With Ignorance and No Bliss For All

Readability

With Ignorance and No Bliss For All

[cap­tion id=“attachment_88597” align=“aligncenter” width=“300”]strawberries_moldy Yummy[/caption]

by baldilocks

The main rea­son that this coun­try is in deep trou­ble is that facts which used to be rou­tinely instilled into pub­lic school stu­dents are no longer. I’m not even talk­ing about how to use facts dur­ing the process of con­nect­ing dots with events and com­ing to cogent con­clu­sions. I’m refer­ring to the facts them­selves – sim­ple events and straight-​forward declar­a­tive state­ments. For those under a cer­tain age, the facts either do no exist, or worse – they have become muti­lated into some­thing unrec­og­niz­able, muti­lated by scat­tered “thinking.”

Exam­ple: a cer­tain Amer­i­can pro­fes­sion ath­lete decides that he will not only openly forego pay­ing tra­di­tional respect to the Amer­i­can flag dur­ing the cer­e­monies which rou­tinely her­ald the begin­ning of sport­ing events in the USA, but will openly dis­re­spect that flag. The ath­lete explains his stance via Social and Main­stream Media out­lets, which, of course pro­duces an avalanche of reac­tions from count­less sources.

Many who defend the athlete’s stance have cited the First Amend­ment and that is where, in my opin­ion, the real trou­ble shows itself.

The First Amend­ment reads as fol­lows:

Con­gress shall make no law respect­ing an estab­lish­ment of reli­gion, or pro­hibit­ing the free exer­cise thereof; or abridg­ing the free­dom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the peo­ple peace­ably to assem­ble, and to peti­tion the gov­ern­ment for a redress of grievances.

It’s a straight-​forward state­ment about what con­gress—the U.S. Sen­ate and the U.S. House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives com­bined — may not do, with respect to its rea­son for exis­tence: mak­ing laws.

So, it would seem sim­ple to con­clude that the First Amend­ment has absolutely noth­ing to do with the con­tro­ver­sial state­ments and actions of the ath­lete in ques­tion, right? Hahaha!

All too many of our fel­low cit­i­zens can­not (will not?) wrap their minds around this sim­ple bit of logic: if con­gress isn’t mak­ing laws about speech, reli­gion, press, etc. then the men­tion of the 1A is a non sequitur where any state­ment is con­cerned or with any expressed crit­i­cism of said state­ment is con­cerned, includ­ing all of the lat­ter regard­ing this athlete.

(Wait. Should I explain what a non sequitur is? Eh, look it up yourself.)

I’ve had peo­ple argue with me about this and get angry when I try to show it to them. Not only do many cit­i­zens not know this, but they don’t want to know it.

We can take this seem­ingly small con­tro­versy and apply it to objec­tive knowl­edge itself. Call it the fruit of post-​modernism. It tastes rot­ten and it’s prob­a­bly poisonous.

I’m pray­ing that more of us will swear off of it and I think it will hap­pen. But it won’t be with­out pain.

Juli­ette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was pub­lished in 2012. Her sec­ond novel will be done in 2016. Fol­low her on Twit­ter.

Please con­tribute to Juliette’s JOB: Her new novel, her blog, her Inter­net to keep the lat­ter going and COF­FEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Inde­pen­dent Jour­nal­ism — -»»>baldilocks

strawberries_moldy
Yummy

by baldilocks

The main reason that this country is in deep trouble is that facts which used to be routinely instilled into public school students are no longer. I’m not even talking about how to use facts during the process of connecting dots with events and coming to cogent conclusions. I’m referring to the facts themselves–simple events and straight-forward declarative statements. For those under a certain age, the facts either do no exist, or worse–they have become mutilated into something unrecognizable, mutilated by scattered “thinking.”

Example: a certain American profession athlete decides that he will not only openly forego paying traditional respect to the American flag during the ceremonies which routinely herald the beginning of sporting events in the USA, but will openly disrespect that flag. The athlete explains his stance via Social and Mainstream Media outlets, which, of course produces an avalanche of reactions from countless sources.

Many who defend the athlete’s stance have cited the First Amendment and that is where, in my opinion, the real trouble shows itself.

The First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It’s a straight-forward statement about what congress—the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives combined—may not do, with respect to its reason for existence: making laws.

So, it would seem simple to conclude that the First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the controversial statements and actions of the athlete in question, right? Hahaha!

All too many of our fellow citizens cannot (will not?) wrap their minds around this simple bit of logic: if congress isn’t making laws about speech, religion, press, etc. then the mention of the 1A is a non sequitur where any statement is concerned or with any expressed criticism of said statement is concerned, including all of the latter regarding this athlete.

(Wait. Should I explain what a non sequitur is? Eh, look it up yourself.)

I’ve had people argue with me about this and get angry when I try to show it to them. Not only do many citizens not know this, but they don’t want to know it.

We can take this seemingly small controversy and apply it to objective knowledge itself. Call it the fruit of post-modernism. It tastes rotten and it’s probably poisonous.

I’m praying that more of us will swear off of it and I think it will happen. But it won’t be without pain.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>>baldilocks