Powered By Blogger

Thursday, November 11, 2010

On getting older

One of the benefits in being young is the ability to see things clearly.  There is wrong, there is right.  There is right, there is left.  There is up, there is down.  There is no gray, no indecision, there is my way or the highway.

And then you age.  And then you tend to see nuances, to see the shadows in the light.  You understand that what you think is subject to constant revision, if not indecision.  You can follow the logical course of an action and figure out what may be the end result.  As our parents told us many years ago, you learn to think before you act, or at least understand possible ramifications in your actions.  But if you’re like me, you have the impulse from time to time to just do it, just take the action, regardless of the outcome.  That can be a bad thing.

So it’s in this mindset of shadows and light we look at a recent event that’s caused some agita for a lot of thoughtful people.

Before I begin, it must be said that I have no personal knowledge of the events to be described.  I’m only taking it on the word of others, and what’s been published.

Apparently there was a e-book for sale on Amazon.com called "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct".  According to the author, it was written to ‘address what he considers unfair portrayals of pedophiles in the media.’  Further, he maintains that true pedophiles would never hurt a child.  This, of course, is pure baloney.

The self-publication of this tome along with the listing on Amazon.com prompted a furious backlash.  One doesn’t have to think very much to figure out why this has led to many attempts to organize boycotts against Amazon.  There have been calls for banning the sale of this as well as other actions.  It would not be surprising to hear that someone finds out who the creep was who wrote it and assassinated him.

Well meaning people have taken these types of actions before, on various subjects.  Does anyone remember Tipper Gore before Al gave her the kiss at the convention?  She led the fight to get what is now commonly seen on CDs – the ubiquitous Parental Advisory.  Some countries where civil liberties are not part of their national identity burn books.  Salman Rushdie published “The Satanic Verses” and is still under fatwa. 

This is in no way a defense of the subject matter of the e-book.  It is as reprehensible, as despicable as anything I can imagine.  The parent part of me wants to destroy the practice as well as the author.  On the scale of evil, this certainly must rank near the top.  And as the father of a victim of pedophilia, there is no worse anguish imaginable to see your child go through.  Even though several years have passed, it is constantly on my mind.  And internally I cry often for what my daughter has lived through and the impact it has made on her life.  She will never be able to erase the memories, and the memories will are a constant companion for her.  In some ways, it has destroyed her life.  Thankfully, she does not have the victim mentality.  But the person responsible for this is to this day walking free.  I cannot tell you how often I’ve dreamed of maiming him, of extracting more than a pound of flesh for his crime.  Fortunately, I do believe in eternal judgment, and have to trust that he will pay the price for what damage he has done.

But.

I am also mindful of the liberties we enjoy.  And those liberties include the right of free speech, regardless of the content, regardless of how disgusting it might be.  One of the problems with a boycott are that it creates a ‘crash scene’ mentality.  It draws undue attention to the subject of the boycott.  It gives the author the notoriety they crave.  And that by itself may lead to bigger sales than would occur if ignored.

Banning the e-book?  Absolutely foolish.  People are drawn to what they are forbidden to see.

From a marketing standpoint, Amazon initially took the position (at least publicly) that they would never infringe upon the sacred right of free speech.  From a public relations standpoint this was about as dumb as you could get.  What did Amazon hope to gain?  If it was to prove that they would stand for free speech, guess again.  As of today, the e-book has been pulled.  So much for standing on principle.

My concern is that when people talk about banning anything, the civil liberties portion of my brain starts to tingle.  This is not an endorsement of the ACLU, however.  That organization has, in my opinion, crossed over the line far too often to be of any real value.  But I would not deny Robert Mapplethorpe the right to display his “art”, I would not have denied Anton La Vey his right to espouse whatever doctrine he chose, I would not deny the Klan the ability to perpetuate their putrid hatred.  Because at the end of the day, who would be the one to decide what is acceptable?  If, for example, an administration somehow got a law passed to deny the right to protest their decisions, we would be far worse off than now.

This is not a time to stick our heads in the sand.  It is the time to make sure we are vigilant in protecting our rights – even the right to be wrong.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

You’re wrong, I’m right! No, I’m wrong, you’re right! Wait a minute!!

There’s an old saying about disagreeing without being disagreeable.  Whatever happened to that concept?

Of course, I’m talking about politics.  Actually, it could be about everyday life, simply because so much of it has been politicized.  What used to be discussed over the backyard fence with your neighbor has now been hijacked by the talking heads that command so much of the airwaves.  And instead of being joked about or minimized so that it wouldn’t become a sore point between friends, now they command the attention of millions several days in a row.

