The Amethyst Initiative is designed to bring the debate over lowering the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 to the forefront in 2009. As hard as it may be to believe, educators from colleges across the country actually support dropping the drinking age.

They claim that doing so would curb the desire for binge drinking among their students. Opponents say that raising the drinking age created a drop in the number of drunken driving fatalities.

One of the typical arguments about why the drinking age should be lowered really ticks me off. It goes something like this:

“If an 18-year-old can join the military and die for his country, he ought to be able to drink.”

That is one of the stupidest lines of reasoning I’ve ever heard.

For one thing, the military teaches discipline and responsibility. Chugging a beer does not.

But let’s apply that same logic with a similar argument: one might argue that driving a car carries great responsibility. It certainly should be left to responsible people. In North and South Dakota, a driver with a beginner’s permit can legally drive alone as early as 14 1/2 years of age.

So if, by those states’ laws, someone 14 1/2 is legally-responsible enough to drive a car, why doesn’t that mean that he should be legally-responsible enough to be shipped overseas into a warzone and potentially die for his country?

If we’re going to compare totally unrelated things and pretend that they’re identical, then let’s go all out! The youngest age that any state suggests a child can do anything “grown up” ought to be the universal age at which he should be able to do all things “grown up,” right?

So forget about sending them to high school…just pluck them up right out of middle school and ship them off to a Quonset hut somewhere before they know what hit ‘em. And don’t forget to pack plenty of beer so they can take their minds off the irrational logic over why being able to do one thing ought to automatically mean being able to do something else that’s totally different.

Any parents out there jumping for joy at that thought? Didn’t think so. Because there’s a reason that different things are appropriate at different ages.

If I ever have kids and they want to attend a college that supports lowering the drinking age just because it doesn’t want to deal with educating its students about alcohol dangers or with enforcing alcohol rules on campus, I’d have a real hard time paying tuition there. They sure don’t sound capable of sending a good message to kids as far as I’m concerned.

Online gossip columnist Perez Hilton is being sued by an Ohio woman for $25 million after he published a slur-filled email she sent him, and the suit stands as a reminder to what ought to be basic common sense.

Apparently, Hilton received an email from his “victim” that contained anti-gay slurs, and attacked both Hilton and actress Angelina Jolie.  Hilton, whose website lists a privacy policy that states he will not release private information of users who post comments on his site, then published the email in its entirety…including the woman’s email address.  Unfortunately, the woman used her work email, so her employer, a senior living center, was also identified.

Hilton’s fans then ran amok, sending hate mail to the emailer and her employer, and the emailer quickly found herself terminated.

There’s an old saying that you should never send anything in an email that you wouldn’t mind being published in a newspaper.  And most places of business have very clear policies about the use of company computers and internet time.

It would never even occur to me to send such an email from my work email address.  I can’t believe that others wouldn’t think twice about doing so.

What do you think:  should she collect?

We’re nearing the one year anniversary of the Sofa Super Store fire in Charleston. I suspect that most of my readers, no matter where they live, have at least heard of the June 18th inferno at a furniture store in the West Ashley section of town. Nine city firefighters died in that fire, and we’ve spent the last eleven months in a near-constant state of finger pointing and name calling about who is to blame.

Yesterday, the city’s fire chief, Rusty Thomas, announced his retirement effective June 27th. Thomas has been the focus of the majority of the criticism. He is a 32-year veteran of the city’s fire department. His father was a firefighter. So he literally grew up knowing firefighting would be his life. Thomas is a nice guy who clearly cares about his men and felt the loss of his nine colleagues personally. He’s the kind of guy that most everyone — except his harshest critics — just wants to like.

Prior to his announcement yesterday, there were many mixed feelings among his supporters and critics alike. Some on both sides felt that he shouldn’t be held to blame for the deaths. Others on both sides felt that he should be fired immediately for the chain of problems that they say created the scenario in which the deaths occurred.

A detailed government report on the fire itself and the events of the evening was just released today, and as anticipated, it pulls no punches about a series of failures that night: Continue reading “Battling Over Blame”

For loyal viewers of the CBS comedy All in the Family, it probably wasn’t particularly surprising to see the show take on a controversial topic. But some who were used to watching TV during a much more “tame” time than we have today, the evening of September 15, 1973 was about to be a shock.

The episode was called “We’re Having a Heat Wave,” and focused primarily on Archie Bunker’s efforts to join forces with neighbors to keep a second minority from moving onto the block. Ironically, when it is learned that the would-be home buyers are Puerto Rican, the Bunkers’ neighbor, Henry Jefferson, who is black, agrees to sign the petition as well, all under the auspices of “looking out for number one.”

In a side story of the episode, from which the title comes, the Bunkers are dealing with high heat in an energy crisis, and tempers are flaring. In an early scene, Michael “Meathead” Stivic is arguing with Archie over the Watergate affair. Exasperated, and after hearing Archie complain about the constant discussion of “Richard E. Nixon’s” darkest moment, Meathead starts yelling, “Watergate, Watergate, Watergate, Watergate!”

With faithful wife Edith looking on, Archie yells, “Don’t say that no more, G– D— it!”

Edith shreaks. The studio audience gasps. And the censors at CBS, oddly enough, did not bleep the word.

While it may still defy explanation as to why censors actually allowed the word to air back then, it immediately becomes apparent why the word was written into the script: for the rest of the scene the word is mentioned only by initials, was part of the dialog, because Archie then begins a humorous tirade on why the word isn’t a “swear word:”

EDITH: You shouldn’t swear like that.

MEATHEAD: You swore! You swore!

ARCHIE: I didn’t swear…

EDITH: Ever since this Watergate thing, it’s ‘G.D.’ this and ‘G.D.’ that.

ARCHIE: That’s not swearing, ‘G.D.’ The first word there is God. How can that be a swear word, the most popular word in the Bible? The second word, that’s damn. That’s a perfectly good word. You hear that all the time, like “they dam the river to keep it from flooding”. And even in the Bible you read where some guy was damned for cheating or stealing or having ‘insex’ in the family. And who damned him? Who else? God. God damned him. Edith, beautiful words right out of the Holy Book, don’t show your ignorance!

