About that Juan William's speech

That was toward the end of the day yesterday.  It was late enough that a post that would give it justice was not in the cards for that day.  Rather than forget about it, let's go back and have a closer look.

If you haven't watched the speech, you are not going to fully appreciate this post.  In fact, before going further, it may be useful to point out that it is nearly an hour long, so time may not permit a full viewing.  Such is my own case, thus it will be necessary for me to use memory as opposed to direct quotes that can only be obtained by watching it again.

Generally speaking, it was about the taboos that are being built up against free speech.  It has become too profitable for some to divide the population up into hostile camps and that make free expression harder because you have to follow the party line, or be punished in some way.  This is popularly known as "political correctness", and it isn't confined to just one side of the political divide.  Williams was fired from his job at NPR because he violated the party line against certain types of speech: even though his job was to provide political commentary, it wasn't welcome in this instance.  Not that he was even making a political point.  He was merely expressing his own feelings within the context of a certain situation.  But such feelings have been made taboo.  This notion has to be challenged if we are to keep this a free society.

Another example of punishment for violating the party line?  Let's look at Newt Gingrich.  Not too long ago, Gingrich violated the orthodoxy by criticizing Ryan's budget plan.  There are now those who say Gingrich's candidacy is in big trouble for this.  But what was so bad about what he was saying that his entire record up to this point can be tossed aside just because he happened to make one observation that was not well received?  Gingrich felt necessary to apologize and this may not be forgiven.  But this could be a serious mistake because there are others who have an interest in this- not just the partisans.  There will be a general election after the nomination.  If it turns out that Ryan's plan becomes a sacred cow, the Republicans can pay a heavy price at the ballot box.  Party purity will not necessarily bring victory, but the reverse.

Williams was surprised that he was no longer thought of as being liberal.  Gingrich seems to have discovered the same phenomenon in terms of his conservatism.  Political correctness is not necessarily confined to one side of the political aisle.

 I have dedicated a portion of this blog to this poltical division and conquest.  It is called "politics schmolitics".  It is meant to throw derision upon any attempt to enforce political correctness from any direction.  I applaud Juan Williams speech.  We need open communication, not taboos.

The consequences of these taboos could be severe.  In the last few weeks, it has come to my attention that not just one, but two promising fields of scientific discovery and technological advancement may have been suppressed all because of the raising of taboos upon a certain subject.  That subject is nuclear power.  In the first case, we have thorium, which could have been used as a fuel, as opposed to using uranium.  Inasmuch as radioactivity is now taboo, any attempt to exploit this as an energy source has now fallen into disfavor.  Yet, even a clean, non radioactive source of energy, which was dubbed derisively as "cold fusion" has been made taboo because it supposedly violated known laws of physics.  Even the discussion of "cold fusion" became taboo.  One could lose their job researching it.  The consequences to society have been immense.  Without access to these sources of energy, our entire civilization may be in jeopardy.

Juan Williams was fired because of what he said about Muslims.  We import vast amounts of oil from the part of the world in which Islam is dominant.  Could it not be the case that to continue importing vast amounts of a substance from a part of the world that is hostile to our ways- could it not be the case that that is an existential risk to our civilization?  Could it also be the case that the failure to allow open speech not only violates our traditions, but subjects us to a greater risk than what we may have to face anyway?  Wouldn't we be better off vis a vis radical Islam if we did not import so much oil from their part of the world?  Wouldn't we be better off if we could allow free discussion of all ideas so that we can have access to what we need in order to stay strong in the face of such a threat?  We could lose our civilization not because of Islam, but because we failed to honor what we have always been.