I am far from perfect -- some might say "deeply flawed". I like to think that I have some friends; I know that I have at least a few enemies -- if for no other reason than that I have a tendency to stand up to bullies, and bullies do not appreciate being stood up to. To the best of my knowledge, none of my enemies really know me very well; I am a fairly private person.
If you were trying to come up with an accurate and thorough description of me, including my core beliefs and philosophies, you could go about it in various ways. You could talk with me, or you could read things that I had written, including this blog. To the best of my knowledge, there are few, if any, audio or video recordings of me that you could observe. It's possible that others may have written things about me. You could talk with people who knew me, and people who had heard things about me. You could talk with my family, my friends, and my enemies.
IF your goal was accuracy, I suppose your best hope would be to use ALL of these sources, if you could gain access to them. If your sources were limited, and you were especially interested in my core beliefs and philosophies, this blog would probably be one of your best sources, along with talking with me, and with the people who know me best -- but this might result in an unfairly positive view of me. One of the least accurate sources of information would be the people who have never met me, or read anything that I have written, but have heard about me. But even that would probably be more accurate than if you spoke only with my enemies, who would likely misrepresent most of my beliefs and philosophies.
Yet, in American politics, this is precisely where many people get their information about candidates -- from the candidate's worst enemies, or from people who have heard about a candidate from the candidate's worst enemies. And this is true not just of candidates, but of entire political parties. Many Democrats' entire opinion of the Republican Party is based NOT on what any actual Republicans believe, but strictly on what enemies of the Republican Party have said -- and the same is true for how many Republicans get their opinions about the Democratic Party. Both sides tend to believe NOT what the candidates say, or what the parties say, but what ENEMIES of the candidates and the parties say.
Last night I watched a television show that featured two Democrats sitting across from each other, discussing the beliefs and positions of the Republican Party. I was not taking notes, but, offhand, they did not make a single true statement about either the official positions of the Republican Party, or the beliefs and positions of a particular Republican candidate -- though, to be fair, since individual candidates and individual Republicans have a wide range of beliefs (as do individual Democrats), I suspect SOME of what they said DID apply to certain Republicans. I do not know where the two Democrats got their information. Perhaps they were deliberately misrepresenting Republican beliefs, or perhaps they were repeating things they had learned from enemies of the Republican Party. Either way, their statements were blatantly false, and could be easily confirmed to be blatantly false.
This is not a new phenomenon. For hundreds of years, or perhaps much longer, people have been basing their opinions of people, and of large groups of people, on questionable statements made by the peoples' enemies. In this enlightened, open-minded, tolerant era, though, most would like to believe we have risen above automatically accepting the opinions spread by enemies. Somehow, in politics, we still embrace the idea that the opinions of someone's enemies are a good source of accurate information about them.
In this "information age", it's easy to find more accurate, honest information about individuals, candidates, and groups of people. Politicians make speeches and hold town meetings and even write books. If someone has already held political office, you can examine their record -- see how they voted on various issues, and what they actually DID or tried to do. And, if you want to know the beliefs of Republicans or Democrats, you can simply TALK to some Republicans and Democrats -- but you should not expect accurate information about REPUBLICAN beliefs from DEMOCRATS, and you should not expect accurate information about DEMOCRATIC beliefs from REPUBLICANS.
As I admitted at the outset, I am far from perfect, but I DO tend to base my opinion of people on the people themselves, rather than on what their enemies say about them, and I try to actually TALK with people from groups I do not know, or with whom I disagree.
Truth is complicated.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Fox News Channel
I do not know how to begin writing about Fox News Channel.
There is a wonderful television situation comedy called “Corner Gas” that takes place in the fictional Canadian town of Dog River. Everyone in Dog River hates the neighboring town, Wullerton (sometimes spelled Woolerton or Wollerton), so much that anytime anyone mentions Wullerton, they all spit in disgust. The local newspaper prints “SPIT!” after it prints the name “Wullerton”. THAT’S how many people feel about Fox News Channel. The name itself is the punchline to an un-stated joke, though many people insist on modifying the name to things like “Faux News Channel”. I am often amazed at the level of animosity expressed toward Fox News Channel. People have such strong feelings about Fox News Channel that it is often difficult to have a calm, rational discussion about it.
Fox News Channel is criticized for being hopelessly biased, specifically favoring “the right” or “conservative” or “Republican” ideas and candidates, and especially scorned for its “Fair and Balanced” slogan in the face of this bias.
I am not an expert on broadcast news. My personal view is that Fox News Channel is indeed horribly biased … but no worse than ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, or the BBC, and probably not as badly biased as MSNBC. All these other networks, however, are biased in the opposite direction, favoring “the left” or “liberal” or “Democrat” ideas and candidates. As far as the claim of being “Fair and Balanced” goes, Fox News Channel generally does a better job of acknowledging opposing views than any of the other networks do, which I would say gives it the claim of being the MOST “fair and balanced”, even if it is not TOTALLY fair and balanced. The other networks often fail to acknowledge that opposing views even EXIST, and completely fail to report or even mention many news stories.
