Remembering the Paris 12 Part II
       Many people think that freedom of speech means the right of anyone to say anything. They are right, and it does. But the corollary to speaking is hearing. I have the right to hear what ideas are out there. Sure, racists have the right to hate speech, but not just for their benefit; we have a right to know who they are, who is saying what. I want to know who the racists are and what they are saying so that I can write logical essays opposing their views. Verbal and literary dialogue is the real point of this whole discussion. A terrorist sympathizer might write "Death to the infidels" and be protected by free speech, but he crosses the line when he acts on it, when he commits murder, which is not covered by free speech. And now we segue into two other topics: "race" and "cultural sensitivity".
       A Religion is not a "race". I have written elsewhere about race, about how there is no such thing as race; it has no scientific basis. It is just a psychological construct which becomes a social construct when shared by a group of people. Since I have already covered this elsewhere, I don't want to waste any more space here on race. But when people of some religions actually believe they are a race, or have a race-based religion, it is still just a social construct, but it confuses people who are sensitive to racism.
       Racism is when someone makes judgments of other people based on superficial physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, eye shape, etc. This is why the concept of "race" has no scientific basis: no racist groups can agree on how many "races" there are, or which of our superficial, physical characteristics counts in determining a "race". The problem is that racists are not only people who judge others by race; racists are also people who self-identify by race. Racists always divide the human race into "Us" and "Them". People do not have a choice about the genetic markers they inherit from their parents, but they do have a choice about the culture and social constructs they accept. Social constructs are beliefs, but culture is both beliefs and actions. Culture is learned behavior, and anything that can be learned can be unlearned. And now we come to the topic of cultural sensitivity.
       As I said in the previous paragraph, people have no choice about the genetic markers that give them their superficial physical characteristics. Also, looking at a person and describing their physical characteristics (the construct of "race" is only good for describing missing persons), does not tell you anything about who they really are. Describing their clothes, speech, and actions might give you clues to their general cultural affiliation, but not always, and that still won't tell you who they really are, what they really believe, what their individual life-experiences have been and how they have reacted to them. Racism is just plain stupid and hurtful. But the problem here is that groups of people whose culture is based on racial identity will cry "racism" when someone criticizes their culture or their religion. Liberals cave in and enable this racism when they self-censor themselves in the name of "cultural sensitivity". I agree that it is hypocritical to criticize other people's cultural beliefs when one is too cowardly to question one's own culture. Ironically, that is my main criticism of other cultures; that they are too cowardly to question their own beliefs and values. But most Progressives do question their own cultures first, and that is what makes us different than your standard establishment liberal or conservative. So where does that get us on the self-censorship topic?
       Stay tuned tomorrow for Part III of “Remembering The Paris 12”, when I will discuss the different levels of self-censorship. I will also deconstruct the social construct of “cultural sensitivity”, maybe not as extremely culturally offensive as some of you would like, but culturally (to some) offensive all the same. Remember The Paris 12!!!        They cannot kill us all!!! If every journalist and cartoonist in the world just spent one day publishing a diatribes against a stupid religious belief, offensive or not, maybe a clear message will be sent that those Paris 12 were real martyrs, not just for freedom of speech but for intellectual and cultural progress through mutual dialogue and non-violent action.

I Also Have Talented Siblings       Two of my talented siblings, Christopher K. Moon, photographer, and Carol Louise Moon, poet, have posted their work on the net. Check it out, friends. Moonerisms

Remembering the Paris 12 Part I
       Two columnists (among many others, I am sure) had perceptive things to say about free speech v. terrorism. I am referring to Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and David Brooks of the New York Times, published in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat on Fri. Jan 9th and Sat Jan 10th respectively. Both essayists were eloquent.
       Eugene Robinson's column, was a great essay warning against self censorship by journalists, reminding us all that we cannot let terrorism and extortion stifle our free speech, no matter the quality of our writing.
       The next day, David Brooks (nominally a conservative, but I call him a "closet liberal")also stepped up with an essay in favor of free speech and against censorship.
       Usually social conservatives, especially religious ones, would agree, speaking out against govt. censorship in principle, but warn against "offensive" writing and call for self-censorship. Brooks did not do that; he also warned against self-censorship. He went even further, using his conservative persona as a front, pointing out that the kind of satire that the Charlie Hedbo journalists and cartoonists were doing would have been been censored as "hate speech" if a high school or college newspaper had tried publish it.
       I am in total agreement with Brooks on his criticism of "liberal cultural sensitivity", but I see it as a Progressive political point of view, one that makes Progressives different from liberals who are still living in the 1960s and 70s. Progressives are not conservatives, we are more to the left of liberals, but we seem to (almost)share a common view with (some) conservatives about free speech and censorship. But as I pointed out in a previous paragraph, religious social conservatives are easily offended by our secular, ant-religious rhetoric and are kind of conflicted about where to draw the line between censorship and self-censorship. This is why some Progressives think that culturally sensitive liberals are just caving in to the social conservatives.
       Brooks went on to say that there are different levels of quality and civility in political essays that range from "adult" to "kids" but still, none of them should be censored. (I think it was cool that Brooks put both Bill Maher and Ann Coulter in the same category with the "jesters and holy fools". I disagree with hum about Bill Maher; he had to say that to preserve his Con Cred, but the closet liberal in him appropriately trashed Ann Coulter.)
Tomorrow, Part II of "Remembering the Paris 12"        Today's blog post will, (I hope), have raised more questions than it has answered. There are two ways to deal with this. 1. Send me an email with your questions and criticisms. 2. Keep reading this blog because tomorrow I will explain how I define my terms such as "freedom of speech", "self-censorship", "cultural sensitivity", "boycott", "race", "Government", and "corporation", with brief essays on these topics.
       In another future blog I will be discussing my own spiritual and moral beliefs. After that I will begin my series of academic research on Education and World Peace. Stay tuned. Remember The Paris 12!!!        They cannot kill us all!!!
       If every journalist and cartoonist in the world just spent one week publishing diatribes against stupid religious beliefs, offensive or not, maybe a clear message will be sent that those Paris 12 were real martyrs, not just for freedom of speech but for cultural and intellectual progress through mutual dialogue and non-violent action.