Here at Patrick’s Place, I try to keep the language to “broadcast standards,” which means that certain words don’t get in, even through comments. (Yes, I reserve the right to edit for content. Don’t like it? Then write your own blog.) Despite that historic broadcast of 1973, the curse word G.D. hasn’t made its way into broadcast television very often. I don’t use the word personally, and it doesn’t get used here.

I make mention of this because there is a difference between G.D., the swear word, the ultimate taking of the Lord’s name in vain, and Archie’s of the phrase “God damned him” to justify a swear word as anything but.

That is why I am still surprised that there are media outlets — particularly national ones like CNN or MSNBC (which one did it most recently I do not recall, but I saw it on one) — that bleep the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s tirade.

What he said was this:

“When it came to putting the citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters. Put them on auction blocks. Put them in cotton fields. Put them in inferior schools. Put them in substandard housing. Put them scientific experiments. Put them in the lower paying jobs. Put them outside the equal protection of the law. Kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education, and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ Naw, naw, naw. Not ‘God Bless America.’ ‘God Damn America!’ That’s in the Bible. For killing innocent people. “God Damn America” for treating us citizens as less than human. ‘God Damn America’ as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is Supreme.”

He is clearly not using the phrase as an adjective, like “Awful America,” in which case the G.D. would be a curse word; he is using it in a statement as a verb, in a call to action for God to punish the country for the injustices it has committed to some of its people.

Whether you agree with Wright’s comments or not, whether you agree with his approach or not, his choice of words, while incindiary, is not profanity, and should therefore not be bleeped on the air.

Many people take offense to the words, because they believe that any time the name God is placed side by side next to the word damn, it must automatically be profanity, and in fact, the worst kind that a Christian can use.

Most broadcast outlets that are still bleeping the word are most likely either trying to avoid offending their audience, or trying to avoid members of the audience filing indecency complaints accusing them of airing profanity, even though this usage isn’t profane.

But there are times when Christians need to think before they react. This is one of them.

This week, some anti-choice — “pro-life” is a moronic title — advocates protested Hillary Clinton in Charleston.  I didn’t see it, although the descriptions found over at SunnieFaerie and Kittens on the Keyboard remind me a lot of a similar stunt I saw performed in Richmond back in 2004.

Displaying giant images of aborted fetuses, under the guise of trying to persuade people to be against abortion, is the epitome of sensationalizing a situation, one that for many women and couples, is an extraordinarily painful topic.

I have to wonder how many of these “anti-choicers” also happen to be the same kinds of Christian advocates who’d join up with groups protesting television shows they’ve never bothered to watch themselves but that they somehow think contains inappropriate content.  The images these protesters display for passersby of all ages to see are too graphic to appear on television at all.

I also wonder how many of them feel that children should be protected from images of violence and gore in movies as they wave their signs of blood and gore.

We have to tolerate such foolishness in a society that values freedom of speech.  But they could just as easily wave signs of young children who have accomplished great things in school or for their community…the kinds of young people that parents want their little ones to be more like to make the point about the value of one life.

Too bad they only want to do what they’re so quick to accuse their opponents of doing:  exploit.

Conservative commentator Jack Hunter, aka “The Southern Avenger,” posted a column called “Media-ocrity” focusing on the sad changes to journalism he has seen over the years, particularly when it comes to covering politics.  According to the post, it was broadcast on a local talk radio station as well.

He points out that covering the campaign trail is much more often about covering appearances and photo ops, the clever soundbites that candidates hurl at one another, and the occasional take on what the candidates’ spouses are up to. What’s missing, he says, is the meat on the candidates’ positions:

“What should be peripheral news is not only the predominant news – but the only news. We hear more about Hillary crying during the campaign than how her policies might make voters cry if she were to become elected. We know Rudy fancies himself as ‘tough’ on terrorism, but how tough would he be on America as president, as evidenced by the scores of NYC policemen and firemen who consider him a failed mayor? Take even an issue like the Fair Tax, which is of interest to many voters and has been a hot topic this election year. If you’re lucky, a voter might understand that it means beyond abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a sales tax, which excites some and scares others. Wouldn’t offering a detailed analysis help voters to form a more informed opinion?”

He certainly makes good points about the superficiality of broadcast news. And it is superficial in many ways. Journalism has evolved over the years, and it has made many changes that are definitely not for the best, prompted by ever-increasing competition in a sea of channels that have diluted viewership to the point that each one is desperately trying to do anything it can to reach as many as possible.

That’s not the way it should be, and I don’t know anyone in the business who thinks otherwise.  I don’t attempt to make excuses for it, but I do at least understand why it has happened — and there’s a big difference.

The problem is, more than anything else, missed opportunity.

It’s those moments, like Hillary Clinton getting a bit weepy during a campaign stop, that lure people to the screen. Those are the moments I’m more likely to focus on if I’m trying to promote a newscast. But you have to understand: my job is to get people to the newscast; it’s the news people’s job to keep them there with content that matters.

Does it matter to anyone that Clinton teared up in New Hampshire? Well, that’s up for debate, since it appears that it might have “humanized” her enough to get her a win there…but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter much at all.

But in our zeal to get viewers to watch, we are more likely to show the short clip of her show of emotion, and then move on to something else without taking time to focus on the fears of voters and candidates alike that have gotten us to that point, or what Hillary (or anyone else) is specifically planning to do about them…if they’ve even made such plans public, yet.

Granted, there are media sources out there — and I’m not talking about “citizen journalism” — where you can get more detailed information. I suspect that those who really want it are more than aware of where to find it.  Newspapers, news magazines and news websites, by their very nature, are better equipped to cover stories in greater detail than television’s nightly news can. But imagine the news magazines that do the best job of in-depth reporting on stories that are really important, and refer to that thought the next time you’re at the grocery store watching someone pulling copies of National Enquirer or Soap Opera Digest off the shelves instead.

