Friday, January 21, 2011

Truth Resists Simplicity

-
"You’re going to have to shoot them in the head," Beck said of Democratic leaders.

One advantage of being an independent blogger, is that there are no deadlines. Thus, I have time to research issues and really think about them, before I commit my proverbial pen to paper. On January 8th, Representative Giffords, and 18 other people, were the victims of a senseless shooting at a Safeway in Tucson. Almost as soon as it happened, Sheriff Dupnik, and others, linked the tragedy to provocative speech, often spouted by right wing political correspondents.

The first to be linked to the event was Sarah Palin, who’d published a graphic displaying a gun sight’s crosshairs targeting congressional seats, currently held by Democrats. Further inflammatory remarks have been attributed to Rush Limbaugh, Roy Warden, Glenn Beck, and other extreme conservative on air personalities. Warden has been quoted calling Isabel Garcia, a well-known Arizona-based immigrant rights advocate, a communist and a terrorist, and compared her to a member of Al-Qaeda. He then threatened "Left Wing activists" that he will "draw my weapon and blow your freaking heads off." In a similar vein, Beck posed, for promotional pictures, as an action hero on the hunt to shoot liberal trouble makers, as well as making the statement, which I used to kick-off this piece.

Surely such statements can, at best, be considered provocative, and most people would classify them as being grossly irresponsible examples of hate speech. It was these kinds of quotes and messages which motivated Sheriff Dupnik to refer to extreme conservative broadcasts as a "Mecca for prejudice and bigotry." Being the liberal that I am, I was ready to jump on the bandwagon and advocate for a crackdown on conservative shock jocks. I ran into a problem though.

I stopped and asked myself, “Doesn’t the First Amendment get in the way of such a crackdown?”

Annoyed by the question, I replied, "But, the First Amendment doesn’t protect violent speech,” thinking I was clever.

I wasn’t going to let myself off that easily though. “Ah,” I said, “But, it does protect metaphor. Surely, any sane person would’ve recognized Palin’s crosshairs as being a metaphor for votes.”

“There’s no guarantee that all readers/listeners of such material ARE sane. Doesn’t society have a responsibility to monitor messages being broadcast to its citizens, to ensure such messages don’t incite violence?”

I rolled my eyes and replied, “OK, you need to read 1984 again, because George Orwell just rolled over in his grave. Seriously, you really want the government to police what people can say?”

“But, what’s being said is hurtful and offensive,” I shot back.

“And conservatives are offended by talk of gay rights. Do we silence those speakers too, so nothing offensive is being said.”

“But, advocates for gay rights aren’t calling for violence and encouraging listeners to shoot others.”

“So, we eliminate violent speech?”

“Right,” I said.

“So, a boxing manager can’t say, ’My boy is going to knock the other guy’s head off?’ A sports blogger shouldn’t write, ‘team A will kill team B in the Super Bowl?’ We shouldn’t allow stations to broadcast the A-Team because some nut might get the idea that armoring his car with sheet metal and shooting up a taxi garage is an acceptable way to solve his problems.”

I shook my head, disgusted at myself for missing the point. “Those are bogus examples,” I said. “One can’t compare sports & entertainment content to political rhetoric, the purpose of which is to influence behavior. Warden and Beck, came right out and talked about shooting liberals, whereas the sports statements are metaphors, which no one takes literally.”

“Ah ha!” I exclaimed. “You already said, there’s no way to guarantee the sanity of the audience when presented with a metaphor. If we crackdown on violent metaphors and imagery in one form of media, don’t we have to do so across the board? Can a football team vow to crush, but not kill, an opponent? Where do we draw the line?”

That’s the question America’s been left with. There’s no question that statements, which call for harming those who disagree with the speaker, are inappropriate expressions of ignorance and intolerance. One thing which makes this country great, is the fact that its citizens can oust the government every four years, if they choose to, with a ballot instead of a gun. To call for violent responses to political issues, is to miss the point of what our country is about. The saddest part is, conservative pundits don’t have to rely on such language. Louis Rukeyser, perhaps the most successful conservative commentator of the late 20th century, consciously steered clear of low brow incendiary language, and argued from an intellectual point of view.

While such juvenile rants are objectionable, I’m still not convinced they should be regulated. Like them, or not, such statements reflect what a portion of America IS thinking. Silencing ANY minority, because we don’t like their message, flies in the face of what we’re supposed to be about.

I’ll admit, I’m torn on the issue. Author, and fellow blogger, John Green has been quoted as writing the phrase, “Truth resists simplicity.” He was referring to matters of quantum physics, higher mathematics, and global economics, but I think the idea applies to questions of legality and morality as well. Should we safeguard free speech, even when such speech provokes the mentally pliable to commit violent acts. Should we regulate speech, and risk creating a Big Brother? I don’t know.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

The House's Tantrum

-
"THE Republican-controlled US House of Representatives voted 245-189 today to repeal the health care bill signed into law by President Barack Obama last year."

