Freedom is Not Free!

     We so often talk about things being free to acess or free to do. And often these "freebies" are viewed as cheap or we forget, or don't realize, who has or is paying for them and that there are rules surrounding everything, including those things that are called free. When something is free to us, it is because someone else has paid for it. When we are said to be free to do something, or say something, there are always rules attached to this freedom, even when those rules are unspoken rules. And so therefore, what is free is not cheap.
     In the free world, where we are blessed with political and religious liberties, we often love to say, "This is a free country and we can do what we want, go where we want to go and say what we want to say, as long as no one else gets hurt." Yes. As my late stepdad would say, "I think we have too much freedom. that may be our trouble in this society." Could he have had a point?" Yes, I think so! The fact is, in many free societites we are free to do things that are legal but not necessarily moral or helpful; such things are said to not "hurt people" and are supposed to be "no one's business." There is the matter of marital infidelity, having "love affairs" and romantic relationships outside of one's marriage. For many years, far too many popular songs have "celebrated" the "joys of forbidden fruit" and have lamented the "oppressiveness" of society's unspoken rules, and God's Law, that denounce such behavior and say that it is wrong. I have seen, over and over, the stark consequences for people who take such liberties with their marriages; and taking such liberties contributes to so many missing/murdered adults! Marital unfaithfulness will hurt the partners deeply and shatter all trut and respect, even when they may try to still save their marriage. It is very wrong for popular music and other media to condone, much less celebrate, behavior that causes so much "hidden damage." Then there is abortion, which has been legal for years and is often considered a right where "no one will get hurt." Really? Even if we don't factor in the obvious, what it does to the baby in utero, what about the others in that victim's life? Even when the girls and women who have had abortions suppress/repress their abortions, they are forces to suffer in silence because society does not count the loss of a child by abortion as a loss, but as a "choice." These girls and women are forbidden to grieve and to work through their traumas, except by maligned "prolife pregnancy resource centers." Then there are the possible physical side effects of abortions, which include the risks of not being able to conceive wanted future children, miscarriages, disrupted menstrual cycles, and worse. Birth dads who learn about having fathered babies that were aborted without their consent, often feel intensely betrayed and violated. Society is cheated of the future contributions of a person who was not allowed to live. I did not mention the obvious harm that it does to the unborn because that is another discussion which could fill a book; I want to show how even socially acceptable things are not always best or helpful to any of us.
     This freedom of choice, the freedom to choose which so often has become too much freedom, come with the responsibilities to choose what is right, what is best and what is helpful. Freedom is not license. And the only reason we have these freedoms, even to excess, is because many others have paid for them. We are aware of this and that is why this Memorial Day weekend has been set aside to focus on and remember this: That it is past and present military veterans and active troops, who have paid for these freedoms, and often with their lives, whether in their wars or "at home." As one post I saw the other day put it, "Some gave all, but all gave some."
     As far as freedom of choice goes, there is the matter of free speech. But how free is free speech and how free should it be? Does it mean the freedom to influence or engage our governments to act on our behalf, as I am doing in my current petition drive? Does free speech mean saying controversial or even offensive things (as I'm doing in using the word abortion)? Does it mean saying anything we want to say? I think most of us believe that freedom of speech should stop where the rights and feelings of other start. Verbal abuse, whether online or in person, is crossing the line that goes beyond free speech. I have already written a post on this topic of free speech but I have experienced incidents since then, which apply to this. In the earliest stages of my petition campaign, I have have sought the support of a person whose has two autism-centered blogspots, and whom I have supported. I contacted this person by email and Facebook but never received any reply. Discouraged by the slow growth in gathering signatues for my petition and craving outside support, I posted multiple appeals, over the following days, for others to contact this person concerning my petition and I included the person's two published email addresses. This backfired! Apparently some other person mentioned my posts when contacting this person. This person finally relied to my email appealing to her for support, without any response to my appeal; this person clearly was angry with me, demanding that I promptly delete all my appeals to others to contact her or be reported. I tried to follow orders but this person kept sending angry emails until she was satisfied that I had everything removed. This person has disabled me from contacting her and has told me, "I do not want to hear from you again." In this person's eyes, I had definitely crossed the line that went beyond freedom of speech, harassing her and violating her privacy (even though her email addresses are published). So even if we take liberties to do what we think are okay but others do not see it as okay, as was the case with this person, our words will have consequences. In this case, I made an enemy. Much earlier, when I was new to Facebook, I took liberties to post about two missing children and posted their information and flyers on another user's Facebook Wall. This user promptly sent me a message, telling me that she was displeased with my violation of her privacy and the "imposing of my agenda and my cases" on her. We kept sending each other angry messages back and forth that were defensive; by the end of the day I found that this user had blocked me totally where I could not contact her at all. In this person's eyes, I had gone far from freedom of speech to harassment and invasion of her privacy. My online posts on her page had consequences, that of making an enemy. Even when we exercise freedom of speech, others often will see it as something else and they may, as in my case, react against us. Nothing is totally free.