It is little moments like this that drive me crazy.  But part of living in this country, with all of its problems, is having the option not to give a damn.

The media can only do so much, but if the customers are more interested in the superficial, one of two things will happen: either the customers will go elsewhere until they find the superficial, or the superficial will begin moving its way in. It’s the nature of the beast: as I’ve said before, television news is like a mirror: it evolves as the concerns of the audience evolves. If no one were interested in the celebrity meltdown du jour, I guarantee you no media outlet would make any mention of it at all.

The sad thing is, for those of us who work in the media, that when we do spend time trying to produce the kind of “in-depth” report people feel we should only be doing, a good portion of the audience tunes out:  they’d rather watch some crap like Dancing with the Stars or Jerry Springer or American Idol.  Another missed opportunity.

It occurs to me, however, that there’s another opportunity that is missed here. Since the “Southern Avenger” seems to be part of the media — particularly when he used the airwaves to make his point — he had an important choice when he wrote that column: he could have devoted the space to an explanation of what the “fair tax” is and what voters need to know about it. Or a look at how each candidate plans to deal with terrorism. Or a “detailed analysis” of Hillary’s health care plan.

You know, the kind of story he says is so blatantly and appallingly missing from today’s media.

He chose, instead, to take time in the media to preach to a choir of readers and listeners who are likely to shout “Amen” to the rafters.

Missed opportunity.

Look at it this way:  If you’re a nurse in a hospital, and you see someone being handed the wrong medication, do you let that patient become even more sick, then head to some staff meeting and complain about how many errors are being made? Or do you first do your part to fix the problem, then explain, in detail, what you’ve done to be part of the solution?

If you’re a politician who sees a loophole causing families to lose a lot of money they need to keep food on their table, do you file that piece of information away and wait for the next press conference to complain about the growing problem of poverty, or do you fix the problem, and then campaign about how you did fix the problem?

It’s only natural: we like to complain. But complaining about something doesn’t change anything. I suspect even the Southern Avenger doesn’t feel any better about the state of the media now than he did before he sat down at the computer.

There is a battle over hair that is keeping two Lowcountry teens out of school.  You’ve probably heard about this story by now, because it is getting national attention.  But just in case you haven’t, here’s the gist:

The two teens recently had five-pointed stars and words like “Jack Town” shaved into their hair.  Their school suspended them, saying that they are prohibited from wearing their hair in that style because those markings are gang indicators.  Their father says he didn’t give his children permission to cut their hair that way, but says they have a right to wear their hair any way they want.

The school district says the students are welcome to return…as soon as they remove the “offending” symbols.  Their father says that isn’t going to happen.

Meanwhile, the teens are prohibited from attending school.  At least one of them says he wants to get back to school.

But the hairstyle, apparently, seems more of a priority than getting the education.

At the risk of being called a “conformist,” I’ll have to point out that while we live in a country that values individual freedom, we also live in a country in which some freedoms are curtailed universally in the interest of safety.

For example, when I drive back home, there are portions of I-26 in which the speed limit is 70 miles per hour.  I can drive 70 miles per hour.  There might be days when I think I should be able to push it up to 80.  Or 90.  But the law says I can go 70.  I have a spotless driving record.  The guy who’s behind me, already tailgating too closely, could have a spotted driving history, and even be paying the outrageous rates of SR-22 insurance after a DUI arrest.  He gets to go 70 as well.

On one hand, it seems unfair:  I’m the good driver, so I should be able to drive any way I please.  This lunatic behind me should be restricted to driving a golf cart that never moves faster than about 20 miles an hour.  But we both get the same set of rules, and the rule is there to keep as many people safe as possible.

The school district involved in this hair-raising battle should have every right to set dress codes that do not encourage any kind of gang activity.  Whether these two kids have ever even considered joining a gang — they say they are not involved in gangs in any way — doesn’t matter.  The rules are the same for everyone.  And if that happens to interfere with the fashion statement two students who aren’t gang members want to make while it prevents people who are in gangs from using the same symbols to make a very different statement, I think the school is reasonable for making the policy.

There’s such a thing as picking one’s battles.

What’s more important?  An education, or a hairstyle?

I think we all know the answer.

Merv Griffin was gay.  Or he wasn’t.

I’m not sure why it matters to anyone at this point, since the 82-year-old impresario is no longer with us.  But there are some people who are certain that he was.

Some of them are angry and feel justified in their anger because Griffin never came right out and said he was a homosexual. He never campaigned for gay rights. He never tried to make homophobics believe that there is nothing wrong with being gay.

(If Griffin really was gay.)

Now that I have given you this piece of information, I’d like for you to set it completely aside for a moment. Instead, I’d like for you to focus your attention on a scene from a December afternoon in 1955. Continue reading “There’s No Draft For Social War”

The local newspaper, The Post & Courier, has among its web presence LowcountryBlogs, a site that tracks and highlights what local bloggers are writing about. Many communities have a similar site through either a local television station or a newspaper.

Today, one of the bloggers — I gather this is a quite popular blogger, in fact — asked to be removed from that site’s blogroll. Her reason for the request was a form of protest. Continue reading “Hiding Behind Anonymity”

Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington has once again apologized for using a word he repeated while denying he used it the first time.

Confused? Welcome to one of the latest celebrity controversies.

Back in October, during an on-set argument with co-star Patrick Dempsey, Washington allegedly used the six-letter “f-word” in reference to co-star T.R. Knight, who has since publicly acknowledged that he is gay. At first, there were denials that he ever used the word in question. Then, about a week after the incident, he issued a statement in which he said:

“I sincerely regret my actions and the unfortunate use of words during the recent incident on-set. Both are beneath my own personal standards.”

Was the controversy then over? He might have hoped so. But then came the Golden Globes, when, in response to reporters’ questions, Washington eagerly stepped up to the microphone and denied ever having used the word. I guess that pretty much nullified his original apology and shocking ABC network executives.

