

especially when

it

took place

on a college

campus.

Now

most of us

can feel 

the real

pain and sorrow

for his widow

and his children.

But can we

mourn for 

a person

who sparked

attention

for opposition

that may 

have intended

to provoke

and offend

if not

upend,

the woke

when he spoke?

I am chilled

by the blood

that’s been

spilled,

and I feel

my own

turning point.

Our enterprise

can’t be

the demise

of opposing

another’s belief.

Let this 

monstrous

event

help us 

to reinvent

good grief.

I just realized

that today

is 9/11.

What

have we

become?

To boldly go

where no 

one

has gone

before

was the American

enterprise

(cleverly

stated in

the Star Trek

franchise),

at the birth

of our 

democratic

republic.

But we have

succumbed

to hate

and fear

that we’re

in our

final frontier.

Our reaction

to terror

is often

contraction,

while

heightening

security.

But political

(and social)

purity

is immaturity,

not worthy

of who we

need to be.

Speech Pathology

The right

to speak

freely

and to protest

peacefully

are hallmarks

of democracy.

Yet

the threat

of actions

from aggressive

factions

in reaction

to passions

inflamed,

has sustained

fears

of violent

incidents.

When 

the former

President-

defendant

posts

quotes 

and

anecdotes 

or notes

his

rants

against

individuals

he claims

are against

him,

he goads

and corrodes—

even erodes

codes

of ethics

and possibly 

laws.

Meanwhile,

the protests

at Columbia

etcetera,

are confounding.

Sounding

off 

on campus,

while camping

out

as classes

are in session,

is practically

tradition.

But the current

condition

of free speech

transmission

raises

the proposition

that the exhibition

is potentially

physically

dangerous

to any 

of those

who might

oppose.

Many 

have mentioned

Skokie,

the would-be

Nazi

march

through a

community

of survivors,

as an example

of ugly,

yet free, 

speech.

We live

in an ugly

time of

pathology

where 

speech

is not

merely

a trigger,

but the

ammunition

for the 

dissolution

of civil

discourse.

This pathology

is antithetical

to a functional

democracy

even when 

the speech

is free. 

College Admissions

I thought

I understood

the assignment.

Three 

Ivy presidents

(notably, women)

were interrogated

by Congresswoman

Elise Sefanik

about anti

semitic

rhetoric

on campus.

The rest 

of us

watched,

dumbfounded,

while the three

were hounded

as they sounded

pathetic.

Penn

stepped down

soon thereafter

and then 

the mission

to get Harvard’s

resignation

broadened

to include

plagarization.

Huh?

Now I’m 

confused

as

The Right

is amused.

Is President

Gay

as incompetent

as they say?

She (and the others)

certainly failed

to stand

against hate

in a clear

and forceful

manner.

But the issue

morphed

and quickly

dwarfed 

the inherent

problems

of free speech.

Now it’s clear

that the smear

was in play

before

any admissions.

All the way

from k

through 12,

book bans

and some 

topics

are prey 

to the optics

of so-called

conservative

victories.

And higher

ed

is losing

cred

when

boards

revamp

campuses.

New College,

“too liberal”,

has become

undone,

replacing curriculum

and extras

begun,

as faculty

and students

have already

run

to more 

hospitable

schools.

The tools

of The Right

insist on

a fight

against

inclusion.

Their claim

of exclusion

is construed

as intrusion

of those

people

and ideas

lacking

“merit”.

Offended

by difference

and fueled

by belligerence 

creating

inference

of incompetence

and interference

of values,

twisting

DEI

and Critical

Race Theory

into some

nefarious

notions

of promotions

of people

undeserving

(because only

certain people

are deserving).

The subtext

seems to be

that white

and/or male

are merit-worthy,

and what 

is now called

elite

is not

because 

of the rot

of a culture

changing.

“But her 

plagiarism”

reminds me

of another claim:

“But her

emails….”

as she fails

not on merit

but on whatever

they declare

it to be.

The suspicions

against women

and  any other 

minority

in positions

of upward

mobility

in a facility

deemed

liberal ,

especially

those at 

or near

the top,

will be fodder

for politicians

whether omissions

or admissions

of guilt

even apply.

Somehow

social justice

has been

perverted

by one side

to collide

with merit,

and subverted

to an inverted

definition

of bias 

against.

Inclusion

is now 

exclusion.

The ones

who used

to benefit

now see fit

to destroy

elite institutions

and upend

people’s lives.

The mascot

for team

defiance

whose reliance

on winning

at any cost,

while

aligning

with bitter

resentment,

is ascendent

to the most

elite

postion 

of all.

His Wharton

degree

could not be

based

on merit.

Admittedly,

and shamefully,

hypocrisy 

and conspiracy

are embraced

as winning

strategies

to counter

the culture

of decency

and meritocracy.

Poison Ivies

There’s something

toxic

in the climbing

ivy

all the way

to the top

of the higher

education

totem pole.

Three ivies’

presidents

we heard

as defendants

of free speech

on their private

campuses

regardless

of threats—

documented

effects—

of anti

semitic

rhetoric.

No counter

to the hate

expressed.

No one

suggested

context

or debate;

just hate.

Why not

call out

those who

shout

genocide

as a remedy

for 

decades of war?

Unacceptable

admissions

of tolerance

that would

not

be tolerated

if other groups

were targeted.

Free speech

can be

ugly.

But why no

expression

of condemnation?

Isn’t education

supposed 

to develop

the ability 

to envelop

new ideas

and hold

more than

one view

at a time?

This war

in Gaza

has made

the campus

a plaza

for hate.

No longer

a 2 state

solution

discussed,

but disgusting

intentionally

careless

speech

that promotes

violence 

as much

as freedom.

Free speech

can be hateful,

so when grateful

for the right

to verbally smite,

the intention

is inspiration

for action.

And what action

follows

hate?

Legislate?

The lesson

from the Ivy

Presidents’

defences

is that 

the poison

released

is sickening

and could

prove deadly.

It’s not merely

the verbal

venom

spewed,

it’s the silence

ensued

in response

to free speech.