© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
America is an interesting country. We should often be perplexed about the various positions in which we find ourselves. This concept called “freedom,” which we must keep in mind is a relatively new concept, has its complications. Consider the following.
Why should a populace which willingly and voluntarily eats poor quality fast, fatty, salty, and cholesterol laden food, smokes, drinks alcohol, refrains from exercise, and engages in other questionable behavior, have an expectation that it is entitled to affordable health care coverage when poor health flows from such behavior? How can the citizens, of a country that permits them to pursue virtually any educational or vocational pursuit of their choice, complain when they are unable to find a job of their liking or one that permits them to adequately support their family? How can citizens of a country purchase inexpensive products made by American companies in third world countries, and then turn around and complain about the exporting of American jobs and technology?
Who is really at fault in connection with our housing mortgage crisis, the lenders for making bad loans to customers with an inability to pay, or the homeowners, for entering into transactions which were beyond their financial means? Just this past Sunday, a psychiatrist connected with UCLA’s Student Health Services, discussed on C-Span2 Book TV, the frustrations experienced by career professional women who thought that science had advanced to the point of suspending the biological clock, only to later discover that there are complications associated with having children late in life. (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8574&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No.)
Last week, in Post No. 28 of this blog, we touched on predictions by some that a water crisis is in the making, and suggested that America start planning ahead of time, contrary to the manner in which it approached energy. However, we did not pose the fundamental question: How did a country, with all of our great academic and corporate institutions, manage to find itself dependent on others for energy? We submit that what we have in this country is a responsibility crisis. We always want our cake and to eat it too. Both parties, and both sides of the aisle, are responsible, and yet you will never hear them acknowledge it. Taking responsibility for one’s condition is a common sense first step toward addressing one’s problems.
Two sound bites uttered this past weekend made us stop and think about our current condition. One was made by Barack Obama, during his interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday morning. He spoke of the inability of our politicians to make hard decisions. (Are they so focused on getting re-elected that they lack the ability to do so?) The other was uttered by T. Boone Pickens, to the effect that, “People will follow if we have leadership [emphasis added].” Pickens testified before a Senate committee on homeland security issues related to energy dependence. (http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=566076979.)
In our opinion, probably the most difficult situation in which this nation has ever found itself, and which defies common sense, is our dependence on foreign oil. Pickens, a geologist by training, has committed 58 million dollars to telling America his plan for making America energy independent. You may have seen or heard his commercials on the media outlets over the past two weeks. He believes that the American public does not fully understand this confusing area. He further believes that we want to know what is going on, in some comprehensible manner, and he wants to elevate the discussion before the presidential election.
Pickens was previously the founder and owner of Mesa Petroleum. He is now the head of B.P. Capital Management. In his opinion (and the purpose of this blog is not to support his position), the increase in the price of a barrel of oil is not due to corporate price gouging or the involvement of speculators, but rather the factor that recent production levels have remained relatively constant, while the demand has increased dramatically. (We suspect that most of you economic experts have some empirical evidence to challenge his position.) Be that as it may, he argues that the oil leaders in the Middle East are absolutely dumbfounded by U. S. energy policy. They can not understand why the U.S. has done virtually nothing to improve its situation, and yet blames the oil producing nations for the current price increases. Did we have any clues, any clues at all, in our recent history, that we should try to become energy independent?
Pickens’ company operates the largest wind farm in America. It provides the power equivalent to two and one-half nuclear plants, and it has created 15,000 jobs. The farm is located in a wind corridor in the mid-west section of the United States. Interestingly, according to Pickens, Germany is the largest user of wind generated power, and it has poor wind conditions. Overall, he claims that the United States has excellent conditions, not to mention the coastal areas which can be utilized. (Many of you may be aware that there has been an ongoing battle near Cape Cod / Martha’s Vineyard in connection with a proposed off-shore wind farm. Some have suggested that wealthy residents in the area have placed their interests above those of the public. Actually, the issue is far more complicated than that. However, it should have been resolved by now. Time’s a wasting. [http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind].)
