The newspaper and me (or is it "The newspaper and I"? :-)
I had another letter printed this past Sunday, if you're the least bit interested.
As printed in the January 14, 2007 edition of the (Northwest Indiana) Post-Tribune, page E5.
All too often, Americans -- including many in this area -- are willing to restrict the liberty of others in order to further their own personal preferences.
That concerns me, because those people are out of touch with the ideals that make this country so wonderful.
When you enact or support a smoking ban, that's not freedom. It is one thing if government buildings wish to be smoke-free, but businesses are not public buildings; they are private businesses open to the public.
Hence, in a free society, the business owner sets the smoking standards for his or her establishment. Just like you have the right to choose whether or not to patronize a business based on other aspects of its atmosphere, you have the "right" to only go to restaurants, bars, and businesses that voluntarily ban smoking.
If you think that marriage needs to be defined in law, that isn't freedom either. The only precedent for enacting a ban on gay marriage outside of religious precepts is personal disgust. This is not to say that gay marriage should be constitutionally accepted, but to prohibit it is imposing a particular religion or prejudice (or both) into the law of the land, which goes beyond unacceptable.
If you respect and appreciate liberty, when you see an unsavory opinion, you don't wonder why the person who made it was given a forum to speak his or her mind, because you understand and respect the right to free speech. Instead, you use your own First Amendment right to present a compelling counterargument.
If you believe the function of government is to make people adhere to your "correct" means of living, you're entitled to do so. Just don't claim you believe in freedom and liberty, because frankly, you don't.
There are responsibilities with liberty, not only in using it, but also in defending and maintaining it. Yes, freedom sometimes yields situations that are inconvenient and controversial.
However, it is important to remember that just as others' actions may be objectionable to you, there are people who might find what you say and do to be distasteful. And, if you aren't willing to protect the freedoms of those with whom you disagree, what incentive will they ever have to stand up for yours?
That is the first letter I have had printed since last August. However, it was not the first time I was mentioned in the newspaper, as I participated in the second part of columnist Jerry Davich's informal race survey a little over four months ago. (Yes, I'm finally getting around to it.)
Other than a grammatically-incorrect quote that I said (and immediately tried to correct), I rather like the column. There are a few additional things that I noticed that Mr. Davich might not have:
-- I dressed the way I did -- in earth tones -- deliberately. I almost wore one of my Paul Simon t-shirts; I wonder if that would have made a difference one way or another. My guess is no, though.
-- A couple of women did cross the street when I approached. To be fair, one was parked across the street, but the other had no excuse to be seen.
-- As I walked around the section of the lake bordering Downtown Hobart, I spoke to a policeman who willingly discussed the legality of fishing in the lake (it is legal from most sections, and in late summer and early fall, the bass fishing is apparently quite good) and a woman who realized she dressed a little too warmly for the day.
-- The three people I spoke to at the Duneland Chamber of Commerce in Chesterton were extraordinarily helpful and friendly. The reason I stayed in there as long as I did (which was at least ten minutes) was because we were having a nice conversation.
It was fun, even if I was struggling somewhat with my health at the time. (And I had some wonderful chicken dumpling soup as well. :-)
As printed in the January 14, 2007 edition of the (Northwest Indiana) Post-Tribune, page E5.
All too often, Americans -- including many in this area -- are willing to restrict the liberty of others in order to further their own personal preferences.
That concerns me, because those people are out of touch with the ideals that make this country so wonderful.
When you enact or support a smoking ban, that's not freedom. It is one thing if government buildings wish to be smoke-free, but businesses are not public buildings; they are private businesses open to the public.
Hence, in a free society, the business owner sets the smoking standards for his or her establishment. Just like you have the right to choose whether or not to patronize a business based on other aspects of its atmosphere, you have the "right" to only go to restaurants, bars, and businesses that voluntarily ban smoking.
If you think that marriage needs to be defined in law, that isn't freedom either. The only precedent for enacting a ban on gay marriage outside of religious precepts is personal disgust. This is not to say that gay marriage should be constitutionally accepted, but to prohibit it is imposing a particular religion or prejudice (or both) into the law of the land, which goes beyond unacceptable.
If you respect and appreciate liberty, when you see an unsavory opinion, you don't wonder why the person who made it was given a forum to speak his or her mind, because you understand and respect the right to free speech. Instead, you use your own First Amendment right to present a compelling counterargument.
If you believe the function of government is to make people adhere to your "correct" means of living, you're entitled to do so. Just don't claim you believe in freedom and liberty, because frankly, you don't.
There are responsibilities with liberty, not only in using it, but also in defending and maintaining it. Yes, freedom sometimes yields situations that are inconvenient and controversial.
However, it is important to remember that just as others' actions may be objectionable to you, there are people who might find what you say and do to be distasteful. And, if you aren't willing to protect the freedoms of those with whom you disagree, what incentive will they ever have to stand up for yours?
That is the first letter I have had printed since last August. However, it was not the first time I was mentioned in the newspaper, as I participated in the second part of columnist Jerry Davich's informal race survey a little over four months ago. (Yes, I'm finally getting around to it.)
Other than a grammatically-incorrect quote that I said (and immediately tried to correct), I rather like the column. There are a few additional things that I noticed that Mr. Davich might not have:
-- I dressed the way I did -- in earth tones -- deliberately. I almost wore one of my Paul Simon t-shirts; I wonder if that would have made a difference one way or another. My guess is no, though.
-- A couple of women did cross the street when I approached. To be fair, one was parked across the street, but the other had no excuse to be seen.
-- As I walked around the section of the lake bordering Downtown Hobart, I spoke to a policeman who willingly discussed the legality of fishing in the lake (it is legal from most sections, and in late summer and early fall, the bass fishing is apparently quite good) and a woman who realized she dressed a little too warmly for the day.
-- The three people I spoke to at the Duneland Chamber of Commerce in Chesterton were extraordinarily helpful and friendly. The reason I stayed in there as long as I did (which was at least ten minutes) was because we were having a nice conversation.
It was fun, even if I was struggling somewhat with my health at the time. (And I had some wonderful chicken dumpling soup as well. :-)