Yeah.... So...? It'll never pass the Senate. Even if the repeal did pass the Senate, Obama would veto it. Neither the House, nor the Senate, let alone both of them, would be able to obtain a 2/3 majority to override such a veto. It's a purely symbolic vote. The most it says, is that if these Representatives had held power, during the last session, the health care bill wouldn't have become law. OK, that's interesting, but not very. Pffft...

Given that this repeal can never become law, they may as well come right out and call it a non-binding resolution. Just to put this in perspective, other non-binding resolutions include:

H.R.247 - To provide for the retention of the name of Mount McKinley.

H.CON.RES.214 - Recognizing the contributions of the cities of Bristol, Tennessee, and Bristol, Virginia, and their people to the origins and development of Country Music, and for other purposes.

H.CON.RES.172 - Expressing the sense of Congress in support of efforts to foster friendship and cooperation between the United States and Mongolia, and for other purposes.

H.CON.RES.417 - Commemorating the 20th anniversary of the capture of Zachary Baumel, a United States citizen serving in the Israeli Defense Forces.

H.CON.RES.151 - Expressing the sense of Congress that China release democratic activist Liu Xiaobo from imprisonment.

You get the idea. Votes, such as today's, are the congressional equivalent of picketing. They state their position, but nothing really comes of it.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Watering Down A Twain Classic

-
In December of 1884, a book about life along the Mississippi was published in England. Having been a success with British readers, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was published in the U.S. two months later, and quickly earned inclusion on the list of great American novels. The story itself features a friendship between Huck, Tom Sawyer, and Slave Jim, and was meant to be a satire of racism and other social foibles. To make his point, Mark Twain used the word “nigger” 219 times in the dialogue of the book.

126 years later, Alan Gribben and NewSouth Books have come to the conclusion that schools aren’t teaching the book, because it features politically incorrect language. To solve this perceived problem, Gribben and NewSouth have decided to republish the classic, substituting “nigger” with “slave.”

Don’t misunderstand, I am, by no means, defending the conversational use of the offensively ignorant word. Standard use of the word, when spoken to refer to a member of a particular racial minority, instantly paints the speaker as being low class and loutish. This, in fact, was one of the points of the book. The use of the word was intended, by Twain, to label its speaker as ignorant, racist, or too naive to understand the hurtful nature of the word. Changing the word, changes the essence of the character speaking the word, and thus changes the message of the piece.

Imagine if Dorothy’s house had landed on the wicked lady of the east, or if Vito Corleone hadn’t agreed to only sell narcotics only to “the colored” in order to keep the peace among the families. The stories would have been different. No matter how you feel about Wicca and Mother Nature, Dorothy’s antagonist WAS a witch. We may very well sympathize with the Corleone Family, to some degree, but they WERE racist. Changing those facts, in order to appeal to a politically sensitive audience, changes the nature of the stories.

A writer, a good writer, chooses each word carefully in order to produce a certain effect, the same way a painter chooses specific colors to create a mood. Yes, some words are “bad,” there’s no denying it. However, a character using a “bad” word, doesn’t make it a bad book, or a book to be avoided. The fact that the word “nigger” makes people uncomfortable, isn’t a bad thing. In a day when hate speech is so prevalent that it drives people to shoot Congresswomen, I’m all for having teachers teach the original version of Twain’s classic, and having a class discussion about why the word is unacceptable today. Serving as a catalyst for such discussions, is one of the key purposes of good literature.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

New Year's Resolutions

-
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between. But there is still time to seize that one last, fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference. And I intend to do just that." ~ J. Michael Straczynski

In 153 BCE Janus, a mythical king of early Rome was placed at the head of the Roman calendar by the Roman Senate. In legend Janus had two faces which he used to look to the future and the past. Since it was believed that Janus could forgive transgressions, many Romans would give gifts and make promises at the beginning of the new calendar year. Over time, the gifts became associated with Christmas, but the tradition of making promises, or "resolutions," at the beginning of each year has remained.

I wasn’t going to make any resolutions this year. I wittily said to myself, “Why mess with perfection?” and gave myself two Fonzie-esc thumbs up. I spend a lot of time alone though, and I tend to mull things over in my mind, even after I’ve made a decision. I finally came to the conclusion that there is room for improvement in my life, so I made the following resolutions.

1. I need to double, triple, even quadruple my efforts to get published.

2. Due to carelessness, or what have you, I’m writing my second Nick Ferrous book and a book of White Star short stories at the same time. I need to buckle down, focus, and finish at least one of them, THEN work on the other.

3. If I’m going to be a “serious writer,” I need to read the work of, at least, one literary master a month, in addition to the popular literature I currently enjoy.

4. I need to figure out how to better generate income from my blog.