Pickens made a number of interesting points before the Committee. He indicated that 38% of our oil is imported from the Middle East and Africa, from countries which are unstable. He noted that we can replace that 38% with natural gas already here in the United States. Natural gas costs 40% of crude oil. Will our supply last indefinitely? No, according to Pickens, but it will give us time to develop some alternatives. In fact, according to Pickens, if we had started using natural gas 20 years ago, our resources would be substantially depleted by now; however, we would not be dependent on others for that segment of our energy needs.
Pickens made some other interesting points. He noted that there is no one silver bullet that will solve all of our energy issues, but rather we need to use all available technologies and resources to become independent. Pickens believes that wind and solar power are the cheapest sources at this time, but that we need to consider off-shore drilling, and drilling near the Artic Circle. He also mentioned the need for government mandates to encourage industry participation in this independence effort. Pickens himself drives a Honda GX natural gas vehicle (http://automobiles.honda.com/shop/?modelname=civic+gx&ef_id=1097:3:s_f566d7a6f1f03f560e37a47917ba4e55_444155100_honda%20natural%20gas%20vehicle:gu-rNtB6B3YAAG6U7sUAAAAR:20080729045957). No American automobile manufacturer makes such a vehicle, at least not in the United States. General Motors makes them, but according to Pickens, only in South America.
Keep in mind that Pickens’ testimony was before a committee dealing with homeland security. He considers our dependence on foreign oil to be dangerous. Every time one of the senators posed a partisan question, or made a suggestion that he supported one side of the aisle or the other, he responded that his concern is about what is in the best interests of America, and American jobs. When asked specifically about whether he was in agreement with Al Gore regarding alternative sources of energy, he simply said that Al Gore’s issue is global warming. Pickens regards that as a secondary issue which can be addressed later. He considers our energy dependence on unstable countries to be the primary issue, which needs to be addressed now. According to Pickens, “There is only one enemy, foreign oil, and that’s my fight.”
All of this is quite complicated stuff to this simpleton, and I suspect that most of you feel that you already know what we need to do. However, are we going to continue to argue about all of the competing considerations, and drag out all of the litigation and bureaucratic haggling, while our energy situation further deteriorates? Even if you disagree with all of Pickens’ suggestions, and think that they are self-serving, hopefully you agree with his statement that, “People will follow if we have leadership [emphasis added].” Some one or some body needs to exercise responsible leadership. America can not afford to keep traveling down this path. We can’t have our cake and eat it too, indefinitely.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Post 23: What Views Would the Members of a Truly Independent American Political Party Hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following is a partial list of the views, controversial though some may be, of a particular, well-educated, middle-class American citizen:
1. Men and women who choose to have heterosexual sex make a “choice” when they do so, and society should not interfere or be responsible in any way for what happens to them following pregnancy. The fathers and mothers should negotiate all further responsibility or lack thereof.
2. All citizens of the United States should be required to serve a minimum term, in a combat role, in our armed forces to defend the interests of America, but only on a domestic basis, and not outside of our country and her possessions.
3. At some point in the not too distant future, we should start dividing the states in half, and all liberals shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as liberal, and all conservatives shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as conservative. Over time, perhaps 100 years, when the process has been completed, the country should be divided in half into two separate nations, with each functioning separately, harmoniously, and independently.
4. Students should be strongly encouraged to pursue certain academic areas, through government incentives, based on carefully calculated predictions of the needs of our society over the next 50 to 100 years, and those who choose not to avail themselves of those incentives should be left to fend for themselves.
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, along with the Equal Protection Clauses, and all forms of discrimination should be permitted depending on the individual’s desires.
6. Marriage should be outlawed, along with all sexual interaction between any citizens. The societal costs (spousal abuse, child abuse, out of wedlock births, legal system, divorce, mental health, and substance abuse) associated with interpersonal relationships is far too high, and society should not have to pay that price for individual decisions.
