|
About This Author
I am SoCalScribe. This is my InkSpot.
|
Blogocentric Formulations
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics).
Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:
Thanks for stopping by! 
September 20, 2025 at 6:32pm September 20, 2025 at 6:32pm
| |
Day 2679: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."― Theodore Roosevelt. Your thoughts on freedom of speech with all that has happened recently with Jimmy Kimmel.
I'm not a constitutional scholar or attorney, so I'm not even remotely qualified to tell you what existing case law supports or refines the language of the Bill of Rights, my own personal interpretation of that foundational document in our country is one of moderation and common sense.
The Second Amendment guarantees, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which, were it up to me to define, would mean everybody has a right to own a gun, not that everybody has a right to own any kind of gun they want, in any quantity they desire. I think there's a common-sense middle ground to be found between "taking away someone's freedoms" and saying, "Hey, no one's saying you can't own a bolt-action hunting rifle, or shotgun, or a Glock 17 handgun. But maybe not everyone who wants one needs to have access to an AR-15 style assault rifle, or a .50 caliber sniper rifle, or other military-grade weaponry. And if you are an enthusiast of military-grade weapons, maybe there are some additional restrictions on those because, again, the Second Amendment's guaranteed right to bear arms is not the same thing as guaranteed right to assemble an unchecked, unaccountable armory that would make a Navy SEAL envious."
Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees (among other things) that, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," which, were it up to me to define, would mean everybody has a right to say what they want within reason, not that anybody can say anything they want, full stop. I think there's a common-sense middle ground to be found between censorship and saying, "You're not allowed to use your speech to incite violence, or harm protected classes of people, or create mass chaos."
While I generally believe that people should have the freedom to live their lives however they want without someone else coming in and telling them what they can and cannot do, I also believe that in order to live collaboratively in a productive society, we all have to sublimate our impulses for the greater good of the people and the society around us, and it's possible to have a good-faith argument about where to draw the line on any particular issue that will find a balance between complete and unfettered freedom and so much restriction that citizens feel like someone else is trampling on their rights and freedoms.
As far as what happened with Jimmy Kimmel (and Stephen Colbert before him, and very likely Jimmy Fallon and/or Seth Meyers next), I don't think jokes and commentary from late-night talk show hosts comes even remotely close to being a reason for which someone's freedom of speech needs to be curtailed for the greater good. The Administration is clearly trying to silence voices of dissent and criticism, particularly among the opposition party, and that is a freedom which we should all be outraged at the thought of losing. For the eight years Obama was president, the right wing said some heinous things about him (and were allowed to). The four years after that, when Trump was president, the left wing said some horrible things about him (and were allowed to). The four years after that, when Biden was president, the right wing said awful things about him (and were allowed to). But now, when people are saying anything negative about Trump or his administration, suddenly those people's jobs are being threatened, they're being investigated by law enforcement, they're being subjected to frivolous lawsuits designed to punish them.
Regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum, we should all be deeply concerned and outraged by a political dynamic where dissent, disagreement, and criticism are being actively silenced and punished by those in power. If we're not free to express our thoughts and opinions without fear of reprisal, we're no longer truly free.
 
Prompt for September 20, 2025: If the rapture happened today, do you think you would be taken to live eternally with Jesus? Why or why not?
The honest answer is, if the rapture were to happen today, I don't know what side of things I'd end up on. And I think it would be the height of hubris to assume that you know how you'll be judged at the end of your time on Earth. Believing for certain that you're guaranteed a free one-way trip to heaven is essentially substituting your judgment for God's, or at least presuming that you fully know God's intentions and his heart.
On the one hand, Christian theology teaches us that we're all inherently sinful and, while some sins are worse than others, each and every sin means that we're guilty and deserving of God's wrath. On the other hand, Christian theology also teaches us that we have a loving and merciful God, and we're saved by His grace.
Given those two biblical truths, I would hope that I'd be taken to live eternally with Jesus when the rapture happens, but I can't say for certain. In the television series The Good Place (which is about the afterlife), the initial premise claims that getting into Heaven is based on a "points system" that is so onerous that only a select few make it in, and nobody's been admitted to Heaven in years. Which I have a hard time believing would be the case with a gracious and merciful God... but again, I just don't know.
Day 3949: “The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for." — Bob Marley. Your thoughts!
Over the years, through a combination of reading, therapy, and relationship-focused events like church marriage conferences and the like, I've come around to the general opinion that a lot of relationship troubles these days (e.g., the challenges with the dating scene, the divorce rate, etc.) can be boiled down to one or both people in a relationship not being willing to accept that things will be difficult sometimes, and/or not understanding that solid relationships are built on putting your partner first in a lot of circumstances. I think a lot of people have a tendency to bail on relationships at the first sign of difficulty.
Coming up on our eighteenth wedding anniversary (and twenty-three total years together) this year, my wife and I were reflecting on all the hard things we've been through, from those early disagreements that blow up into full-fledged arguments, to really challenging circumstances like losing jobs and important people in our lives, to personal struggles with health problems and the pet peeves that develop after years of sharing a life with someone. And we wouldn't change any of that; it's what adds depth and connection to a relationship. But we were talking about how many people we know who have bailed on a relationship because it got too real or too hard.
"What happened to all the romance and the excitement in the relationship?"
"It feels like you're putting the kids and/or your job first instead of me."
"I can't deal with you being depressed all the time."
"You haven't been the same since your grandfather died."
These are the kinds of things that happen all the time, and I think it comes from a place where people are increasingly unwilling to sacrifice (or in the words of Bob Marley, suffer) for one another. Where the priority is themselves and what they need, rather than what the relationship needs to thrive.
I've been watching Formula 1 a lot lately, and one of my favorite drivers is Lewis Hamilton who is forty years old and has a dating history that includes Nicole Scherzinger, Gigi Hadid, Rihanna, Kendall Jenner, Rita Ora, Nicki Minaj, Shakira, and Sofia Vergara. Hamilton has been quoted as saying he's never tried to settle down with anyone because his entire life is racing and, in order for a relationship to work, his partner would need to understand that racing (including the time commitment and traveling around the world) is his priority.
In a way, I think there's something honest and respectful about that, acknowledging that you aren't married or in a serious relationship with someone because you don't think it's fair to expect them to sacrifice their individuality to conform to what's important in your life. That said, I also find it incredibly sad that he's never met someone who, as a person, is more important to him than his job (even if it is a very, very cool job  ). But I feel like that's a prevalent mindset these days. People who go into a relationship and basically take the position, "This is great and all, but I'm not willing to sacrifice anything about myself or change anything in any way. If you can live with that, I guess this will work out."
That's not a recipe for relationship success because both people have to sacrifice for one another. There will be times when you have to say, "I need this, and it's not fair to ask you to make that sacrifice." But there will also be times when your partner is saying that to you, and you have to be as willing to make the concession as you want them to be for you when it really matters.
The cool thing about relationships is that "suffering" or sacrificing for other people develops the relationship. When you do something for someone else and understand why it's important and see the positive effect it has, your connection with that person deepens. The "sparks" that come with a new relationship are exciting and all; it's one of the greatest feelings in the world. But one of the other greatest feelings in the world is knowing someone so intimately that you don't even need to say anything to be understood and feel like you're being seen and prioritized.
But in order to get there, you have to work at it. And working at it means putting the other person first at least as often as (if not more than) you do yourself.
|
© Copyright 2025 Jeff (UN: jeff at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Jeff has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
|
Comment • View 3 comments 
