Bedrock

Imagine this: You have an opinion. Since we live in a land guaranteed freedom of speech, you express your opinion. Now a government agency comes along and says, “Wait, you may only express that opinion only if you arrange to have someone available to express the opposing point of view.” “Ridiculous,” you say, and you are certainly correct. We don't have our free speech rights threatened but not by that absurd arrangement, at least not yet! That only applies to radio, at least if some get their way. " 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 ." If you don’t recognize them, those are the actual words of the First Amendment, the top of the original “top ten list” of the rights of citizens. In the intervening 217 years since they were ratifi...

The roles of race and women have come to dominate this year’s Presidential election; as a result, many choose, thinking to advance the rights of the supposedly disadvantaged. Some support the first black nominee, primarily because of his color; Pat Buchanan has asked what will happen if he loses , in fact, suggesting a lose/lose scenario. Some for similar reasons favor one, who might have become the first woman nominee, for similar reasons, and their disappointment may be major factor in the outcome of this election. Hope, change, and leadership, often in very non-specific terms, are virtually meaningless bases for choosing a candidate, and many contrary contrary indications tend to make one wonder. The reality is that our country has been changing, in the areas of race and gender especially; unintended consequences provide a warning to us as we consider the future that any nominee or prospective representative proposes. Do they actually seek to lead us somewhere specific? We ...