     And this freedom of speech, which is the foundation of all our political and religious freedoms, is only free to us because others have paid for it. That is, past and present veterans and active military troops, have paid for all of this, often with their lives. And this freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, meaning what is free is not cheap. So let us use Memorial Day to not only commemorate our heroes but also to think about what freedom really is, that it comes with responsibilities, that its abuse can have serious consequences and that it is not free.
    

Hey, I'm Trying to Communicate With You! May I hear From You?

     As many of you may already be aware of, depending on your your encounters with me, your default settings on your social networking pages on Facebook and Twitter, and how often you are online, you may know about my current petition campaign. This petition is my appeal to both Houses of the US Congress and to the US President, to provide funds to all 50 states to make programs for present and future adults with autism, available for the first time: http://www.change.org/petitions/the-u-s-senate-the-u-s-house-of-representatives-president-obama-release-funds-for-services-for-adults-with-autism-to-each-of-the-50-states#share.
     But this blog is not about my petition campaign but about my concerns and issues with the pervasive tendency too many people have, to not respond to even transparent attempts to communicate with them, whether this be by telephone, letter or greeting card, by email or by messages on social networks like Facebook, Skype or others SNSs. To me, the simple act of returning such attempts to communicate with one, is a common courtesy and refusing to do so is plain rude! And rudeness is a big turn-off. As I have begun to to reach out to more and more people on behalf of my petition campaign, I have targeted especially those in the autism community, parents, professionals and nonprofits and resources that specialize in this complex neurological condition and work to improve life for those who are touched by autism. As I have spent much of my time sending personal messages, especially by email and Facebook, sharing my story briefly, sending the URL link to my petition and stressing the importance of this and its relevance, I have seen an annoying, upsetting and frustrating trend. It is simply this: So many people seem to see it as a waste of their time to return their messages, unless they are angry at the sender and have an agenda of their own and want something from the sender.
     Now I know that, even on social networks, even when people pose as advocates for a given cause (especially if it's a popular one) or as survivors of any given experience, that this does not prove, beyond a doubt, that such persons can be trusted to be what they claim for themselves. There are some people who can put up blogspots, websites, and pages on Facebook, Twitter or Google where they use these as platforms and gain the admiration, support and trust of many. And I know that all of us have been hurt by such people and sadly, many of us will be hurt again by such people. I don't know about you but when I send heartfelt, personal messages to people and never hear anything from them, this hurts their credibility in my eyes and makes me wonder if they are what they claim they are. I know that on many websites that are set up for advocacy or for any other reason, there are "Contact Me" forms where you can send messages to the person who runs the site but in a format where they don't get spammed. I have noticed that, during my petition campaign, when I use these "Contact Me" forms to reach out to people about my petition, that I usually do not get any personal reply. It makes me wonder: What is the purpose of their "Contact Me" forms?