Now, Washington has done it again. He has issued another apology, according to TV Squad, that reads as follows:

“I apologize to T.R., my colleagues, the fans of the show and especially the lesbian and gay community for using a word that is unacceptable in any context or circumstance. By repeating the word Monday night, I marred what should have been a perfect night for everyone who works on Grey’s Anatomy. I can neither defend nor explain my behavior. I can also no longer deny to myself that there are issues I obviously need to examine within my own soul, and I’ve asked for help.I know the power of words, especially those that demean. I realize that by using one filled with disrespect I have hurt more than T.R. and my colleagues. With one word, I’ve hurt everyone who has struggled for the respect so many of us take for granted. I welcome the chance to meet with leaders of the gay and lesbian community to apologize in person and to talk about what I can do to heal the wounds I’ve opened.

T.R.’s courage throughout this entire episode speaks to his tremendous character. I hold his talent, and T.R. as a person, in high esteem. I know a mere apology will not end this, and I intend to let my future actions prove my sincerity.”

You’ll note that while his original apology never acknowledged that he had specifically used the homophobic slur, the second line of this new apology mentions having “repeated” the word, which would seem to remove any lingering doubt.

Despite the first chance to learn from this, it’s not like Hollywood hasn’t had a good example of what can go wrong when celebrities use hateful language to discriminate against others. When comedian Michael Richards lost control of himself while performing at a comedy club and hurled the N-word at black patrons. He apologized, even going onto Jesse Jackson’s radio show to reach out to the black community he acknowledged having hurt. The black community said the apology was not enough, and called for a boycott of the latest DVD compilation of Seinfeld episodes.

If the gay and lesbian community decides that they refuse to accept Washington’s newest apology, he can’t be surprised, nor would he have anyone but himself to blame.

In response to my last post, I received a few comments that I wanted to address here. The first comes from Dave:

Great post. But I think in the end I have to disagree with your main premise. Reacting violently to someone elses practice of free speech should never be tolerated. And I know you agree that any crime committed by those angered should be punished, but you also seem to imply that, for instance, the flag burners kinda knew they had it coming. It’s akin to the rape victim who is blamed for the crime committed against her.Freedom of speech should be honored and respected.

Freedom of speech should, indeed, be honored and respected. I’ve never argued otherwise. I do agree, without any hesitation, that any crime committed by those angered by someone else’s right to express themselves should be punished. But if anyone read my post, somehow missed each of the times that I said that the targets of such crimes would not deserve to be targeted, and finished that post seriously believing that I was trying to say that those who make the initial action did deserve what they get, those folks would, in my opinion, belong to the group I mentioned who do not know me as well as they think they do.

Looking at the example Dave cited, I do not think that the flag burners would have deserved to have been attacked. (I think I said that.) I do not think that their attackers would have the right to attack them. (I know I said that.) I do not assume that the flag burners would know that they “had it coming.” My point was, simply, that while they had the right to express themselves the way they did, an alternate method that might not have created such deep reactions beyond whatever point they were trying to make might avoid the hypothetical attack I suggested.

Regardless of the fact that comparing an apparent reprisal for vitriolic posts to a woman getting raped is comparing apples to asparagus, I would like to take it for granted that Dave doesn’t really think that I’d suggest that a rape victim deserved to be raped. But just in case, let me put it this way: there is nothing a woman can do that would make her deserving of being raped. I’ll repeat: there is nothing a woman can do — nothing at all — that would justify someone raping her.

(If anyone needs me to repeat that a third time, perhaps in larger, red, bold type, just let me know.)

At the same time, anyone who thinks that I meant otherwise also objects when law enforcement officers warn women to watch their drinks in bars so that no one can introduce a chemical that might make her more easily victimized. Keeping an eye on your drink so that a predator cannot slip a date-rape drug into it while you’re not looking is similar to being respectful of others when you write online: it will not guarantee that you won’t become a victim of someone else’s felonious acts, but it also will not give someone who might commit the act anyway a more convenient reason to target you.

There are still people who go to bed and rest quite well while leaving their front doors unlocked. Some people leave their cars unlocked with the keys in the ignition. If someone walks into their home and robs them, or steals their car, it is unreasonable to suggest that the victim of the crime deserved it; it is not unreasonable to suggest, however, that they were the enabler for the criminal who committed the act to do so more easily. The criminal might still have broken into their home or stolen their car even if security alarms, motion-sensing light systems and armed guards were all present; but common sense dictates that we take some precautions to at least make it harder for criminals to have the advantage.

To that same degree, the effort to be respectful of others with whom you might disagree might help avoid angering a reader — or a friend of a reader, or a friend of a friend, etc. — to the point that they might go even farther off the deep end than you went to begin with. It won’t guarantee that outcome, but it might help prevent it.

To my remark that on the internet, the rule of physics dictating that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction does not always apply, Shelly said:

“Psychology should not be confused with physics. People don’t obey physical ‘laws.’ Human reactions come as much out of their perceptions as the stimulus itself.”Of course, there is no one psychological theory, either, from behaviorists who look at the reaction and don’t consider the intent behind it to various other schools that try to probe deep into the psyche, such as Freudians.

“It’s the wide range of human behavior/reactions, that makes us so fascinating to study, because not everyone perceives or understands things the same way and likely never will.”

That Dave might suggest, even if he were joking, that what I was saying in that post was in any way akin to the ridiculous suggestion that a woman who is raped must deserve what happened to her serves as a quick proof to the validity of Shelly’s statement. If it was his perception that I intended to portray a rape victim as being “deserving” of what happened to her, then it is clear that what he read was far different from what I intended to convey. As he is the only person who has indicated that they think I meant to suggest such a thing, it’s possible that only he interpreted my post in this manner. Regardless, Shelly is quite right: Not everyone understands the same thing the same way.

You must decide for yourself whether speaking your mind in an intentionally-offensive way is worth the potential backlash that may arise. If you’re responsible, you make that determination before you say what you want to say, and if you decide that the potential price is too high, it might not be a bad idea to consider a different tack.

Karen, I think, summed up best my feelings on dealing with opposing views:

“What it comes down to for me is a very basic principle: people should treat each other with compassion and respoct. They may strongly disagree with each other’s politics, sexual orientation, religion, fashion sense, and or what-have-you, and protest, argue against or mock the other person’s position. But the PERSON should always be respected, even if the position is not.”And once we get that far, we should probably also take the next step, and consider whether the other side of the issue has some validity after all. Maybe it doesn’t, and we don’t necessarily need to rehash the question every time. But we shouldn’t just assume the other guy is always wrong.”

It is my goal, when I bring up a topic here, to respect people, even if I attack their viewpoints or their arguments. An easy example that comes to mind is Cindy Sheehan. I have stated repeatedly that Sheehan has every right to speak out against the war. I do respect her for having the courage to make her feelings known. At the same time, I have attacked her argument that she wanted to meet with the president, a man who she considers to be a liar, to get the truth about why we’re in Iraq, because logically, that argument doesn’t hold water: if you don’t trust him, you don’t trust him, so why pretend that though you believe that he’s willing to lie to the world, he’d suddenly be honest with you on a one-on-one basis? But that’s just one quick example. I try my best to show respect to people, even if I question their motivation or the logic of the position they have taken.

We are a country divided. The most striking poll statistic released in the past week wasn’t that Bush’s approval rating has dropped again to 36%, but that Congress’s approval rating is down to 22%! The poll revealed that 44% of Americans say they’re sick of Republicans and Democrats arguing and 36% say that they feel that Congress never gets anything accomplished.

It’s not surprising statistic if you look at the political “debate” that occurs: we can’t discuss any topic without it becoming a personal attack. If you don’t believe that, visit any blog devoted to one side of the political spectrum or the other: both sides are equally guilty. We seem incapable of discussing an issue these days without filling our discussion with hate-speak or attacks on our opponents. And when we do that, the issue itself gets lost in the one-upping.

How many people were infuriated when Bush made it clear that his philosophy was that you’re either with us or against us? And how many of them treat their opponents the same way when they’re arguing? That’s why so little is getting done these days: we focus so much attention on the way we attack each other that it doesn’t much matter what the argument is about, so long as we’re entertained by the barbs. And yet I think most of us would agree that when someone calls us some bad name because of some position we take, our natural response isn’t to suddenly be open-minded about that person’s argument.

So, no, I don’t mean to suggest that anyone who is a victim of crime deserves to have had a crime committed against them. I do suggest that sometimes, we make ourselves an unnecessarily obvious target for people who are willing to go to any length to have their way.

And still I wonder why we’d want to do that.

Carly has a great post over at “Ellipsis…Suddenly Carly” about the difference between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression.

Her post references a news article from “AOL News” about a Tampa woman who is the wife of a soldier serving in Iraq. He sent her a cardboard sign that reads, “Support Our Troops” and she put it on display in her front yard. That, in and of itself, doesn’t sound like a punishable offense.

Unfortunately, her homeowner’s association forbids signs of any kind in that neighborhood and it has threatened her with fines. She says she couldn’t believe that they would fine her for it, but she added that she was ready to pay.

A compromised was reached allowing her to keep the sign up and face a much lower fine while it is up, but the association stands behind its policy, which is designed to keep the neighborhood free of clutter.

According to the attached poll, 81% of people who read the article and took a poll feel that the homeowner’s association was wrong to fine her over the sign. (Count me in the other 19%.) What if a neighbor across the street puts up a sign about how wrong the war is? Is that equally okay, particularly when both parties agreed in advance to obey the rule about signs to begin with? If everyone in the neighborhood gets to put up their own sign about their feelings on the war, do they still have a clutter-free neighborhood?

It’s not about whether the message on her sign was pro-war or anti-war; I do still believe that it’s possible to support our troops without necessarily being a supporter of the action in which they’re required to participate. It seems to me that if you don’t support the war and you don’t support the troops, you would be happy every time you hear a news report about our troops suffering more losses. No matter how you feel about the war, I would think that most people would be hopeful that our troops will be able to accomplish good things for Iraq’s citizens and leave things in a far better condition than they found them. (A little idealistic, yes, but isn’t that what supporting troops in an unpopular action is all about?)

But the woman in Tampa adds this:

“If they’re gonna try to give us more than a thousand-dollar fine, there’s enough people out there that are willing to help me out.”

Carly asks if it’s okay to break the rules if you can find the right group of people to say it’s okay and then pay the way. I don’t think it is at all.

If someone wants to break a rule she agreed not to break because she feels strongly enough about a particular issue, whatever it is, she shouldn’t expect others to step in and pay for her actions. If she’s not willing to put her money where her sign is, why should she expect others to do so? As soon as she starts putting a dollar value on her free speech, she’s cheapening its value. Why not take down the sign and become an activist in her community, organizing drives to build care packages for the troops, for example? She could show her support for the troops in plenty of other ways without breaking someone else’s rule, and expecting others to pay for her mistakes.

Celebrities in the past who have spoken out against the war or against the president have faced repercussions. The Dixie Chicks, in particular, found out that speaking out against the president hit them in their pocketbooks, because radio stations across the country caved in amid demands from listeners that their music be pulled from the airwaves. The performers had every right to speak out with whatever political message they wanted to deliver. But their fans had every right to stop listening if they were so offended by that message. Is it unfair? Not at all, because those who oppose the war — and surveys show that this position is in the majority — have the same right not to patronize celebrities that openly support it. That doesn’t mean that those in the public eye have to remain silent, but they should be prepared to deal with angry fans if they take an unpopular position. (And if their position is so important to them, I should think that angering fans who disagree would be of little concern, anyway.)

Cindy Sheehan and the wife of a Republican lawmaker were recently escorted out of the Congress gallery for wearing t-shirts with opposing points of view about the war. It turned out that there was no rule preventing either woman from doing so, even if decorum might have suggested that they dress a little more formally. They paid consequences they shouldn’t have had to pay because they broke no rules.