7. Working together, the armed forces of committed nations should provide advance notice, and with the agreement of the Palestinians and Israelis, simply surround the Palestinian Territories and Israel, allow those individuals not currently living there to enter before the containment, and those not wanting to be part of the fight to exit, and then allow the two sides to fight as hard and long as they deem necessary.
Is this individual a male or a female? Is this person a heterosexual, a gay or lesbian individual, or a bi-sexual? Are these the views of a Republican, a Democratic, a Libertarian, an Independent, or perhaps a member of the Green Party? Do you agree with this individual with respect to any of their views? There is an odd number of opinions expressed, thus permitting you to choose four with which you most closely agree. If you were told that four of them were the positions or the party platform for a particular party, would you consider yourself a member or adherent of that particular political party? Can you identify an underlying philosophical theme or thread running through all of these positions?
Earlier this year, there was a rather interesting device circulating on the Internet, when there were still more than fifteen candidates competing against one another for their particular party’s nomination. The reader was asked to indicate his or her position on roughly 20 to 25 issues. Based on the positions taken by the various candidates up to that point, the device advised the reader of the name of the candidate who most closely supported the reader’s positions. Would you be willing to have a president elected through such a mechanism, with the candidate scoring the highest combined percentages of support in all areas deemed the winner?
Let’s get back to our citizen? Is our citizen a male or a female? Located in the South, North, or West? Is this individual a Christian? Is this individual of good moral character? Would you allow your son or daughter to marry this individual? Would you be willing to work with this person? At what point did you decide that you disliked or liked our citizen? At some point, as you proceeded down the list of seven positions, did you change your mind, and perhaps change it again?
Not only have we entered an era where we dissect anything and everything associated with a political candidate and those connected with or supporting that candidate, we also make assumptions about the totality of individuals based on individual issues. Let’s assume that either Candidate McCain or Candidate Obama truly and honestly held any one of the views held by our citizen above, and the candidate had the guts to express that to the American people. Could either one still manage to get elected? Which one would be a disqualifying factor? Would two, or three, or four of the views held subject the candidate to disqualification? Let’s assume that two remaining candidates following a primary process both held these personal views, but agreed to abide by and pursue the platform determined by their respective parties, despite their philosophical differences. Could they still be elected?
Is there some value to categorizing someone as good or bad based on a few factors or a few opinions? You can be reasonably certain that the views expressed by our citizen are held by millions of others, if they honestly disclosed their views. However, are the views too radical and too controversial for any sensible member of our society to openly embrace without fear of retribution? How many of you said to yourself, “We don’t do things like that in America”?
I ask you, are all of these attacks on individual statements and opinions necessary? Do we really get the honest views of our candidates in America? Should a politician pursue, once elected and after disclosing their true views to the American people, his or her personal goals, or simply those of the people, or are they one and the same? Some would argue that we have reached a point in out society where we really don’t truly know who we are electing these days. Consider the possibility that the best actor, with the best handlers and PR people, could probably manage to get elected, by saying just the right things, and playing it safe. You tell me. Do you like this, or is it that we can’t do any better?
Oh, by the way, for those of you who know me personally, which one of the seven opinions do I hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following is a partial list of the views, controversial though some may be, of a particular, well-educated, middle-class American citizen:
1. Men and women who choose to have heterosexual sex make a “choice” when they do so, and society should not interfere or be responsible in any way for what happens to them following pregnancy. The fathers and mothers should negotiate all further responsibility or lack thereof.
2. All citizens of the United States should be required to serve a minimum term, in a combat role, in our armed forces to defend the interests of America, but only on a domestic basis, and not outside of our country and her possessions.
3. At some point in the not too distant future, we should start dividing the states in half, and all liberals shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as liberal, and all conservatives shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as conservative. Over time, perhaps 100 years, when the process has been completed, the country should be divided in half into two separate nations, with each functioning separately, harmoniously, and independently.