To repeat, I am NOT claiming that Fox News Channel is unbiased, and I am not claiming that it is “Fair and Balanced”. I AM claiming that it is no more biased than any other major news network, and probably more “Fair and Balanced”. If, for some reason, a person only had access to one source of news, I believe that person would have the best chance of gleaning the complicated TRUTH from watching Fox News Channel. Although Fox News Channel is biased, and may come down on the wrong side of any given issue, they often give you a more complete picture of the news than other major networks, so you can figure it out for yourself.
Given my belief that ALL major news outlets are horribly biased, I find the level of negativity directed at Fox News Channel to be puzzling, troubling, and humorous, all at the same time. My great fear is that some people truly fail to realize that their favorite news outlet is biased. One of the most chilling statements I have ever seen on television was ABC journalist Sam Donaldson claiming, with a straight face, that journalists have no power, as they merely report the news.
The truth is far more complicated. Simply by a glance, or a subtle change in inflection, a journalist can change the way millions of people feel about a subject. I saw a BBC report during the war in Iraq. An Iraqi spokesman was claiming the American army had been kept far away, while the journalist stated, “The Americans SAY they have taken the airport,” -- emphasizing the word “say” in a manner that indicated she herself was far from convinced. The easily-verifiable fact was that the Americans HAD taken the airport, but somehow the journalist presented the entire issue as a matter of conflicting opinions.
One of the most biased things a journalist or news outlet does is deciding -- without consulting you or me -- WHAT topics are to be considered “news”. These decisions involve making choices that are far from obvious. Personally, I often disagree with these choices. There are stories that are extensively covered as “news” that I consider largely insignificant, while some stories that I consider highly important are never mentioned even on the local news, let alone national or world-wide. Again, the criteria used to decide WHAT constitutes “news” is NOT obvious. Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be promoting a specific agenda. Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be attempting to gain or retain viewers, listeners, or readers. Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be mostly just competing with other “news” organizations.
As is so often the case, a big part of the problem, for both journalists and non-journalists, is that we are unaware of how strongly we are influenced by our own biases and values. For example, if one hundred journalists were asked to decide which of two stories was more newsworthy, and should be featured prominently in a news broadcast, fifty journalists might choose one of the stories, while fifty chose the other story, and all one hundred might believe that the “correct” choice was obvious.
It is understandable that the fifty who chose the first story are likely to be employed by a news organization that shares their views, just as the fifty that chose the second story are likely to be employed by a news organization that shares THEIR views. Perhaps they held these views before they became associated with that particular news organization, or perhaps these views were formed as a product of their association with that organization, or perhaps both factors come into play. Whatever the mechanism, the result is that journalists from both organizations feel that their views are obviously right, while those of the other organization are obviously wrong.
The same is true of consumers of news. If I tend to believe Fox News gives accurate information about stories that I believe are significant, then I am likely to become a regular viewer. If I believe MSNBC gives more accurate information about stories that I believe are more significant, then I will probably watch and defend MSNBC. The frightening, unfortunate thing is that each of us tends to believe we ourselves are clearly “right” about which news source is “biased” and which is “objective”.
It would be interesting -- but probably impossible at this time -- to attempt to run a truly unbiased “news” organization. One of the obvious problems with such an endeavor is that some people believe that in order to be unbiased, all ideas -- good and bad, right and wrong -- must be treated equally. THAT’s not “unbiased” -- it’s stupid. An unbiased news organization should attempt to find the TRUTH among the conflicting ideas.
Every now and then there are clear cases demonstrating the possibility that Fox News Channel is the LEAST biased of any major American news outlet. Ironically, perhaps, one of these cases was over four years ago, when Hillary Clinton was battling Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Nonpartisan sources found Fox News Channel to be the most objective source portraying the contest between the two Democrats.
Then there is the coverage of events in the Middle East since September 11, 2012 (NOT September 11, 2001). While intelligence analysts and diplomats from the USA and around the world acknowledge that the attacks on US embassies and consulates were apparently pre-planned and NOT motivated by outrage over a youtube video, President Obama and his administration continue to focus their attention on the video, AND on attacking Mitt Romney’s response to the attacks -- and rather than investigate the situation and attempting to find the TRUTH, most American media outlets are simply reporting the version of “truth” portrayed by the Obama administration. As in other cases, Fox News Channel is reporting both sides -- the administration’s claims, and the opinions of the intelligence community and international diplomats. They are NOT being totally “balanced”; they are presenting both sides, but attempting to find the truth -- unlike other American news organizations. I am not claiming that Fox News Channel is necessarily CORRECT, but they ARE giving both sides of the story.
It is often said that there are at least two sides to every story. That may be true, but it does not mean that all sides are equally plausible, and worthy of the same respect. A “fair and balanced” approach demands only that all sides be examined for merit. It does NOT mean that all sides must be found to be WORTHY of merit, or presented as worthy of merit.
Truth is complicated -- and Fox News Channel, while biased, often does a better job of acknowledging that fact than other American news outlets.
