PRIVACY VS THE RIGHT TO KNOW

 

PLEASE NOTE:           

Lest I be considered an insurrectionist or a domestic terrorist, in this post and succeeding posts, I do not intend to run afoul of those in charge of "truth and accuracy," this  is the era of crimes against the state.   

 

Nonetheless, I am asking questions until I am told I am not allowed to ask any questions, however, currently there is no official source to query re whether a question is approved by a "reality/truth committee."

 

It is my understanding that the host of this blog, Google,  has announced a ban on YouTube for speech that would create  a "conflict."  I am not certain about what Google feels is not in the best interest of their policy and the public policy, however, I do hope that Google launches a "badge" program to show that published Blogspot posts have been approved, then like a Good Housekeeping Seal I can proudly display it. 

 

Does the word, PRIVACY, have a certain connotation?

I copied this from the list offered by Google when I put the word "privacy" into the search slot:

"Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively. ... The domain of privacy partially overlaps with security, which can include the concepts of appropriate use, as well as protection of information."

 

And in the case of a candidate for office, here is a published opinion by a scholar in a prestigious public law college:

 

"CANDIDATE PRIVACY Rebecca Green*Abstract: In the United States, we have long accepted that candidates for public office who have voluntarily stepped into the public eye sacrifice claims to privacy. This refrain is rooted deep within the American enterprise, emanating from the Framers' concept of the informed citizen as a bedrock of democracy. Voters must have full information about candidates to make their choices at the ballot box. Even as privacy rights for ordinary citizens have expanded privacy theorists and courts continue to exempt candidates from privacy protections. This Article suggests that two disruptions warrant revisiting the privacy interests of candidates. The first is a changing information architecture brought on by the rise of the internet and digital media that drastically alters how information about candidates is collected and circulated. The second is a shift in who runs for office. As women and minorities-targets of the worst forms of harassment-increasingly throw their hats in the ring, this Article argues that competing democratic values should challenge previous assumptions about candidate privacy. Far from suggesting easy answers, this Article offers a framework for courts to weigh candidate privacy interests in a more nuanced way, drawing on vetting principles for aspirants to other positions of public trust. While there are good reasons candidates should have far less privacy than ordinary citizens, the reflexive denial of candidate privacy must have its limits if we care about nourishing our evolving democracy..."

I leave my readers with some questions:

·       Do specific words used by approved media in headlines define what we think?

·      Can "approved major media sources" use specifically targeted words in headlines and repeated in articles from an "official government source" to influence our thoughts?

·     Does the government of our country have the right to refuse to acknowledge an  observable fact, that the leader of the free world lacks the mental fitness to hold the office he has been allowed to occupy by the entire establishments of  both American political parties/corporations/business leaders, and upon pain of being held in jail for insurrection mandate that everyone with a social platform and the ability to hold a news conference say nothing about what is an observable fact?

 

·     Does the American public have the right to know if the man who holds the highest office in the world knows what he is signing when he is given a sheaf of papers that his handler puts in front of him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO OPINIONS JUST QUESTIONS ABOUT WORDS

 

PLEASE NOTE:           

Let I be considered an insurrectionist or a domestic terrorist.  In this post and succeeding posts in this era of crimes against the state, I am asking questions. 

I have no opinions. 

It is my understanding that the host of this blog, Google,  has announced a ban on YouTube for speech that would create  a conflict.  I am not certain about what Google feels is not in the best interest of their policy and the public policy.

I do hope that Google launches a "badge" program to show that published blogspot posts have been approved, then like a Good Housekeeping Seal I can proudly display it.

 

Here's a pertinent article that directly addresses the "why" of "words"—according to an article a friend sent me from the Smithsonian Magazine about words, more than 3000 years ago the first people who were interested in using words couldn't read.  As I read it, the Smithsonian Magazine claims these persons were communicating about the hieroglyphics they saw on the wall of a cave.   https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inventing-alphabet-180976520/

 

QUESTION:  Why were they interested?

ANSWER: The writer of this article about words noted that these people had never seen anything like it.

 

Again referencing this article about words, here are a series of "word" questions, or questions "about using words"

Does this mean that all people need to communicate about what they see around them?

Could communication about an event or crime be construed as giving an opinion about it?

 

Here are more questions that I don't have an answer to, but I know if I look online for certain topics, like current events, I'll find a an opinion about that current event.  :

Are words a source of power?