4. Students should be strongly encouraged to pursue certain academic areas, through government incentives, based on carefully calculated predictions of the needs of our society over the next 50 to 100 years, and those who choose not to avail themselves of those incentives should be left to fend for themselves.
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, along with the Equal Protection Clauses, and all forms of discrimination should be permitted depending on the individual’s desires.
6. Marriage should be outlawed, along with all sexual interaction between any citizens. The societal costs (spousal abuse, child abuse, out of wedlock births, legal system, divorce, mental health, and substance abuse) associated with interpersonal relationships is far too high, and society should not have to pay that price for individual decisions.
7. Working together, the armed forces of committed nations should provide advance notice, and with the agreement of the Palestinians and Israelis, simply surround the Palestinian Territories and Israel, allow those individuals not currently living there to enter before the containment, and those not wanting to be part of the fight to exit, and then allow the two sides to fight as hard and long as they deem necessary.
Is this individual a male or a female? Is this person a heterosexual, a gay or lesbian individual, or a bi-sexual? Are these the views of a Republican, a Democratic, a Libertarian, an Independent, or perhaps a member of the Green Party? Do you agree with this individual with respect to any of their views? There is an odd number of opinions expressed, thus permitting you to choose four with which you most closely agree. If you were told that four of them were the positions or the party platform for a particular party, would you consider yourself a member or adherent of that particular political party? Can you identify an underlying philosophical theme or thread running through all of these positions?
Earlier this year, there was a rather interesting device circulating on the Internet, when there were still more than fifteen candidates competing against one another for their particular party’s nomination. The reader was asked to indicate his or her position on roughly 20 to 25 issues. Based on the positions taken by the various candidates up to that point, the device advised the reader of the name of the candidate who most closely supported the reader’s positions. Would you be willing to have a president elected through such a mechanism, with the candidate scoring the highest combined percentages of support in all areas deemed the winner?
Let’s get back to our citizen? Is our citizen a male or a female? Located in the South, North, or West? Is this individual a Christian? Is this individual of good moral character? Would you allow your son or daughter to marry this individual? Would you be willing to work with this person? At what point did you decide that you disliked or liked our citizen? At some point, as you proceeded down the list of seven positions, did you change your mind, and perhaps change it again?
Not only have we entered an era where we dissect anything and everything associated with a political candidate and those connected with or supporting that candidate, we also make assumptions about the totality of individuals based on individual issues. Let’s assume that either Candidate McCain or Candidate Obama truly and honestly held any one of the views held by our citizen above, and the candidate had the guts to express that to the American people. Could either one still manage to get elected? Which one would be a disqualifying factor? Would two, or three, or four of the views held subject the candidate to disqualification? Let’s assume that two remaining candidates following a primary process both held these personal views, but agreed to abide by and pursue the platform determined by their respective parties, despite their philosophical differences. Could they still be elected?
Is there some value to categorizing someone as good or bad based on a few factors or a few opinions? You can be reasonably certain that the views expressed by our citizen are held by millions of others, if they honestly disclosed their views. However, are the views too radical and too controversial for any sensible member of our society to openly embrace without fear of retribution? How many of you said to yourself, “We don’t do things like that in America”?
I ask you, are all of these attacks on individual statements and opinions necessary? Do we really get the honest views of our candidates in America? Should a politician pursue, once elected and after disclosing their true views to the American people, his or her personal goals, or simply those of the people, or are they one and the same? Some would argue that we have reached a point in out society where we really don’t truly know who we are electing these days. Consider the possibility that the best actor, with the best handlers and PR people, could probably manage to get elected, by saying just the right things, and playing it safe. You tell me. Do you like this, or is it that we can’t do any better?