There is a wonderful television situation comedy called “Corner Gas” that takes place in the fictional Canadian town of Dog River. Everyone in Dog River hates the neighboring town, Wullerton (sometimes spelled Woolerton or Wollerton), so much that anytime anyone mentions Wullerton, they all spit in disgust. The local newspaper prints “SPIT!” after it prints the name “Wullerton”. THAT’S how many people feel about Fox News Channel. The name itself is the punchline to an un-stated joke, though many people insist on modifying the name to things like “Faux News Channel”. I am often amazed at the level of animosity expressed toward Fox News Channel. People have such strong feelings about Fox News Channel that it is often difficult to have a calm, rational discussion about it.
Fox News Channel is criticized for being hopelessly biased, specifically favoring “the right” or “conservative” or “Republican” ideas and candidates, and especially scorned for its “Fair and Balanced” slogan in the face of this bias.
I am not an expert on broadcast news. My personal view is that Fox News Channel is indeed horribly biased … but no worse than ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, or the BBC, and probably not as badly biased as MSNBC. All these other networks, however, are biased in the opposite direction, favoring “the left” or “liberal” or “Democrat” ideas and candidates. As far as the claim of being “Fair and Balanced” goes, Fox News Channel generally does a better job of acknowledging opposing views than any of the other networks do, which I would say gives it the claim of being the MOST “fair and balanced”, even if it is not TOTALLY fair and balanced. The other networks often fail to acknowledge that opposing views even EXIST, and completely fail to report or even mention many news stories.
To repeat, I am NOT claiming that Fox News Channel is unbiased, and I am not claiming that it is “Fair and Balanced”. I AM claiming that it is no more biased than any other major news network, and probably more “Fair and Balanced”. If, for some reason, a person only had access to one source of news, I believe that person would have the best chance of gleaning the complicated TRUTH from watching Fox News Channel. Although Fox News Channel is biased, and may come down on the wrong side of any given issue, they often give you a more complete picture of the news than other major networks, so you can figure it out for yourself.
Given my belief that ALL major news outlets are horribly biased, I find the level of negativity directed at Fox News Channel to be puzzling, troubling, and humorous, all at the same time. My great fear is that some people truly fail to realize that their favorite news outlet is biased. One of the most chilling statements I have ever seen on television was ABC journalist Sam Donaldson claiming, with a straight face, that journalists have no power, as they merely report the news.
The truth is far more complicated. Simply by a glance, or a subtle change in inflection, a journalist can change the way millions of people feel about a subject. I saw a BBC report during the war in Iraq. An Iraqi spokesman was claiming the American army had been kept far away, while the journalist stated, “The Americans SAY they have taken the airport,” -- emphasizing the word “say” in a manner that indicated she herself was far from convinced. The easily-verifiable fact was that the Americans HAD taken the airport, but somehow the journalist presented the entire issue as a matter of conflicting opinions.
One of the most biased things a journalist or news outlet does is deciding -- without consulting you or me -- WHAT topics are to be considered “news”. These decisions involve making choices that are far from obvious. Personally, I often disagree with these choices. There are stories that are extensively covered as “news” that I consider largely insignificant, while some stories that I consider highly important are never mentioned even on the local news, let alone national or world-wide. Again, the criteria used to decide WHAT constitutes “news” is NOT obvious. Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be promoting a specific agenda. Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be attempting to gain or retain viewers, listeners, or readers. Sometimes, “news” stories seem to be mostly just competing with other “news” organizations.
As is so often the case, a big part of the problem, for both journalists and non-journalists, is that we are unaware of how strongly we are influenced by our own biases and values. For example, if one hundred journalists were asked to decide which of two stories was more newsworthy, and should be featured prominently in a news broadcast, fifty journalists might choose one of the stories, while fifty chose the other story, and all one hundred might believe that the “correct” choice was obvious.
It is understandable that the fifty who chose the first story are likely to be employed by a news organization that shares their views, just as the fifty that chose the second story are likely to be employed by a news organization that shares THEIR views. Perhaps they held these views before they became associated with that particular news organization, or perhaps these views were formed as a product of their association with that organization, or perhaps both factors come into play. Whatever the mechanism, the result is that journalists from both organizations feel that their views are obviously right, while those of the other organization are obviously wrong.
The same is true of consumers of news. If I tend to believe Fox News gives accurate information about stories that I believe are significant, then I am likely to become a regular viewer. If I believe MSNBC gives more accurate information about stories that I believe are more significant, then I will probably watch and defend MSNBC. The frightening, unfortunate thing is that each of us tends to believe we ourselves are clearly “right” about which news source is “biased” and which is “objective”.
It would be interesting -- but probably impossible at this time -- to attempt to run a truly unbiased “news” organization. One of the obvious problems with such an endeavor is that some people believe that in order to be unbiased, all ideas -- good and bad, right and wrong -- must be treated equally. THAT’s not “unbiased” -- it’s stupid. An unbiased news organization should attempt to find the TRUTH among the conflicting ideas.
Every now and then there are clear cases demonstrating the possibility that Fox News Channel is the LEAST biased of any major American news outlet. Ironically, perhaps, one of these cases was over four years ago, when Hillary Clinton was battling Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Nonpartisan sources found Fox News Channel to be the most objective source portraying the contest between the two Democrats.
Then there is the coverage of events in the Middle East since September 11, 2012 (NOT September 11, 2001). While intelligence analysts and diplomats from the USA and around the world acknowledge that the attacks on US embassies and consulates were apparently pre-planned and NOT motivated by outrage over a youtube video, President Obama and his administration continue to focus their attention on the video, AND on attacking Mitt Romney’s response to the attacks -- and rather than investigate the situation and attempting to find the TRUTH, most American media outlets are simply reporting the version of “truth” portrayed by the Obama administration. As in other cases, Fox News Channel is reporting both sides -- the administration’s claims, and the opinions of the intelligence community and international diplomats. They are NOT being totally “balanced”; they are presenting both sides, but attempting to find the truth -- unlike other American news organizations. I am not claiming that Fox News Channel is necessarily CORRECT, but they ARE giving both sides of the story.
It is often said that there are at least two sides to every story. That may be true, but it does not mean that all sides are equally plausible, and worthy of the same respect. A “fair and balanced” approach demands only that all sides be examined for merit. It does NOT mean that all sides must be found to be WORTHY of merit, or presented as worthy of merit.
Truth is complicated -- and Fox News Channel, while biased, often does a better job of acknowledging that fact than other American news outlets.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Kitten dilemma
Much of my time and money goes into caring for stray animals, and especially cats, but I keep fairly quiet about it, and do not actively seek them out -- if they show up at my door, I take care of them.
Recently, there was an exception. A neighbor knocked on the door, holding a kitten, and said that the kitten was following her around, and that she did not like kittens, and so we should take it. The kitten seems quite tame and friendly -- probably NOT a totally-wild kitten. Perhaps it was dumped in this kitten-friendly neighborhood by someone trying to get rid of it.
About a week after joining the household, the kitten suddenly began limping badly. I took the kitten to the veterinarian, who tentatively diagnosed a fractured elbow -- the X-rays are not absolutely definitive. The vet has given me two options: Do nothing, or have extensive surgery on the kitten's arm.
With no further treatment, the vet believes the kitten's arm will PROBABLY heal fairly well, but probably not perfectly. It might go through life with a barely-noticeable limp. On the other hand, it might heal badly, and the arm will become useless, and need to be amputated, and the kitten will live out its days with three of its four legs -- but still, it would probably live a fairly-normal life as a three-legged cat.
Though there are risks to any surgery, with surgery, the kitten would have a better chance of ending up with a completely "normal" arm -- but the cost would probably be close to a thousand dollars. The vet seems to be recommending that I save my money, and do nothing more ... but is leaving the final decision up to me.
The vet and I know each other very well, and the vet knows that he will get my money either way. Veterinary bills are among my largest expenses, along with animal food, medicine, and other supplies. I am not wealthy, and run a very real risk of someday running out of money, but at this moment I COULD come up with the thousand dollars needed for this surgery.
Life offers no guarantees. IF there was a guarantee that for a thousand dollars, the kitten could have a perfect arm, and a perfect, long, happy life, then I suppose the question would be easier. The question would also be easier if I KNEW that doing nothing would guarantee that the kitten would eventually lose its arm.
The truth is more complicated. I am left in the awful situation of weighing the health of one of God's creatures against the significant financial cost.
It would be a bit easier if the new kitten were an established member of the family. I once spent seven thousand dollars on surgery for my beloved dog, and spend hundreds each month on special food and medicines for other established animals. But this is not yet a family member -- it is a seemingly-homeless animal deposited here by a neighbor. But I am not sure that this information should factor in the decision. Is this kitten any less "deserving" of expensive surgery because it has spent less time in our household?
I THINK the question comes down to "need". My dog NEEDED the surgery. The vet is not convinced that this kitten truly NEEDS the surgery. But perhaps it DOES. By the way, if I wait, to see whether the arm will heal correctly on its own, it will be too late to do the surgery.
I do not know the correct way to proceed.
Truth is complicated.
Recently, there was an exception. A neighbor knocked on the door, holding a kitten, and said that the kitten was following her around, and that she did not like kittens, and so we should take it. The kitten seems quite tame and friendly -- probably NOT a totally-wild kitten. Perhaps it was dumped in this kitten-friendly neighborhood by someone trying to get rid of it.
About a week after joining the household, the kitten suddenly began limping badly. I took the kitten to the veterinarian, who tentatively diagnosed a fractured elbow -- the X-rays are not absolutely definitive. The vet has given me two options: Do nothing, or have extensive surgery on the kitten's arm.
With no further treatment, the vet believes the kitten's arm will PROBABLY heal fairly well, but probably not perfectly. It might go through life with a barely-noticeable limp. On the other hand, it might heal badly, and the arm will become useless, and need to be amputated, and the kitten will live out its days with three of its four legs -- but still, it would probably live a fairly-normal life as a three-legged cat.
Though there are risks to any surgery, with surgery, the kitten would have a better chance of ending up with a completely "normal" arm -- but the cost would probably be close to a thousand dollars. The vet seems to be recommending that I save my money, and do nothing more ... but is leaving the final decision up to me.