Muslim Outrage Against Terrorism
      Yesterday I implied that a certain religion was not outraged enough by atrocities committed in their name. I have often heard Muslims claim that they are outraged by violence committed against civilians in their name, as the Koran forbids these terrorist attacks. Their claim is that it is our Western news media that is biased against them. Their accusation does have merit.
      Yesterday, in San Francisco, the Northern California Muslim community held a vigil for the victims of the Paris attack. They are outraged by terrorism in their name. So my next question is to the northern California New media; SF Chronicle, SF Examiner, Oakland Tribute, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, et. al.:If you can put the terrorist attack in the main headline of your papers, why can't you put the Muslim Outrage in the headlines, or at least give them equal space? Are not these peaceful Muslims justified in their frustration at being ignored? Also, why give the terrorists the honor of letting them control how the debate is framed? Why call them Muslims in the first place, why not call them murderers and criminals, which is what they really are, and murderers and criminals is what defines them more than the "Muslim" label.
      As long as the media give them the recognition that they are asking for, they will continue murdering civilians. On the other hand if the Peaceful Muslim community gets the recognition they deserve from the media,the terrorist criminals can be discredited.
      But I still stand by what I wrote yesterday. The peaceful Muslims really do have to do more than they have been doing. The media thing is a two-way street. If they want headlines and more space for their message, they will have to show their outrage more openly and forcefully. They must force their attention on the media.        If there were vigils for the victims of terrorism in every major city in America (and there well may be) the news media would have to give it more space. It is the job of editors to assign such stories to reporters.
       But Muslims must also question their own attitudes about Western Culture in general and free speech in particular. If the Muslim religion forbids this kind of dialogue, then the Muslim religion will be totally disgraced and discredited by history. In a civilized world extortion and threats of violence do not earn honor and respect. Terrorists are only gangsters, and any religion that uses or condones such tactics is really a criminal organization. And as I said yesterday, this applies to Jews and Christians equally.
      www.peacemoon.org

Remember the Paris 12! Jews, Christians, and Muslims of the World: Read This and pass it along.

       I feel terribly sad today, reading about the 12 people killed at that Paris satire magazine yesterday. Last week I missed my own self-imposed deadline to post on my blog, but now I am enraged, and the adrenalin is grinding my nose back into the whetstone, sharpening words, not swords.
       Those people killed in Paris yesterday were not carrying weapons or killing any body. Neither were the the people in the twin towers on 9/11. I am not trying to kill anybody, nor do I advocate killing anybody.
      I have a philosophical problem with all political religions; there is nothing spiritual or moral about them, and so I have refrained from calling them out by name. However my liberal cultural sensitivity is now in direct conflict with my moral and spiritual beliefs, and I am wondering if "cultural sensitivity" is just a cover for my cowardice.
       Certain people who subscribe to a certain political religion have declared a violent war against my spiritual and moral sub-culture. I am going to try to continue "cultural sensitivity" for the duration of today's blog post because what I have to say about stupid, superstitious, ignorant, uncivilized religions applies to all stupid, superstitious, ignorant, uncivilized religions. But if there are any more killings of innocents by the time of my next blog post, I will accept the challenge, as did the brave 12 martyrs who died in Paris yesterday. Our words against your swords. Now let us discuss the specific issues, and remember that since I am not naming names,what I have to say applies to all political religions. You know who you are and if the shoe fits....
       Your poor little feeling are hurt because people who have more intelligence, education, spirituality and morals than you, are criticizing your belief system. So, to prove we are wrong and you are right, your religion tells you you have the right to cut off the heads, or shoot, or blow up anybody who disagrees with you. That makes your religion morally superior to mine? I could just rest my case to the jury on that paragraph alone, but my outrage has got me on a roll and I am not going to quit any time soon. You believe you have the right to kill people who disagree with you, but I do not. I mean, I really do not. That would be against my spiritual and moral beliefs.
       I understand that those of you who are not killing people, and who claim that your religion is a peaceful one, are upset at people who subscribe to my moral and spiritual beliefs, because you think we are blaming all of you for the crimes of only a few. I get that, and that is why I have previously refrained from naming names. But understand this jerks, your coreligionists are not only blaming, but killing, innocents for the crimes of others. You claim that your scriptures have divine origin and are therefore absolute. But if that were really true the absolute nature of your religion would prevent you from killing other human beings, and that, obviously is not what is happening. Your religion is political, not spiritual or moral. It can be interpreted by any thug and gang leader to give him or her power over you. And you submit to it because you are cowards. Some of you are even submitting to your leaders by waging violent war against your own kind. One political religion against another political religion. But those "peaceful" persons among you are too cowardly to stand up to your own leaders because it would mean admitting that what you believe in is just ignorant, superstitious nonsense. Instead, you blame us for your troubles. You claim that our civilization is immoral and degenerate, and you are willing to wage war against all of us. Oh, wait, that would be blaming all of us for the crimes of a few and you don't believe in that, right?
       Some of you have accurately pointed out the violent crimes perpetuated against you by persons who claim to represent our culture. So let us discuss your concerns, your reaction to them, and the results of your actions against us.
       Certain governments in the west, (not mentioning any names) to further their political-economic policies have committed crimes against you. There are a great many of us "progressives" who are sympathetic to your plight and are trying to peacefully take down those criminal governments. Also there are many organizations of like-minded people among us who would love to stop the crimes against you, and work towards a more peaceful world. But there are two things which prevent us from succeeding.
      1. Everytime some shithead from your side kills somebody from our side, the shitheads from our side use it as an excuse to crack down on our rights and freedoms. And every time some shithead from our side sends a drone to kill a wedding party or cause some other "collateral damage" to your side, the shitheads from your side use it as an excuse to send more stupid, ignorant suicide bombers to blow us up. It does not even matter who started it; it has been going on for so long that the shitheads on either side have taken control.
      2. The other problem that prevents us from solving this problem is your religion. You think it is so absolute that it is above criticism. Well, our side believes in freedom of speech and so we try to use words, instead of swords, to defend ourselves. No belief system is above criticism, including ours, so you are free to criticize our beliefs, but with words, not threats of violence.
       The shitheads on our side often try to restrict our freedom of speech, the same freedom of speech that we have been trying to use to stop the crimes our shitheads have been perpetuating against you, and they are using your violence against our innocents as their excuse to do so.
       We still believe in freedom of religion, but apparently you do not. So far, I am trying to maintain cultural sensitivity here, and so far I still believe in freedom of religion, but when I am faced with a religion that claims to be absolutely the only religion allowed and is so far above criticism that it can justify killing people who believe in freedom of speech and religion, then maybe I might have to rethink my "liberalism" about your religion.
       My progressive brothers and sisters are waging a non-violent, anti-war against the shitheads on both sides of this cultural divide. If your religion was so divine and perfect, the majority of you would be joining us in our non-violent struggle against the bad-apples on both sides, and together we could solve your political-economic problems. But if you cannot do that, then your religion will be disgraced forever, as an impediment to world peace.
      Remember, I am addressing this rant to all political religions, not just one. And consider this, if the 12 martyrs hadn't died in Paris yesterday, I would not have felt compelled to write this rant. Instead I would be continuing my verbal attacks against the shitheads in my department. That is another thing wrong with your religion, you think you are so righteous that you waste time attacking our culture when you should be seriously questioning the beliefs of your own culture. That is what we do here because we do not claim to be perfect. www.peacemoon.org.

Sorry about the delay friends. I am now in graduate school at SSU so "busy" is my middle name. But I have taken this Xmas and winter break to totally update my website: http://www.peacemoon.org. Besides my serious academic papers and short stories, I have also posted my (relatively)more humorous poems, stories and cartoons from the archives of my 1968 to 1980 publication, The Weakly Citizen Harold. Check it out and email me with your critical observations. Check this blog again soon. I plan to post at least once a week if not more often. See you next week, and have a happy new year in 2015. --Buck Moon

Not every one fits into the Conservative/Liberal mold. There are many thinking people who consider themselves Libertarians. But many people also think of Libertarians as being on the right side of the Left/Right scale. I have been made aware, by Prof. Rockwell, one of my mentors at Sonoma State University, that Libertarians can also come in left/right flavors. Here is a link to a great paper, written by Dr. Teed Rockwell, Stakeholding and Safety Nets, which is a left-libertarian's response to the philosophy of Robert Nozick. http://sonoma.academia.edu/TeedRockwell/Papers/1193142/Stakeholding_and_Safety_Nets
BTW, Dr. Rockwell is the one who introduced me to the philosophy of Dr. Jeremy Sherman, whose link you can find if you scroll down to my post of Jan. 24, 2012.