George Clooney has, in previous interviews, suggested that Democrats are partly to blame for the war in Iraq because they failed to exercise their right of free speech sooner out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic. What’s better? To speak out loudly enough against the war to change people’s minds before things escalate and be labeled unpatriotic, or say too little, allow the war to go on, and then face the current dilemma of a costly war with no end in sight? The Republicans will always claim that Democrats are unpatriotic, so what would have been new there? What would they have really had to lose, considering how much they might have gained? There were still no real rules broken if lawmakers who opposed the war didn’t make their case loudly enough, but perhaps it could be argued that there was more of a moral duty for them to have done so. Hindsight, of course, is always perfect.

The question is, who’s more patriotic? The person who blindly follows whatever the administration says, or the person who is at least willing to question what he hears when something doesn’t make sense? By now, surely we all know the answer to that!

Living in a country that emphasizes freedom to the extent that ours does sometimes gives people the false sense of security when it comes to skewering their fellow citizens while operating under the assumption that there are no consequences for saying whatever you want: as long as you’re speaking your mind, there will never be fallout.

That’s not realistic at all.

Sometimes, like those celebrities who have seen their careers temporarily stymied over speaking out, the results of exercising your right to free speech are obvious. Sometimes, it’s more subtle, like those cases in which people feel that they’re running off friends because they speak their mind. No matter how severe the consequences seem to be, if you’re willing to run the risk, if you think speaking out in whatever manner you have previously chosen to is really worth what it keeps costing you, then why complain about those consequences?

On my dad’s side of the family, there was a tendency to speak politely and exchange endless pleasantries in the parlor, then move on to the dining room where loud, agressive arguments would always accompany dinner. It didn’t matter what the subject of the argument was; it was as if the most important thing was that there was an argument about something while we were trying to eat. That kind of behavior doesn’t encourage that many return visits to their table, but as the number of returning dinner guests dwindled, those “spirited discussions” always continued. If they ever put two and two together, they didn’t seem to care. But they never complained about people never accepting invites.

Don’t whine about how many sales or how many subscribers or how much money or how many friends speaking out your way costs you when history has shown you again and again what it will cost. Either your position and your method of presenting it is right or they’re not: either pay the price or rethink your strategy. That should be common sense!

Don’t play the victim to me over the fact that people have turned on you because of what you do or don’t believe. If I disagree with you, it’s because I think you’re wrong, not because I’m trying to make sure you lose some kind of non-existent popularity contest. On the other hand, if I agree with you on your position, then telling me what you’ve had to suffer because of those who don’t agree doesn’t accomplish anything, either, because I can no more control their reactions than you can. You’re wasting everyone’s time, most of all you’re own.

Only those who are blind to the fact that they might be wrong or that there might be a more diplomatic way to get their point across effectively will behave however they wish, constantly complain about the effects of that behavior or expect others to rush to their defense, and never bother to examine whether their own actions might have caused the whole mess to begin with.

When you speak your mind however you wish and everyone seems to turn on you…sometimes the problem is you, not them!

Shelly recently posted her take on speaking out in blogs, after reading a Chicago Tribune article about employees who have been fired for blogging about their jobs.

(Out of respect to her wishes, I did not post a response in her blog and I am not posting a link to her entry.)

In any case, she makes excellent points and I agree wholeheartedly with her take on Freedom of Speech, and the notion that freedoms and rights come with responsibilities.

She states:

When I see people get into nasty arguments online, aka the horrid flamewars, I think about this. X says something Y doesn’t like, so Y insults X. X gets enraged and insults Y back. Y cries foul, say he or she has the right to say what they did, that X is trying to censor them, etc. Well, if Y gets to insult X, then X gets to insult Y. If X disagrees with Y, X is allowed to say so. What neither X or Y can do legally is incite violence or criminal activity.

She’s right about that. But too often, I think, people seem to think that they can’t disagree without making it personal. In some ways, it’s at least a good thing that people feel passionate enough about their positions that they would consider anyone who disagrees as mounting some kind of personal attack. But people can disagree without turning it personal if they really try. Even best friends can have differing opinions. That’s not an insult, that’s life.

In her example, X says something that Y doesn’t like, so Y insults X. Why can’t Y just make a counter-argument without insult? Sometimes, the insults come later…sometimes Y does just make their own position known, and then X insults Y for disagreeing. Sooner or later, it seems, the temptation to be the first to take the “low road” is just too high.

I believe that debate is good; even if it doesn’t change the minds of the debaters, it at least clarifies positions and gives readers the opportunity to think about where their positions fall. Sometimes a nice jibe can be entertaining, but it does little to make an effective argument. It can even turn people away from your point if the insults get out of hand.

When “The Dixie Chicks” spoke out against the war in Iraq a few years ago, many listeners, angered by the “lack of patriotism,” called radio stations demanding that their music be pulled. Many stations temporarily complied. Questioning what an administration tells you doesn’t show a lack of patriotism in my book; that, to me, doing so is more of a duty of the patriotic. But just as “The Dixie Chicks” had every right to speak their minds, their fans had every right to stop listening to their music as a result of their remarks. Those who speak out don’t get to do so without the possibility of response. That’s one of the nice things about Freedom of Speech: it goes both ways.

But a funny thing happened when some started turning off their radios: everyone started arguing about whether the group had the right to make their feelings known — they did! — and whether or not consumers had a right to respond by boycotting the group — they did!

The group’s real message, expressing dissent about the war, got lost in the windstorm. Even when the group made a public apology, all that accomplished was settling down some of the people who had been so outraged that they’d speak out. The dialog about the war didn’t come back to the forefront when their music started getting regular play again. By then, people had pretty much lost sight of it.

Writing about the workplace may seem like a great way to relieve stress, but people are finding out the hard way that if the wrong person reads the digs at the boss, someone might get a pink slip. Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it is the reality of the situation. You can be convinced that you have the worst boss in the world. But when you start naming names and being honest, you never know whether your boss might be one of those “lurkers” who hangs around your journal to see who’s saying what.