Can words be used to hurt, demean, injure a person's reputation, influence, cause financial ruin?

 

And the list of questions about words goes on, in my post next month there will be more "questions" about words.

Does everyone ask questions about certain topics. 

Are "words" are a very important topic.

Do words and their meanings vary according to the topic under discussion?

What if questions aren't allowed by the 46^th 0elected President and the duly elected representatives who ascribe to the 46^th POTUS and his views if  he considers asking questions seditious and domestic terrorism, and at odds with the laws enacted by members of his political party?

 

 

 

 

 

 

21st century of words wielded as weapons

 A friend of mine sent me an interesting link, a history of words, and it's a mute point as to whether words are used any differently as they were when words became a form of communication, the Bible to inform and indoctrinate the masses into belief or disbelief, then came the advent of a better prosperity for the masses, those ant workers who toiled for their betters, and words were use for a form of entertainment, and so we've progressed to this 21st century.

What's happened?  Is anything new about how words are used, I say yes, now words are weapons of misinformation, was it like this ever before, yes in the 1920's, sadly there was the Hurst journalism empire of YELLOW journalists, we were sold so easily on the Spanish American War, our great hero Teddy galloped up on his horse to win for America, but the win was trumped up?  Yes, we can use that word TRUMPED, it's a word used so often now, certainly this link https://www.etymonline.com        will someday, carry that word, and it's a matter of conjecture whether an Editor with a bias will come to purloin that word as a dirty epithet to fling at those who aren't marching and standing to be sheared like lambs for their betters.

I say, t's a bleak outlook for words, perhaps if those in charge have their way, the next generation worldwide will be unable to read, the lock downs of the virus have effectively halved the fortunate into the unfortunate who are not privy to internet all day and all night, they aren't able to understand online, those zoom classes become more mysterious every day, what a wonderful idea of doing what was needed to be done to bring all but a few fortunate to their knees.  

Nevertheless, I will continue my word commentary to be a voice for those who aren't able to say what they think for fear of a digital record never erases, this a time to speak, I encourage everyone to speak out with words of rage!  NOW or it will be too late to reclaim our freedom to speak and say what we think in words that express the need for joining together to protect our right to SPEAK!

Another glass is half full blog: 2018 most meaningless words

   As the end of this tumult-filled year approaches I am more distressed than usual about the misuse of words & meanings adapted to fit some print and cable media views, that point vastly in favor of our glass is half empty.

   As the definition of values notes, this is a most subjective word and validates my frustration about using this somewhat “everybody’s” word to talk about whatever political hatchet the writer is wielding to make the point.

   I say find a better word to make your point OR better yet, stop using this most useless in the past decade word, values.

   Since I used the implication of a significant number of words that are most meaningless, I am compelled to add another, although I am only commenting about this cross use of words to be a talking point for political gain and glory, in disgust about everyone’s “in power” commentary corruption, now extending to words and meanings, deliberately tailored to fit into a political trope of oeuvre.

   Another meaningless foray into the subjective of discourse that dominates the political reportage, of various hate and destroy politics factions aimed at power-grabbing the highest office in this USA land in 2020, is the word lie.

   Oddly, this lie word is defined peculiarly too.

   Lie is defined by its grammatical distinction, either a verb, noun, or intransitive verb, and thus this word is so subjective that media advantages the noun as if this is the only definition, and thus makes it apparent that in this 21^st century, the norm of respect for words and meanings is another “gone girl” or “gone boy” or “gone LGBTQ,” is written proof that I have done homage to the wise elites who demand I write only in politically correct verbiage.

   If I don’t do what the powers want, then my blog platform will be obliterated by this obliging host.

   Now I can tell you the oft imaginary reader of my preceding vent that I am not angry.

   I am disgusted and feel forced to watch “romance” themed movies on the Hallmark channel, even though I know this fictional wishful thinking about the reality, isn’t about humanity’s inevitable progress toward the Roman age of ennui.

   The so-called “Huns” who were illiterate and invading that did destroy the Romans was produced by cultural excess in the worst of pursuits toward pleasure, no mater how disgusting and perverted, once again subjectively according to one’s way of thinking.

   In the meanwhile as we expect to ring in 2019, I shall know that I did my blog duty to shrill my dismay, nevertheless, to one all a better new year.    

https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=values+meaning&fr=yfp-t-s&fp=1&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie