Words, Responsibility, Hypocrisy

On January 16, 2011, in the “Communities” section of The Washington Times online, which seems somewhat deceptive, Amanda Read berated “liberal media” (and some other odds and ends that apparently made good distractions) for their insensitive and irrational criticism of Sarah Palin. If the piece is representative, I am disappointed to find another purportedly educated person delusional or simply as given to shamelessly fueling the fear-mongering bandwagon as those she seeks to defend. She criticizes criticism, mocks those who dare mock, interprets misinterpretations, judges the judges, spins the spin...all while apparently seeing her point of view as...different, smarter, right. By Read’s own report, President Obama seemed to follow the Tucson shootings with invitations to take better care of each other, while Sarah Palin took the opportunity to whine about being picked on, again pretending that she doesn’t (or forgetting she does) say about half of the ugly, negative crap she does.

Am I criticizing Amanda Read? You bet I am. Is it unfair? Let’s see...she wrote an “article” intended for public consumption, purposely sought this stage, and in doing so declared herself a credible source, a voice worth listening to, in order to manipulate people’s opinions, the heinous sin with which she is charging others. In other words, much like with Sarah Palin, it’s not only fair, but it would be downright irresponsible of me not to respond in just this fashion, and far be it from me to shirk my “individual responsibility” as an American, as directed by the late President Reagan, a man for whom I actually had great admiration and respect.

For the most part, I simply shook my head as I read the “Not Your Average Read” (conjured, no doubt, in a fit of marketing genius), but there are a few points to which I was compelled to respond as follows:

“As Loughner’s incoherent ramblings and love of conspiracy spiraled downward to senseless bloodshed, King Solomon’s warning proved true - ‘the lips of a fool consume him; the beginning of his talking is folly and the end of it is wicked madness’ (Ecclesiastes 10:12-13).”

So this is what we have to look forward to from Glenn Beck?

“In response to the tragedy, President Obama’s January 12th speech in Tucson was a bit better than I expected.”

What? You expected President Obama to fail? No! Really? To provide more fodder for your criticism? But you’re not part of the problem, right? Here’s the thing...on the rare occasion that I purposely listen to anything Sarah Palin says, it’s in the hope and full expectation that she will show a little more humanity, that she will have abandoned her mission of giving her audience somebody new to hate or fear every single time she opens her mouth, that just once, she’ll either say something nice, or not say anything at all. For real, I expect that; I look for it. Thank you for clearing up for me what exactly you and others like you are spending your energy looking for. It does shed some light, at least on your initial motivation, although it does further cloud how you can possibly find so much fault with whatever truly liberal journalists you could find for leaping so allegedly unfairly on Sarah Palin’s pleas of innocence. (Side note: as though this time were actually about her.)

“Why is it that some in the media find it so hard to blame the murderer alone for murder?”

Because he is not alone in the production. He alone is guilty of shooting those people. But it is not as though his craziness was a secret kept hidden until that day or as though he showed up out of the blue and killed people with his bare hands.

“‘We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.’”

Damn straight, each and every individual. Every individual who insists that the 2nd amendment guarantees his/her right to tote around a Glock like it’s a pack of gum; every individual who runs for public office (or has a cable tv reality show) and makes a platform of turning people against each other, making somebody afraid of somebody else every time she speaks, and crying when she’s called on it; every "journalist" who wants to insist on individual responsibility while disregarding both individual and collective influence.

“(By the way, Palin is now receiving an unprecedented number of death threats. Will the media tell us which group of people is to blame for that?)”

Well, then, I guess she and the president have finally found something in common. Do I smell a beer summit? Surely death threats are not only a bad thing now that Sarah Palin’s getting more of them? Surely you’re not suggesting now that there’s a correlation between rhetoric and death threats...because if there wasn’t before, it certainly would seem to undermine your position to claim that there is now just because a new target’s been added.

“But for some nonreason her words can't just mean that - nothing that Palin says can possibly be taken rationally. There must be something perverse, something apocalyptic - something potentially devastating to humanity - in every slightest gesture Palin makes.”

First of all, who exactly is it, if not Sarah Palin herself, that has worked to ensure that her every word and gesture is? She’s built a career, hell, an identity, out of her own rhetoric (or at least what’s written for her). She alone is soliciting credibility based on what she produces for the public. If Jared Loughner is to be held solely responsible for his actions (and this presumably means absent even mitigating circumstances), then surely Sarah Palin should be held equally responsible for the role in which she has begged to be cast.

Second, if you want the things you say to be “taken rationally,” you should develop the habit of saying rational things, not charging people $500 each (pure profit--news flash, people, the “Tea Party” is not a “party,” just a bunch of people shopping for political offices) to listen to her read from her hand about things she can’t talk about otherwise. I could be wrong, but it seems like if you do understand something and you can talk about it, you would. Right? And it definitely can’t be a none-of-your-beeswax thing if you’re portraying yourself as serious political (leadership) potential.

“‘Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors.’”

It is completely absurd to even try to make the case that violent metaphors have identical weight and meaning coming from both sides of the gun rights debate. If I threaten to shoot you, I will bet my ass that you’ll feel a whole lot more uncomfortable with it if I’m holding a gun than if I’m not. These are factors you cannot ignore in this conversation, at least if you hope to make a valid point to anyone but your usual audience, and if that’s all you’re aiming for, you’re just sucking up.

“As Charles Krauthammer masterfully explained:” ... “The likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann...”

Charles Krauthammer? Michele Bachmann? Really?? This is the company you offer for Sarah Palin in her defense?

Charles Krauthammer has never “masterfully” explained anything that I’ve ever heard. In fact, let’s just shut down his justification of torture right here: A. If you’re that sure that by torturing one, you’ll be able to save many, you must already have enough information to act on something. Get it? Again, if you’re that sure of what information that man can provide to you, then you should have no reason to torture him. B. It’s never okay unless it’d be okay to do it to you.

Now, Michele Bachmann??? Do you really not understand that criticism of her need have nothing whatsoever to do with rhetoric or “battle imagery?” My favorite Michele Bachmann quote, from a 2009 interview with a Minnesota radio station: “And the real concern is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward....” For crying out loud, President Obama is not going to put our young people into re-education camps. That is not “rhetorical,” much less harmless. That is nothing but self-serving, irresponsible pandering to the most ignorant, paranoid, conservative-conditioned people she could possibly get to listen and then, of course, be afraid enough to run out and vote for her. There is nothing mistakable, or defensible, about those words, and they are typical of her, and of Sarah Palin. Individual responsibility, indeed. Please see your own Ecclesiastes quote above.

“What would be good to see less of is thoroughly nasty and disrespectful hate spewings that don't deserve to be called rhetoric.”

Ya think??!!

“Opponents of the Tea Party and conservative leaders would do well to focus on looking for facts instead of reading into rhetoric messages that just aren't there.”

Aren’t there??? MY WIFE received a piece of mail at our home from now-Governor Bill Haslam’s campaign vowing to “protect the traditional family.” It was addressed TO HER FAMILY, not “our neighbor,” not “current occupant,” but to “The Farr Household.”

First, “protect?” Again with this need to “protect” the "traditional" family? Seriously? The only time something needs “protecting” is if it’s being threatened, if it is in danger. This is not my biased, petty, liberal little opinion; these are the meanings of words agreed upon long before I ever used them.

Second, WE -- “The Farr Household” -- are not one of the “traditional” families you’re vowing to protect. By process of elimination, we must then be one of the non-traditional families from whom the traditional families need to be protected.

How dare anyone suggest that we have read anything into that “rhetoric message” that was not there? It’s there in bold freaking print, and how dare anyone talk about individual responsibility without being either willing or able to recognize where all it’s lacking?