      Don't get me wrong: I know that everyone is busy, leading their own lives and may not check their inbox messages on a daily basis or even pay attention to them. And I know that my petition campaign is as yet in the very early stages. But as I seek to keep my expectations low, I still seek to gain supporters from those who have "bigger voices" and more resources than I do, and who are passionate about improving life for all who are touched by autism and who can take my effrts to a whole different level where not only hundred but thousands of signatures will be collected. My fear is that too many people may not see their inbox messages or recognize other attempts to communicate with them, and so see taking the time to respond to these communication attempts, as one way that they don't want to spend their time. I realize that, in the world of SNSs, messages are often filtered and even good messages can end up in email "Spam" folders or in the new Facebook "Others" messages box that shows up with a Facebook user hits the "Messages" feature on their homepage. And I know that not everyone may check phone messages regularly. My issue is that, even allowing for such factors, that too many people don't seem to even try.
      As I have reached out to people, especially in the autism community, by email and Facebook messages, I have noticed that few have, so far, returned my personal messages, let alone adding their names to my petition. I have wondered about this: would such persons, groups or organizations have responded to me if I had name recognition? I fear that I already know the answer to that question and the implications would make another blog topic about our "celebrity culture."
     Of course, my petition campaign has not been my only experience with unreturned messages or attempts to communicate with people. Over the years, I have found that too many people, both in "real life" and online, simply have not been disposed to returning phone messages, letters, emails, or SNS inbox messages. Yes, I know that in this information age, all of us are flooded with messages, including automated messages, mass messages and plain spam. But when I lament about unreturned messages, I'm talking about unreturned PERSONAL messages, not the refusal to pay attention to the others. May many people are just so sick and tired of getting spammed by the other kind of messages that they tune out personal messages also. I can fully understand ignoring these other kind of messages, as I ignore such, except those which I have subscribed to, and I get so many of those that I have come to ignore such automated messages. I have found another, general pattern in sending and returning messages. From experience, I have this: As a rule, I know that if people have not returned online communications in about a week's time, I can conclude that I will never hear from them. In this past year, I have gotten so frustrated and disheartened by the volume of my unreturned messages in my email and Facebook inboxes, and at the same time have gotten unwanted mass messages (sent out to 100 people or more) that I have posted about it. Several separate times, I have posted: "These things I do not like: Unreturned Messages and Mass Messages."
     Yes, I know that the reason that some people do not return their messages is their feelings about the sender: If they do not like the sender or are trying to avoid the sender for some reason, they are probably going to put such messages in their "Spam" or "Trash" inbox folders, tear up the letter, delete the phone message and avoid the sender. And, to this day, I have wondered if this is the reason so many people, in my "real life" or online, do not return my messages at all. I have noticed that when I have had differences or fallings-out with people, in "real life" and especially online, that further efforts to reach out to them and reconnect, have usually been to no avail. And epecially online, those who seem to have stopped keeping in touch with me at all, have been those who have had close ties with groups or organizations that I have had bad experiences with. This is sad, as I believe many of these people seem to be good and sincere people. But I know that when people continue to fail to respond to my efforts to communicate with them, there is probably something wrong or that there are personal differences.
     In the area of Chat, I do not start Chat conversations with anyone but I'm often the recipient of such efforts to communicate with me; many are those of the opposite sex who just want someone to chat with, and some seem to have agendas or want me to do something for them. I try to repond in some shape or fashion to most who start the Chat feature, even if I don't get in a conversation. Yes, there are times when, having a sense of what the person probably has wanted or not really being "in the mood" to chat because I'm busy doing something, I have not responded to the person in Chat. Myself, I try to return as many of my phone messages, letters (from pen pals), emails and SNS messages as I can.
     And yes, I am thankful for those who do show the common courtesy to return their messages, whatever their relationship with me. And as I go into this petition campaign, I will continue to reach out to more people, especially my "local" contacts and to those in the autism community. I'm disappointed that Causes has gotten rid of the feature where we can send personal thank-yous to supporters but I thank everyone who has and who will, add their names to this petition. For every signature counts!
    As for the rest of you, I hope to hear from you!