The vet and I know each other very well, and the vet knows that he will get my money either way. Veterinary bills are among my largest expenses, along with animal food, medicine, and other supplies. I am not wealthy, and run a very real risk of someday running out of money, but at this moment I COULD come up with the thousand dollars needed for this surgery.
Life offers no guarantees. IF there was a guarantee that for a thousand dollars, the kitten could have a perfect arm, and a perfect, long, happy life, then I suppose the question would be easier. The question would also be easier if I KNEW that doing nothing would guarantee that the kitten would eventually lose its arm.
The truth is more complicated. I am left in the awful situation of weighing the health of one of God's creatures against the significant financial cost.
It would be a bit easier if the new kitten were an established member of the family. I once spent seven thousand dollars on surgery for my beloved dog, and spend hundreds each month on special food and medicines for other established animals. But this is not yet a family member -- it is a seemingly-homeless animal deposited here by a neighbor. But I am not sure that this information should factor in the decision. Is this kitten any less "deserving" of expensive surgery because it has spent less time in our household?
I THINK the question comes down to "need". My dog NEEDED the surgery. The vet is not convinced that this kitten truly NEEDS the surgery. But perhaps it DOES. By the way, if I wait, to see whether the arm will heal correctly on its own, it will be too late to do the surgery.
I do not know the correct way to proceed.
Truth is complicated.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Sharpton's Blame
About a month ago I was flipping channels on the television -- actually, a friend was flipping the channels, and I was simply watching. She stopped on a person I recognized as Al Sharpton. I'm not sure what channel it was, but he seemed to be making a speech, delivering some sort of political commentary. It appeared he may have his own program, or at least his own segment on a program.
He was talking about what bad shape the USA is in, and how Americans are suffering, and he seemed to be about to blame someone. This surprised me. Generally, when Americans want to blame someone for their situation, they blame their most powerful political leaders, and especially -- rightly or wrongly -- the President of the United States. I don't know that much about Al Sharpton, but I did not think he would be wanting to blame the Democratic leaders of Congress, and I especially did not think he would be wanting to blame President Obama ... yet he definitely seemed to be working up to blaming someone.
Suddenly, the suspense was over. He blamed Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He showed Mitt Romney on vacation, riding on a jet ski, and he talked about how Mitt Romney was remodeling and enlarging his summer home, and he showed a sports car rising on an elevator (the implication was that it was Mitt Romney's sports car rising on Mitt Romney's car elevator, but that may have been just an implication). As Al Sharpton showed these various video clips, he made statements about how Mitt Romney is out of touch, and cannot understand the suffering of many (or most) Americans.
I am still a bit astounded as I write this. I cannot quite figure out how Mitt Romney riding on a jet ski is responsible for making Americans suffer. Perhaps if he was President, and riding on a jet ski while he had Presidential duties to perform ... but he is not President, and he has no political duties at this time, other than running for President. I am not an economist, but it seems to me that one of the best ways for individual Americans to support our economy is for those who can afford to consume, to consume! IF Mitt Romney is remodeling and enlarging buildings here in the USA, he is probably employing American workers, and using at least SOME American products ... truly and literally creating jobs. And if he does have a car elevator, it was probably installed by American workers, and, again, made using at least SOME American products, made by American workers. More people getting jobs and getting paid, thanks to the fact that Mitt Romney can afford to pay, and IS paying.
But the fact that I have spent the last paragraph discussing and defending Mitt Romney demonstrates that Al Sharpton has at least partially succeeded in deflecting the potential blame and attention from Barack Obama and our current Congressional leaders -- which seems to be the key element of the Obama campaign strategy at this point. I must emphasize that I am NOT claiming that President Obama DESERVES any blame for America's present situation, and I am not even certain that Americans are indeed suffering.
I AM saying that it is preposterous for Al Sharpton to blame Mitt Romney for our present situation, especially while neglecting to blame President Obama (if he feels the need to blame SOMEONE).
I truly believe I can be fairly objective and bi-partisan about this. For weeks and weeks, most of the political news I saw (and I have not been paying much attention) involved Democrats demanding that Mitt Romney release years and years of his tax returns. I cannot figure out how the release of Mitt Romney's tax returns will make the world a better place, or put anyone in a better position to decide which candidate might make a better President. Actually, since I have an unusually-strong belief in personal privacy, and Mitt Romney seems to be guarding the privacy of his own private tax returns, perhaps it indicates that he is a good candidate for someone like me, who values personal privacy.
The truth is that anytime there is an election between an incumbent and a challenger, the best, most objective source of information to guide a voter is found in the incumbent's record. Either candidate can SAY they will or will not do things, or SAY what they believe, but the incumbent has a clear record that can be examined. But in this Presidential election, attention is successfully being shifted away from the incumbent's record, and instead the chief focus seems to be on the fact that Mitt Romney is wealthy, and comes from a wealthy background (which is true of most American Presidential candidates, and most American Presidents). This knowledge -- the knowledge that Mitt Romney is wealthy, and comes from a wealthy background -- is not information that I consider significant in choosing a President. But it's most of the information that I am getting at the moment.