Oh, by the way, for those of you who know me personally, which one of the seven opinions do I hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Post No. 22: Do We Have Something to Fear Other Than Fear Itself?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Radio and television talk show host Don Imus drew attention to himself again last week. Upon hearing his latest controversial statement, one’s response might have been that Imus could not have avoided criticism under any circumstances. (Disregard, for the time being, whether we truly know him intimately enough to enable us to judge the motives underlying the statement.)
In the future, he might avoid making any statements, which include any race-related words, since various negative assumptions will be made regarding his motives, even if his intent is to make a positive statement.
More disconcerting was the statement by the NFL player whose frequent run-ins with the law were at the center of Imus’ unfortunate expression. Arguably, Imus’ comment could have been viewed as a statement condemning the frequent stopping of African-Americans by law enforcement officials, or justifying it. However, “Pacman” Jones fairly quickly concluded that Imus “obviously has a problem with African-Americans.”
One can only assume that Jones has some direct link to Imus’ brain and heart, to permit him to make such an unequivocal assessment. Along a similar vein, an argument might be made that Jones “obviously has a problem with the law,” or that he “obviously has a problem disassociating himself from the criminal element.”
George Carlin, considered by some to be an iconic comedian, died last week. It is generally agreed that he expressed the views of the counter-culture element of our society. However, what stood out most significantly was the frequent reference, by those who remembered him, to the “fearless” nature of his comedy.
What did Carlin potentially have to fear? What did he say that posed so significant a potential danger that we needed to be leery of him? Was there a concern that what he said, or might say, could damage or harm a certain segment of our society?
So here we are considering whether it is good for members of society to avoid making certain comments, or discussing certain subjects, in a public setting. (Ignore for now that the statements could be true, and honestly uttered.)
Just to carry our discussion a little further, images are also a form of expression. Some of you may recall the controversy surrounding the pairing of O.J. Simpson and Elizabeth Montgomery, over twenty years ago, in a television murder mystery movie, and the backlash that befell the sponsors. But that was long ago, right?
Recently, while I was listening to, but not watching television, a commercial aired for Cascade, the dishwasher detergent. The voice-over contained an African-American accent. At first, I couldn’t figure out why that struck me odd. Then, for some unexplained reason, I turned around to see if an African-American face or image would also appear in the commercial.
Let me ask you. When was the last time that you can recall seeing an African-American woman in a commercial associated with cleaning anything – whether it be laundry detergent, floor wax, window cleaner, or garbage bags? How many years have sponsors avoided projecting certain images to play it safe? The corollary reality is that many of us avoid making certain statements to play it safe, out of concern for offending others.
In light of the risks associated with making certain statements, we obviously have to carefully evaluate the consequences, or perhaps some might say, the “potential punishment,” associated with making statements, though honest they may be.
Furthermore, if we are not entirely clear as to the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech/expression, most of us will steer far wide of the danger zone.
During the course of the development and evolution of this blog, we’ve been surprised at a number of things, particularly in the expression of speech arena. A number of regular readers have suggested that the content makes many uncomfortable.
Many have indicated that although they would like to respond honestly to some of the posts, they feel reluctant to do so. There is a concern that, even using a pseudonym, once their true thoughts are revealed to the public, they might suffer negative consequences.
There is a scene in one of the classic Hollywood movies where the local, irresponsible, rich kid, who is attending medical school, is confronted by a childhood friend. She questions his flippant attitude, and lack of sense of responsibility, considering the talent which she considers him to have.
She notes that he could do so much of a positive nature for so many. She then goes on to say, “Most of us have no choice but to live useless lives.”
This leads one to wonder, “What is a person if not his or her expression?” Is freedom of expression the essence of freedom?
What we should appreciate is that when any talk show host, religious leader, celebrity, politician, or other public figure, manages to generate a following or an audience, they run the risk of saying something controversial. However, that ought to be a good thing, because it causes us to periodically stop and think.
Imagine a world where everything said in the media is uttered within certain prescribed boundaries, where no one is offended, surprised, intrigued, inspired, or in some manner affected. Imagine where we would be as a society if every utterance was something that we already knew, or accepted, or with which the “expression police” were comfortable.