When “flamewars” begin, some people are attracted to the exchance only because they enjoy reading those quick-witted, snide comments. But when the reader starts looking only for the mean-spirited comebacks, aren’t they ignoring the meat of the argument? Don’t the arguments then begin to get bogged down, even forgotten, in favor of the insults? It’s not a question of who has the most valid points anymore, it’s a question of who “one-upped” the other the best.

Shelly suggests that personal responsibility may be dying in our society, that it could be the result of things being taken for granted. I wouldn’t begin to argue with that!

Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother-turned-political-activist, continues to camp outside President Bush’s ranch in Texas, demanding audience with the president.

“I want to ask the president, ‘Why did you kill my son?’” she has said.

I’d like to ask her why she possibly thinks anyone would meet with her when she’s making statements like that. There is such a thing as decorum and diplomacy. Grieving mother or not, she must know she would have gotten further in her efforts to meet with Bush had she not made such a statement. (I’m sure she does know that.)

I’m sure she also realizes that such incendiary soundbites also make for good press, which she is not only getting, but encouraging at every possible opportunity. As the San Francisco Chronicle put it so well, “…the image of an anguished 48-year-old mother standing outside the vacation home of the most powerful leader in the world, asking him to explain her son’s death, is compelling….”

According to an article from CNN, Sheehan arrived in Crawford aboard a bus painted red, white and blue and emblazoned with the words, “Impeachment Tour.”

That’s a sure way to get you a cordial meeting with the president!

But the Chronicle brings up another important point: her protest sets up a no-win situation for Bush. (I’m sure she knows that, too.) By granting her the audience she demands, Bush potentially angers the 1850 other families who have suffered losses in Iraq but who haven’t been as vocal about it. Wouldn’t they have the right to the same treatment? Giving her the attention she is demanding also strengthens her political clout.

By refusing to meet with her, as he has done so far, he appears heartless by not having the time (during his five-week vacation that she has been so quick to mention) to meet with a Gold Star mother.

Either way, he looks like the bad guy. Either way, she is a hero in the eyes of those who oppose the war or do not trust Bush. Lest you think that Sheehan isn’t aware of the potential notoriety, she received assistance from Bob Fertik of Democrats.com, in setting up the website MeetWithCindy.org, from which visitors can not only donate to help defray the costs to send others to Crawford to join the protest, but can even find quick links to email addresses for the major media outlets and the White House.

But as easy as it is, we shouldn’t let the protest itself make us lose sight of her son, 24-year-old Casey Sheehan, who was killed five days after he arrived in Sadr City, Iraq. He had joined the army in 2000, never imagining that he would see combat, according to the Associated Press.

What?

With growing concerns over global terrorism in 2000, with the “unfinished business” of Gulf War I, President George H. W. Bush’s son running for the White House, and the widespread conspiracy theories that had people convinced that Bush was just looking for an excuse to “finish the job,” how could anyone join the military without any expectation that war wasn’t a possibility? The possibility of war, even in a time of complete peace, would be the first thing on my mind.

Of course, it was on Cindy’s mind. She begged him not to go, she says. “I said, ‘I’ll take you to Canada’ … but he said, ‘Mom, I have to go. It’s my duty. My buddies are going.’”

She’d take him to Canada? Do I recall something about Purple Hearts and draft-dodgers from the last election? Sheehan supported Kerry in the last election. Did she applaud those reports about Bush’s lack of military experience while her candidate paraded veterans for all to see? Did she cheer when Democrats denounced the avoidance of military service, (after suffering amnesia and conveniently forgetting that position when Bill Clinton ran in 1992)? Avoiding military service doesn’t sound so bad when you have a personal stake in the outcome, do they?

I know what you’re thinking. That was before the war started. That was before 9/11. Cindy says her son joined the Army because he was promised that he could finish his college degree. (And had he not been killed overseas, he would have.)

But it is interesting to learn that after 9/11, and after the War in Iraq began, Casey re-enlisted in August of 2003 because ”he didn’t want his buddies to do the job by themselves.” He wasn’t in Iraq then, of course, but the threat of being deployed was very real by then. Casey made the decision to stay on when he could have come home. Undoubtedly, he felt that the potential cost might not be too high.

Cindy says she never considered Iraq a threat to America, in an October interview at Buzzflash.com. Casey told his mom, “It’s my job.” Apparently, in the final letter that he didn’t have time to complete, he wrote that it looked like it was going to be an “easy year” of deployment.

Sheehan, in case you haven’t heard, did meet with Bush in June of 2004. She was among the grieving families who met with him at Fort Lewis in Washington. But since then, her feelings have shifted from shock to anger, in part because of ”various reports that have disputed some of the Bush administration’s justifications of the war.”

But she did get to speak to him personally then. Her exchange, as she tells it, went like this:

“(Bush) called me ‘Mom’ because he didn’t know my name, and he didn’t know my son’s name — he just knows that he’s meeting with these families that have lost loved ones. He said, ‘Mom, I can’t imagine the pain you’re going through.’ I said, ‘I think you can imagine it a little bit, Mr. President. You have daughters. How would you feel if one of them was killed?’”

I told him, “Trust me, Mr. President –- you don’t want to go there.”

He said, “You’re right. I don’t.”

What more can she say now? What more will it accomplish now, other than forwarding her agenda?

She has every right to be angry and grieving. She has every right to demand answers, although I think she’ll never get the answers she needs in this life. She has every right to protest and speak out about what she believes, and I do applaud her for taking advantage of the right to protest that all of us have.

But when you step back and take a detached look at the situation, you come to the inescapable conclusion that a meeting with Bush would be pointless. I’m sure Sheehan is convinced that Bush believes he is right no matter what. If he met with her and admitted that the war is wrong like she wants him to, she would never accept his explanation as genuine, and even then, what would it accomplish? Her son would still be lost. If he meets with her and tries to present evidence the rest of us haven’t seen, it would merely be, in her mind, more fabrication to justify his war. She doesn’t trust him, which means that she falls in line with roughly half the country, according to a recent poll. Are we to believe that she ever will?

As set in his ways, as convinced as he is that he is right, Sheehan is as convinced that she is right.