It may be good political strategy to shift focus away from things that are relevant to what the candidate might be expected to do if elected, and focus instead on irrelevant personal issues, but it is wrong. It does not matter which candidate is "right", or which candidate is Democrat or Republican. Currently, those who campaign for President Obama have successfully shifted the focus away from things that matter, and are focussing on things that do not matter, at least not to me. Perhaps I am out of touch with Americans.
Truth is complicated.
He was talking about what bad shape the USA is in, and how Americans are suffering, and he seemed to be about to blame someone. This surprised me. Generally, when Americans want to blame someone for their situation, they blame their most powerful political leaders, and especially -- rightly or wrongly -- the President of the United States. I don't know that much about Al Sharpton, but I did not think he would be wanting to blame the Democratic leaders of Congress, and I especially did not think he would be wanting to blame President Obama ... yet he definitely seemed to be working up to blaming someone.
Suddenly, the suspense was over. He blamed Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He showed Mitt Romney on vacation, riding on a jet ski, and he talked about how Mitt Romney was remodeling and enlarging his summer home, and he showed a sports car rising on an elevator (the implication was that it was Mitt Romney's sports car rising on Mitt Romney's car elevator, but that may have been just an implication). As Al Sharpton showed these various video clips, he made statements about how Mitt Romney is out of touch, and cannot understand the suffering of many (or most) Americans.
I am still a bit astounded as I write this. I cannot quite figure out how Mitt Romney riding on a jet ski is responsible for making Americans suffer. Perhaps if he was President, and riding on a jet ski while he had Presidential duties to perform ... but he is not President, and he has no political duties at this time, other than running for President. I am not an economist, but it seems to me that one of the best ways for individual Americans to support our economy is for those who can afford to consume, to consume! IF Mitt Romney is remodeling and enlarging buildings here in the USA, he is probably employing American workers, and using at least SOME American products ... truly and literally creating jobs. And if he does have a car elevator, it was probably installed by American workers, and, again, made using at least SOME American products, made by American workers. More people getting jobs and getting paid, thanks to the fact that Mitt Romney can afford to pay, and IS paying.
But the fact that I have spent the last paragraph discussing and defending Mitt Romney demonstrates that Al Sharpton has at least partially succeeded in deflecting the potential blame and attention from Barack Obama and our current Congressional leaders -- which seems to be the key element of the Obama campaign strategy at this point. I must emphasize that I am NOT claiming that President Obama DESERVES any blame for America's present situation, and I am not even certain that Americans are indeed suffering.
I AM saying that it is preposterous for Al Sharpton to blame Mitt Romney for our present situation, especially while neglecting to blame President Obama (if he feels the need to blame SOMEONE).
I truly believe I can be fairly objective and bi-partisan about this. For weeks and weeks, most of the political news I saw (and I have not been paying much attention) involved Democrats demanding that Mitt Romney release years and years of his tax returns. I cannot figure out how the release of Mitt Romney's tax returns will make the world a better place, or put anyone in a better position to decide which candidate might make a better President. Actually, since I have an unusually-strong belief in personal privacy, and Mitt Romney seems to be guarding the privacy of his own private tax returns, perhaps it indicates that he is a good candidate for someone like me, who values personal privacy.
The truth is that anytime there is an election between an incumbent and a challenger, the best, most objective source of information to guide a voter is found in the incumbent's record. Either candidate can SAY they will or will not do things, or SAY what they believe, but the incumbent has a clear record that can be examined. But in this Presidential election, attention is successfully being shifted away from the incumbent's record, and instead the chief focus seems to be on the fact that Mitt Romney is wealthy, and comes from a wealthy background (which is true of most American Presidential candidates, and most American Presidents). This knowledge -- the knowledge that Mitt Romney is wealthy, and comes from a wealthy background -- is not information that I consider significant in choosing a President. But it's most of the information that I am getting at the moment.
It may be good political strategy to shift focus away from things that are relevant to what the candidate might be expected to do if elected, and focus instead on irrelevant personal issues, but it is wrong. It does not matter which candidate is "right", or which candidate is Democrat or Republican. Currently, those who campaign for President Obama have successfully shifted the focus away from things that matter, and are focussing on things that do not matter, at least not to me. Perhaps I am out of touch with Americans.
Truth is complicated.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Barriers to Communication
We live in an era of unprecedented communication capabilities. The confluence of various technologies, especially cell phones, satellites, and the internet, have given rise to a world where anyone equipped with appropriate technology can instantly communicate with anyone else so-equipped, virtually anywhere on earth, or even in space. Crucially, this technology is not limited to governments and the elite. In many regions, MOST people have access to cell phones and the internet (though true satellite phones have yet to become widespread). Anyone with internet access can "blog" -- moments after a blogger posts their thoughts online, they can be viewed by people all over the world. Technology has even helped diminish language barriers, with quick electronic translators.
While I do not know whether communication, by itself, can solve the world's problems, I am fairly certain that the world's problems cannot be solved WITHOUT communication. Unfortunately, as technology makes communication easier and easier, our society insists on raising barriers to effective, clear communication.