There is an argument to be made that in this competitive, free market environment that is America, the speech expressed by its citizens ought to be evaluated by the same competitive, free market forces.
A speaker should fail or succeed based on the quality of his content, and whether the citizens are willing to “buy” his or her expression.
We ultimately discard and ignore products of little or no value. Are we afraid to let the market place decide the fate of those making offensive comments, in the same way that we let the market place decide the fate of poor products?
We might discourage someone from expressing a new idea or concept, in the same way that we might discourage someone from developing a new product or service, if we discourage expression on the front end.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle frequently accuse the other of failing to acknowledge the intelligence of the American people. If we are intelligent enough to assess and evaluate other issues and their value, why do we not possess enough intelligence to assess and evaluate (and thus accept or repudiate) personal expression, in whatever form it manifests itself?
There is something else that comes to mind. When we hear the rantings and ravings of callers as they express themselves on talk radio shows, we gain some insight into, and provide a forum for, a segment of our society that otherwise might go unnoticed and unheard.
Some would suggest that we might be a better society if they went unnoticed and unheard. However, isn’t it better for us to know with whom we are really dealing, and have a better appreciation of the issues and concerns of every segment of our society? Or is that something which certain forces do not want?
We are once again reminded of the words of the Laughingman:
“The worst conceivable way to silence one with whom we disagree is to stop him from talking. By doing so, you create a martyr to his similarly warped followers, and take him off the radar screen of the rest of the public. Had we, as a society, a bit thicker skins, we would broadcast these lunacies far and wide, with an appropriate apology to the more sensitive among us, demonstrate a little common sense for our fellow man, and let the fringe element drown in the laughter and public ridicule generated by their own thinking or lack thereof. Along with the right to free speech comes the right to make a public fool of oneself; and like the naked, fools have little or no influence on society.”
That is, of course, unless you are Lady Godiva or Angelina Jolie.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Radio and television talk show host Don Imus drew attention to himself again last week. Upon hearing his latest controversial statement, one’s response might have been that Imus could not have avoided criticism under any circumstances. (Disregard, for the time being, whether we truly know him intimately enough to enable us to judge the motives underlying the statement.)
In the future, he might avoid making any statements, which include any race-related words, since various negative assumptions will be made regarding his motives, even if his intent is to make a positive statement.
More disconcerting was the statement by the NFL player whose frequent run-ins with the law were at the center of Imus’ unfortunate expression. Arguably, Imus’ comment could have been viewed as a statement condemning the frequent stopping of African-Americans by law enforcement officials, or justifying it. However, “Pacman” Jones fairly quickly concluded that Imus “obviously has a problem with African-Americans.”
One can only assume that Jones has some direct link to Imus’ brain and heart, to permit him to make such an unequivocal assessment. Along a similar vein, an argument might be made that Jones “obviously has a problem with the law,” or that he “obviously has a problem disassociating himself from the criminal element.”
George Carlin, considered by some to be an iconic comedian, died last week. It is generally agreed that he expressed the views of the counter-culture element of our society. However, what stood out most significantly was the frequent reference, by those who remembered him, to the “fearless” nature of his comedy.
What did Carlin potentially have to fear? What did he say that posed so significant a potential danger that we needed to be leery of him? Was there a concern that what he said, or might say, could damage or harm a certain segment of our society?
So here we are considering whether it is good for members of society to avoid making certain comments, or discussing certain subjects, in a public setting. (Ignore for now that the statements could be true, and honestly uttered.)
Just to carry our discussion a little further, images are also a form of expression. Some of you may recall the controversy surrounding the pairing of O.J. Simpson and Elizabeth Montgomery, over twenty years ago, in a television murder mystery movie, and the backlash that befell the sponsors. But that was long ago, right?