I am reminded of a quote by Jeff Jarrett, who, oddly enough was speaking of a different (and far more harmless) kind of “warfare,” professional wrestling. His quote is still quite applicable in this battle being waged in Texas when you consider how far apart both sides of this war are and how far apart both sides likely always will be:

“For those who don’t believe, no explanation will do; for those who do believe, no explanation is necessary.”

And so it continues.

The latest political controversy this election year involves a media conglomerate determined to have its stations air an anti-Kerry documentary this Friday. There are many issues worth discussing here. But first, let me go back to the basics for a moment.

The media conglomerate in question is the Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of 62 television stations, which make up approximately 24% coverage of American television households. This is an important fact, because the country is divided into geographic coverage areas called “markets.” You live in a television market, whether you realize it or not. Normally, the closest major city to you (which is normally where your local stations are headquartered) is likely the home city for your market.

There are 210 television markets in the country. The largest market is New York City, which consists, according to Nielsen Media, the company that tabulates television ratings, of 7,355,710 television households, or roughly 6.7% of the total television households in America. The second largest market is Los Angeles, with 5.4 million TV households (4.9%). Chicago is the third largest market. Some markets are “hyphenated,” which means that they consist of several major cities close enough together that they all fall into the same coverage area. The nation’s fifth largest market is a hyphenated market: San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose. (Just for fun, because I know you’re dying to know, the nation’s smallest market is in Glendive, Montana, with just 5,150 television households.)

Sinclair’s stations are located mostly in midsize markets and are mostly WB and Fox affiliates, thus the earlier statistic that even with 62 stations, they still manage to reach less than one quarter of all American households.

Earlier this year, Sinclair came under fire after “forbidding” its 8 ABC affiliates from airing a “Nightline” broadcast during which the names of every soldier killed in the War in Iraq were read. The company, according to industry insider Newsblues, also forces its affiliates to air a daily “commentary” by corporate spokesman Mark Hyman who has called the French “cheese eating surrender monkeys” and antiwar Congressmen “unpatriotic politicians who hate our military.”

Now, Sinclair wants its stations to air “Stolen Honor,” a 42-minute documentary that focuses on John Kerry’s denunciation of the Vietnam War three decades ago. Democratic party leaders have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, claiming the documentary is basically an illegal corporate campaign contribution to President Bush.

I have worked for three media corporations in my career thus far. Sinclair has not been one of them. But one of the three I’ve worked for is one of those “major media conglomerates” that everyone loves to hate. But I can happily say that I have never worked for a company that made its corporate political beliefs well-known to its customers or employees. I didn’t know how my corporate superiors voted, and I was pleased not to know. I would certainly be concerned if a company I worked for dictated that my station air such a broadcast.

But having said that, I think it’s worth noting that there is once again a double standard in operation here with regard to the concept of political documentaries.

When Michael Moore came out with “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Bush supporters were outraged. Kerry supporters were amused at their frustration, and came forward with several important points that they seem to have forgotten lately.

First, they said that Moore’s movie was good for America because it contributed to the public discourse. If there were exaggerations or inaccuracies, they would not stand up to scrutiny. Anyway, they said, the American people are smart enough to judge for themselves and make up their own mind. I heard quite a few of Kerry’s supporters say that all Americans should see Moore’s film.

They apparently seem to feel that this film for some reason doesn’t contribute to the public discourse. Despite the fact that they back a candidate who challenged everyone to judge him by his record, the same American people must be in election overload if they’re no longer smart enough to judge for themselves what is and isn’t reasonable.

They criticized those Republicans who tried to discredit Michael Moore and those who resorted to personal attacks against him.

But as you might expect, Democratic partyofficials, including Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the DNC, were only too happy to refer to the producer of “Stolen Honor” as a “discredited journalist who held no standing in the profession.” Carlton Sherwood, the producer of the film, is a former Marine who served in Vietnam and earned three Purple Hearts of his own. Apparently, Kerry supporters do not feel that all Purple Heart recipients are created equal.

Then they told us to forget that Moore has an agenda (and that he has made no bones about having one); his film is a “documentary,” with real footage of what happened. It must be true.

This film, which apparently contains footage of Kerry’s actions after the war, for some reason can’t be true. As for Sherwood’s agenda, the Miami Herald reported that the film was made with $220,000 in donations from Pennsylvania veterans angered by Kerry’s post-war remarks which they feel hurt veterans and their families. It also mentions that Sherwood is a “friend” of Tom Ridge, but that Ridge had no involvement in the movie.

Those who were fans of Moore’s film were furious that anyone would criticize the film without first seeing it. I’m sure that those who are speaking out against “Stolen Honor” haven’t seen it, either.

But my favorite comment comes from Democratic party spokesman David K. Chai, who claimed that the movie is an attempt by Bush supporters to change the topic away from the War in Iraq.

If the topic of the day ever drifted to the War in Iraq for more than about twenty minutes at any time over the last year, it seems that the Kerry camp was quick to focus attention back where they felt it belonged: Kerry’s prestigious military service record. What he did in Vietnam, and what he said about what he’d done when he got back from doing it isn’t nearly as important as the War in Iraq. But how many times have we listened to the talk of his three Purple Hearts? And do keep in mind that Kerry’s side was the one that made military service such an issue to begin with; since Bush had no war service record, it’s not hard to figure out that the Bush camp wasn’t the one to make a big deal over who served overseas!

I realize that there is a difference between this film and Moore’s movie: “Stolen Honor” is to be broadcast over the airwaves and won’t require its audience to go to a theater and pay admission. But considering that “Stolen Honor” is only reaching only 24% of the country (if all stations involved air it), while Moore’s movie reached from coast to coast, I seriously doubt much damage will be done to Kerry.

Do I believe it’s right to air the program this close to the election? No.

But I have to wonder how many of the Kerry supporters now complaining about Sinclair’s decision to air this program would complain as loudly if a different media conglomerate ordered its stations to broadcast “Fahrenheit 9/11″ this Friday night. Somehow, I doubt that there would be many who would.

There’s something wrong with that, too.