These barriers are not easy to put into words. The clearest example involves racial issues. The world has complicated racial issues and problems, yet our society has inadvertantly made even the discussion of racial issues a dangerous minefield. Many people have lost their jobs or at least damaged their careers by making racial statements that were deemed socially unacceptable. At present, the majority of "white" Americans are uncertain even of "safe" terminology to describe members of other races. While certain terms are clearly taboo, the definition of "proper" seems to be always changing. This is awkward even for me to discuss, since I, too, am unaware of the current socially-acceptable terminology. I honestly do not know whether it is objectionable for me to make reference to "white" Americans or "black" Americans. Suffice it to say that I am basically afraid to discuss racial issues -- as are millions of Americans.
This brings up another barrier to communication. In our polarized society, people are constantly searching for "ammunition" to use against their enemies. When someone makes a statement, it does not matter much whether it is a sincere statement of their belief, or totally taken out of context, or a joke, or perhaps a true slip of the tongue, with NO basis in their belief. If the statement can be used to damage them by their opponents, it WILL be used to damage them. This means it is dangerous for our leaders and celebrities to say ANYTHING, and it discourages all but the most superficial, simplistic discussions of our complicated problems.
When John McCain was running for President of the United States, he made a joke about what he believed -- in response to a question during a debate. As he said it, he laughed, and then, to make sure, said, "I'm joking. That is NOT what I believe -- though I suspect that by tomorrow, people will be claiming that I actually BELIEVE it." At the end of the debate, a journalist was asking someone from Barack Obama's campaign about the debate, and the campaign staffer said, "Well, I'm excited that John McCain admitted he believed ..." The journalist was incredulous, and said, "But that was a JOKE!" The campaign staffer said, "That doesn't matter. He SAID it, and we have him on videotape SAYING it. If he didn't BELIEVE it, he shouldn't have SAID it! We WILL be using it in our ads."
At the risk of sounding like a politician, and/or a lawyer, the truth is that even a precise recording of someone's WORDS does not necessarily accurately reflect their IDEAS. A candidate for President of the United States recently said, "I like being able to fire people ..." Listening to just a few more sentences of the speech reveals that the truth is more complicated. The candidate does NOT simply "like being able to fire people". He believes that everyone should have the option of switching providers, if someone provides poor service to them. You may agree with that idea or disagree with it; either way, if you tell me the candidate "likes to fire people" then I will consider you guilty of deliberately misrepresenting his ideas. If you tell me, "Well, that's what he SAID!" then I will tell you that I do not CARE what he SAID, I care about his IDEAS. (Incidentally, the very same candidate said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor ..." Again, if you actually listen to the IDEAS he expressed, rather than just the words, the fact is that he IS concerned about the very poor -- and, again, I really don't care what he SAID.)
Perhaps the purest, saddest example of a barrier to communication is the fact that we are now legally advised not to say "I am sorry," for fear that the statement can later be used in court as an admission of guilt. Our society officially discourages people from saying "I'm sorry." How can we hope to get along with each other if we are prohibited from saying "I'm sorry"?
In a perfect world, we would actually listen to each other, and sincerely consider what other people had to say. IF they said something racially or ethnically insensitive, then we would judge whether they spoke out of malice or simply ignorance. IF they said something that sounded "wrong" or outrageous, we would work first to clarify our understanding of their true position, BEFORE we seized upon the isolated statement as "evidence" of their inherent "wrongness", or as a "true" statement of their belief. And, incidentally, after car accidents, EVERYONE would apologize to everyone else, and anyone who claimed that the apology was evidence of "guilt" would be laughed out of court, or perhaps tarred and feathered.
A few weeks ago, I learned of a campaign to do away with the term "illegal aliens". I think most people in the United States would agree that the country has problems relating to ... well, I'm not sure what I am now supposed to CALL it, but I am fairly certain that making it more difficult to DISCUSS will NOT contribute to resolution of the problems.
Some of these issues are similar to those encountered when attempting to speak another language. I am not proud of the fact that I am fluent only in English, and do my best to learn words and phrases in other languages. I HOPE that those I speak with will appreciate the effort, rather than take offense. Meanwhile, English-speakers such as myself now run the constant risk of offending various groups for whom specific words and terms have become a battleground -- not only racial and ethnic groups, but groups based citizenship status, sexual orientation, or even those insisting that the English language be made "gender neutral". This is not to say that these groups do not have valid concerns, but I question whether making people afraid to communicate is the best way to accomplish their goals. For most of us, the easiest thing, and the safest thing, is to simply quit communicating, or at least avoid many areas of conversation -- but this will not resolve our problems, or help bring the people of the world closer together.
Each of us now has the capability to easily communicate with more people than ever before, but as the QUANTITY of communication increases, our society as a whole seems intent on reducing the QUALITY. We must fight "political correctness" and "gotcha" moments and instead attempt an honest and open discussion of ideas -- focussing on ideas rather than inadequate and/or possibly offensive words and statements -- and finding both our points of agreement and our true, honest differences. We will never be able to do that if we are afraid to communicate.
In this case, the truth is pretty straightforward.
While I do not know whether communication, by itself, can solve the world's problems, I am fairly certain that the world's problems cannot be solved WITHOUT communication. Unfortunately, as technology makes communication easier and easier, our society insists on raising barriers to effective, clear communication.