Recently, while I was listening to, but not watching television, a commercial aired for Cascade, the dishwasher detergent. The voice-over contained an African-American accent. At first, I couldn’t figure out why that struck me odd. Then, for some unexplained reason, I turned around to see if an African-American face or image would also appear in the commercial.
Let me ask you. When was the last time that you can recall seeing an African-American woman in a commercial associated with cleaning anything – whether it be laundry detergent, floor wax, window cleaner, or garbage bags? How many years have sponsors avoided projecting certain images to play it safe? The corollary reality is that many of us avoid making certain statements to play it safe, out of concern for offending others.
In light of the risks associated with making certain statements, we obviously have to carefully evaluate the consequences, or perhaps some might say, the “potential punishment,” associated with making statements, though honest they may be.
Furthermore, if we are not entirely clear as to the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech/expression, most of us will steer far wide of the danger zone.
During the course of the development and evolution of this blog, we’ve been surprised at a number of things, particularly in the expression of speech arena. A number of regular readers have suggested that the content makes many uncomfortable.
Many have indicated that although they would like to respond honestly to some of the posts, they feel reluctant to do so. There is a concern that, even using a pseudonym, once their true thoughts are revealed to the public, they might suffer negative consequences.
There is a scene in one of the classic Hollywood movies where the local, irresponsible, rich kid, who is attending medical school, is confronted by a childhood friend. She questions his flippant attitude, and lack of sense of responsibility, considering the talent which she considers him to have.
She notes that he could do so much of a positive nature for so many. She then goes on to say, “Most of us have no choice but to live useless lives.”
This leads one to wonder, “What is a person if not his or her expression?” Is freedom of expression the essence of freedom?
What we should appreciate is that when any talk show host, religious leader, celebrity, politician, or other public figure, manages to generate a following or an audience, they run the risk of saying something controversial. However, that ought to be a good thing, because it causes us to periodically stop and think.
Imagine a world where everything said in the media is uttered within certain prescribed boundaries, where no one is offended, surprised, intrigued, inspired, or in some manner affected. Imagine where we would be as a society if every utterance was something that we already knew, or accepted, or with which the “expression police” were comfortable.
There is an argument to be made that in this competitive, free market environment that is America, the speech expressed by its citizens ought to be evaluated by the same competitive, free market forces.
A speaker should fail or succeed based on the quality of his content, and whether the citizens are willing to “buy” his or her expression.
We ultimately discard and ignore products of little or no value. Are we afraid to let the market place decide the fate of those making offensive comments, in the same way that we let the market place decide the fate of poor products?
We might discourage someone from expressing a new idea or concept, in the same way that we might discourage someone from developing a new product or service, if we discourage expression on the front end.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle frequently accuse the other of failing to acknowledge the intelligence of the American people. If we are intelligent enough to assess and evaluate other issues and their value, why do we not possess enough intelligence to assess and evaluate (and thus accept or repudiate) personal expression, in whatever form it manifests itself?
There is something else that comes to mind. When we hear the rantings and ravings of callers as they express themselves on talk radio shows, we gain some insight into, and provide a forum for, a segment of our society that otherwise might go unnoticed and unheard.
Some would suggest that we might be a better society if they went unnoticed and unheard. However, isn’t it better for us to know with whom we are really dealing, and have a better appreciation of the issues and concerns of every segment of our society? Or is that something which certain forces do not want?
We are once again reminded of the words of the Laughingman:
“The worst conceivable way to silence one with whom we disagree is to stop him from talking. By doing so, you create a martyr to his similarly warped followers, and take him off the radar screen of the rest of the public. Had we, as a society, a bit thicker skins, we would broadcast these lunacies far and wide, with an appropriate apology to the more sensitive among us, demonstrate a little common sense for our fellow man, and let the fringe element drown in the laughter and public ridicule generated by their own thinking or lack thereof. Along with the right to free speech comes the right to make a public fool of oneself; and like the naked, fools have little or no influence on society.”
That is, of course, unless you are Lady Godiva or Angelina Jolie.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)