Let’s start by getting the names you know out there.  Rush Limbaugh.  Sean Hannity.  Glenn Beck.  Keith Olbermann.  Bill Maher.  Jon Stewart.  Bill O’Reilly.  Michael Savage.  Dennis Miller.  Steven Colbert.  Geraldo Rivera.  Chris Matthews.  Ann Coulter.  Michael Medved.  Michael Moore.  Laura Ingraham. And a blast from the past, Joe Pyne.   Lots more, but you’re starting to see how pervasive it is.  Add into that the number of celebrities who are pushing one agenda or another regardless of their credentials and you start to get the impression that either you have a show or you’re opinion doesn’t count.

Aside from the obvious, what can you find in common about all of those above?  Here’s a hint – no matter which side they choose to bash, they really aren’t all that different.

A good friend of mine since the last century, Paul, mentioned that he’d heard another commentator, Mike McConnell, say that there are more similarities than either side would admit.  And he’s right.

What has this done to the normal discourse?  Further, does the vitriol spewed by so many of the folks reflect the country at large, or is it merely feeding the fire?  In other words, is political commentary the cause or the effect of how polarized we are today?

And here’s a scary thought: is the divisiveness we’re seeing today leading us toward the sectarian Balkanization we see in other countries?

This country has always been portrayed as the safe haven for dissenters, no matter how wacky.  Yet it seems that we’re insulating ourselves from opinions not quite like our own and labeling practitioners of opposing views as evil, un-American, intolerant, stupid, insolent and morally bereft.

It’s becoming less like the America I want to live in.

It crosses all sorts of lines: racial, ethnic, gender, age, political party, wealth, education, you name it.

Now for the disclosure: I have for some time been described by my parents as just to the right of Genghis Khan.  However, that’s not entirely accurate either.  Conservatives would disown me because I happen to disagree with some of their standards.  For example, I don’t believe that every “real American” is entitled to own assault rifles, bazookas or an F-22 Raptor.  In fact, I’d feel much safer if very few had guns, sort of like Great Britain.

I think that campaign finance reform as we know it is a joke.  The Supreme Court decision was disturbing.  And term limits should be in place for every elected politician.

There is a place for generosity and giving assistance to those who cannot fend for themselves.  However, it should not be a birthright for their children or grandchildren.

What’s interesting is that the political lines have shifted over the years.  What was espoused by John Kennedy is in some cases seen as part of the moderate Republican agenda.  Kennedy understood the problems of over taxation.  He understood the need for people to volunteer and that little G government could not and should not be the source of answers for all of society’s needs.

Eisenhower spoke about the dangers of the military-industrial complex.

In the past two thousand years philosophers and historians have dissected what destroyed the Roman Empire.  Much of it was hubris, much of it was the Government being the end all, be all.  In some cases we seem to be repeating that now.

But I digress.  We were discussing the current state of affairs.

Another old friend from school, Willie, posted an interesting comment on Facebook: “Ok Tea Party/Republicans.  You pretty much got what you wanted so now it's all on you.  When you get sworn in on January 3, 2011 I expect to wake up on January 4, 2011 with a fully restored economy and every American in a full time job.. I'll extend you the same amount of patience and support as you gave to the current administration. No excuses about needing time to turn things around.”

At first I dismissed Willie’s comment as being sour grapes.  But upon further review, he has a point – although I’m not sure he’d agree with my assessment.  I think Willie’s distress at the outcome of the election is a commentary on the divide and the lack of civility we experience daily.  Whether you agree with him or not is moot; what matters is that his comments mirror the same sentiments you hear from one side or the other.  And that’s the disturbing thing.

So we’ve come to this.  It’s the natural human desire to vanquish your enemies, but it’s been ratcheted up by the politicization of virtually everything in life.  It’s more than a lack of civility – it’s our seeming inability to discuss things rationally without becoming upset with the messenger.  The virtue of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

While you can certainly look back at our history and find the cartoons of Thomas Nash or records of politicians demonizing their opponents (remember the history lesson of Senator Preston Brooks caning Senator Charles Sumner), you can also look back at the more recent history of Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan.  This almost brings back fond memories of backroom political deals in smoke-filled kitchens.  O’Neill and Reagan, while rarely in agreement politically, became pretty good friends.  There are stories about how the two would get together after hours and share a drink and compromise for the good of the people.  Whether you think it was wise or not, it did show that rare commodity, civility.

Perhaps we need a good stiff shot of that lesson.