These barriers are not easy to put into words. The clearest example involves racial issues. The world has complicated racial issues and problems, yet our society has inadvertantly made even the discussion of racial issues a dangerous minefield. Many people have lost their jobs or at least damaged their careers by making racial statements that were deemed socially unacceptable. At present, the majority of "white" Americans are uncertain even of "safe" terminology to describe members of other races. While certain terms are clearly taboo, the definition of "proper" seems to be always changing. This is awkward even for me to discuss, since I, too, am unaware of the current socially-acceptable terminology. I honestly do not know whether it is objectionable for me to make reference to "white" Americans or "black" Americans. Suffice it to say that I am basically afraid to discuss racial issues -- as are millions of Americans.
This brings up another barrier to communication. In our polarized society, people are constantly searching for "ammunition" to use against their enemies. When someone makes a statement, it does not matter much whether it is a sincere statement of their belief, or totally taken out of context, or a joke, or perhaps a true slip of the tongue, with NO basis in their belief. If the statement can be used to damage them by their opponents, it WILL be used to damage them. This means it is dangerous for our leaders and celebrities to say ANYTHING, and it discourages all but the most superficial, simplistic discussions of our complicated problems.
When John McCain was running for President of the United States, he made a joke about what he believed -- in response to a question during a debate. As he said it, he laughed, and then, to make sure, said, "I'm joking. That is NOT what I believe -- though I suspect that by tomorrow, people will be claiming that I actually BELIEVE it." At the end of the debate, a journalist was asking someone from Barack Obama's campaign about the debate, and the campaign staffer said, "Well, I'm excited that John McCain admitted he believed ..." The journalist was incredulous, and said, "But that was a JOKE!" The campaign staffer said, "That doesn't matter. He SAID it, and we have him on videotape SAYING it. If he didn't BELIEVE it, he shouldn't have SAID it! We WILL be using it in our ads."
At the risk of sounding like a politician, and/or a lawyer, the truth is that even a precise recording of someone's WORDS does not necessarily accurately reflect their IDEAS. A candidate for President of the United States recently said, "I like being able to fire people ..." Listening to just a few more sentences of the speech reveals that the truth is more complicated. The candidate does NOT simply "like being able to fire people". He believes that everyone should have the option of switching providers, if someone provides poor service to them. You may agree with that idea or disagree with it; either way, if you tell me the candidate "likes to fire people" then I will consider you guilty of deliberately misrepresenting his ideas. If you tell me, "Well, that's what he SAID!" then I will tell you that I do not CARE what he SAID, I care about his IDEAS. (Incidentally, the very same candidate said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor ..." Again, if you actually listen to the IDEAS he expressed, rather than just the words, the fact is that he IS concerned about the very poor -- and, again, I really don't care what he SAID.)
Perhaps the purest, saddest example of a barrier to communication is the fact that we are now legally advised not to say "I am sorry," for fear that the statement can later be used in court as an admission of guilt. Our society officially discourages people from saying "I'm sorry." How can we hope to get along with each other if we are prohibited from saying "I'm sorry"?
In a perfect world, we would actually listen to each other, and sincerely consider what other people had to say. IF they said something racially or ethnically insensitive, then we would judge whether they spoke out of malice or simply ignorance. IF they said something that sounded "wrong" or outrageous, we would work first to clarify our understanding of their true position, BEFORE we seized upon the isolated statement as "evidence" of their inherent "wrongness", or as a "true" statement of their belief. And, incidentally, after car accidents, EVERYONE would apologize to everyone else, and anyone who claimed that the apology was evidence of "guilt" would be laughed out of court, or perhaps tarred and feathered.
A few weeks ago, I learned of a campaign to do away with the term "illegal aliens". I think most people in the United States would agree that the country has problems relating to ... well, I'm not sure what I am now supposed to CALL it, but I am fairly certain that making it more difficult to DISCUSS will NOT contribute to resolution of the problems.
Some of these issues are similar to those encountered when attempting to speak another language. I am not proud of the fact that I am fluent only in English, and do my best to learn words and phrases in other languages. I HOPE that those I speak with will appreciate the effort, rather than take offense. Meanwhile, English-speakers such as myself now run the constant risk of offending various groups for whom specific words and terms have become a battleground -- not only racial and ethnic groups, but groups based citizenship status, sexual orientation, or even those insisting that the English language be made "gender neutral". This is not to say that these groups do not have valid concerns, but I question whether making people afraid to communicate is the best way to accomplish their goals. For most of us, the easiest thing, and the safest thing, is to simply quit communicating, or at least avoid many areas of conversation -- but this will not resolve our problems, or help bring the people of the world closer together.
Each of us now has the capability to easily communicate with more people than ever before, but as the QUANTITY of communication increases, our society as a whole seems intent on reducing the QUALITY. We must fight "political correctness" and "gotcha" moments and instead attempt an honest and open discussion of ideas -- focussing on ideas rather than inadequate and/or possibly offensive words and statements -- and finding both our points of agreement and our true, honest differences. We will never be able to do that if we are afraid to communicate.
In this case, the truth is pretty straightforward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)