“Remember, a fear of subliminal conspiracy in words is part of what drove Jared Loughner insane.”

Maybe...just maybe...that’s the point.

One person was crazy and violent that morning in Tucson. One person directly caused the deaths of several innocent people and devastated the lives of so many more. But there is more than enough laziness, ignorance, arrogance, self-absorption, unaccountability, and yes, blame, to go around, a few times; and Loughner’s own responsibility does not absolve anyone else of theirs. Look around. We're all still here together.

Lies, Hate, and Reality in Tennessee (and unfortunately, beyond)

Truth and identity, public and private, are key--for BOTH sides, and, sadly, the "Belmont College Crushes Queer Soccer Coach Like Bug" situation could just as easily have been avoided by a better tending of those things by either side. Make no mistake, people, Truth will never give up in its efforts to be present in your life, through one "opportunity" after another. Belmont's official "attitude" on this point absolutely sucks, no doubt about that, regardless of the details of its "policies," but did anybody not know that this is who they ARE? As a private, religion-based institution in a state seemingly growing more prejudiced by the second, did they really have anybody fooled into thinking they'd just do the "right" thing when push came to shove? Who lied about what, and to whom?

Do not misunderstand me. I HATE this ignorance, bigotry, blatant discrimination; I hate this hate. I am sick to death of this shit, of the absolute absence of tolerance or even minimal evolution on the subject by waaayyy too many of the Tennessee population. I want it to CHANGE, so we can get on with our lives and tending to some of the REAL problems we're facing in this world. My desperation for that change is why it is so maddening to me when the opportunities we get to achieve some measure of progress are significantly compromised by none other than the unfairly judged and oppressed party themselves.

I hope the coach was fired, or that Belmont has seriously misrepresented the way it handled its end. I hope this coach actually never approached the administration to ask "permission" to talk about her "baby," because the existence of babies don't make people gay, and conversations can be had about babies, even about those babies had with same-sex partners, without any mention of "lifestyle" in legally limiting terms. The conversations needn't include declarations of gay-ness allegedly referred to by the discriminatory policies of the organization of which one may be part. Implications cannot be legislated; but the prohibition of an unprovable concept cannot be challenged if one preemptively "confesses" one's own perceived violation of the rules BY requesting permission to circumvent them. If she did not leave voluntarily, then hopefully she had executed her job more personally openly than is suggested by Belmont's reaction. Maybe then, it could be argued that any claimed "don't ask, don't tell" policy had been inconsistent at best and that forfeiture of its previous enforcement precluded its arbitrary and abrupt enforcement over an implication now. "Baby" does not equal "disclosure of homosexuality." If we are going to be forced to be this "careful," then careful is exactly what we should be, and a matching standard demanded in any argument regarding a lack of that care.

Could have been a good fight. Could have accomplished something. Unfortunately, when you sign a pre-nup before marrying someone known in the past to be a cheating, boozing wife-beater, and he cheats, boozes, and beats the hell out of you and you leave, you are going to get screwed, and you have no right to be surprised by it. Any there's not only not going to be a damn thing you can do about it, but your denial and compliance probably guarantee that the next one is going to get it worse.

Do not simply give away your power, to anybody, ever. Be yourself, even when it's hard. Be honest, even when it's hard. Be honest with yourself, before you ever have a conversation with anybody else about it. Don't expect anybody else in this world to treat you with respect when you can't manage it consistently with yourself. If you act ashamed, people will assume you have good reason to be.

If you just hold up your end, hold your position, without hiding, lying, or apologizing when you haven't done a damn thing wrong, then maybe something can be done when somebody else breaks the "rules." Damn whoever made "spin" such an art. It's no way to live, it's no way to maintain a relationship, and it's no way to run a business. Honesty and transparency are, under most circumstances, the best way to avoid the inevitable betrayals and scars that come up living in SPIN. My wife and I have both learned this lesson. Many people have, more than enough to say with a fair amount of certainty that anybody can learn it.

Damn it, I want to be wrong, completely and utterly wrong, about every aspect of this case. Please, please, please, somebody prove me wrong. You have no idea how glad I'd be. If I'm wrong, then maybe things actually change. But if I'm right, then my immediate environment, in which I live with my beloved wife and the two children we're trying like hell to raise to act better than so many of the examples they see, will certainly be even uglier tomorrow than it was yesterday.

A Matter of Liability

The part about all the uproar over the healthcare reform thing that troubles me is the confusion, the seeming surprise, that our government could possibly think they have any right to take control over such an institution. It's the same confusion and surprise that greeted new government regulation over Wall Street and the banking industry, much of which, by the way, has been thoroughly disregarded.

What part don't you get?

Is it not true that I might very well not be insured by my employer, choose not to maintain any kind of private policy (because there's no way in hell I could afford to), choose to smoke cigarettes (a fully informed decision in that I know full well the harm of which they're capable), get any number of afflictions as a direct result of that cancer, and then decide that I want to live badly enough and therefore pursue treatment enough that I readily accept any government assistance I can possibly get, and probably even feel like I deserve it? I'm not picking on smokers; it's just an example. I could use seatbelts, helmet laws, alcohol consumption (driving or not), ignored storm warnings, bad mortgages (given and received), mountain climbing, whatever.

Whose responsibility are we, if not our own? And if that is our claim, then why do we not live our lives as though we have signed a waiver releasing the government and the rest of society from any such responsibility? But we do not. We want it both ways. We want to reject interference, "meddling," by our ruling authorities until we need them. People sit in the path of the storm swearing up and down that they'll be just fine, aren't going anywhere, until the water gets past five or six feet, and then they're not only on the phone calling 911, but complaining because there's some delay (like 90-mph winds, or that same six feet of water, or all the other equally dismissive people in line to be saved ahead of them). People climb mountains in inclement weather, knowing the risks and the outright statistical likelihood that they will not live through the experience, and yet when they're a few hours late, a search party is launched, at the full expectation of everybody with any knowledge that the fool went up the mountain to begin with.

People (like me) hate being made to wear their seatbelts, because, really, whose business is it? Right? But if we have an accident, and we're ejected from the vehicle and seriously injured (assuming we live), do we tell the paramedics to just leave us there, that it's our own fault? Do we say, "I didn't want the government meddling in my life, and I knew what I was getting myself into. It just wouldn't be right to take the help now." I actually might say exactly that, but I also wear my seatbelt, even though I hate it, because I don't know that in that situation, I'd have that kind of resolve, that my principles would hold up after I'd caused myself multiple broken bones and internal injuries and was facing a certain and painful death in some roadside ditch. People continue to smoke, drink, and use drugs, at all ages, all income levels, insured or not.

Insurance costs continue to climb, we continue to smoke, and sue, and complain. We continue to blame others, refuse to fix the crisis ourselves, beg for help, and then reject the help when it's offered. We're like the families on "Super Nanny," at the beginning of the show, that immature and ignorant, that arrogant, and that helpless. And still, when Jo shows up, they usually spend the first quarter of the show arguing with her, saying they "caaaann't," trying to get around the rules they begged somebody to come set for them.

Why in the hell would you not be subject to regulation by somebody who gave you a loan? Why in the hell would whoever's funding your escapades not get in a say in whether or not you should continue having them in the same manner? When your parents are paying for all your needs, you're supposed to follow their rules. Why would it be different when the federal government is the parent, and, say, Merrill Lynch is the child? It's actually not any different at all.

This country was founded on the concept that certain "inalienable" rights are due every human being, and that it was, at least in part, the function of the federal government to guarantee these rights for us. Life, liberty, property. Life, in modern terms, equals healthcare, shelter, elderly care. This is what you demanded from the beginning. This is what you demand every time you're in a pinch. This is what you get as a very natural consequence for the irresponsible way you live.

What part don't you get?