Pop quiz! According to Amazon.com, the inside flap of WHOSE book includes the following text:
"In ten practical, down-to-earth chapters, [the author] gets back to basics, mining the insights of our founding fathers and applying their wisdom to the problems of today: immigration, the culture wars, the war against global terrorism, national (and personal) debt, even the epidemic of obesity that is killing more Americans than terrorists do."
If you answered "Chuck Norris" then go to the head of the class. Norris' book is called Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America. Seriously. As for the rest of you, meet me after school to clap erasers.
While I don't place any more value in Chuck Norris' solutions for this country than I do in Nancy Pelosi's martial arts techniques...embrace the visual...I am concerned that people will listen to him simply because he is Chuck Norris, especially since I read an answer he recently gave during an interview with Reed Tucker of PAGE SIX MAGAZINE (September 7, 2008).
Tucker asked, "Do you think people are born gay?" Norris answered, "Yes, I believe many of them are. I don't think all of them are. I believe that they have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gay community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gay. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."
This notion of homosexuals supposedly "making a big issue" of their lifestyle has always perplexed me. When people make accusations like Norris', statements that usually include the word flaunt, I often wonder how, exactly, they define "flaunting homosexuality." A public display of affection? A bumper sticker? A public gathering in support of the cause? Regardless, the message seems clear: live and let live, just don't flaunt it.
Then I came across a September 6, 2008 story by Bill Vidonic for the online edition of the BEAVER COUNTY TIMES and the ALLEGHENY TIMES (www.timesonline.com). The piece reports how John Noble, a Beaver County (PA) man, was arrested - some claim falsely - near an outdoor rally for presidential nominee Barack Obama. The arrest occurred because Noble showed up with a gun strapped to his hip. He did not violate Pennsylvania's open carry law, he claims he has worn his gun in public before and always without incident, and he declared that, according to the piece, "...Obama's constitutional rights didn't take precedence over his."
Listen, I'm not a gun guy, but I respect the Second Amendment. In fact, I feel kind of sorry for Mr. Noble. I mean, all he wanted to do was...oh, what's the word? He just wanted to demonstrate something that is important to him...you know, make a big issue out of it...and yet, he was punished for it. What IS that word?
Anyway, I came across another story, this one involving police. According to reporter Julian Walker of THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT (www.pilotonline.com), in a September 25, 2008 story, Virginia state troopers who volunteer as chaplains for the force were told that at "sanctioned government events," they were no longer allowed to invoke the name of Jesus Christ; any public prayers may be spiritual, but they must remain non-denominational. In private prayer matters, though, the troopers can still speak of Christ. As a result of the rule change, six of 17 affected troopers resigned their posts as chaplains only (they remain troopers with no change to their trooper status, as their religious work was always voluntary). According to Walker's story:
"One of the six chaplains who resigned that post, 13-year trooper Rex Carter, said his faith had compelled him to conduct religion-related duties. 'There were several of us who felt that because of our convictions...about what the Bible says, we couldn't agree to go along with a generic prayer policy,' said Carter, who works in Southwest Virginia."
Listen, I'm a Catholic, born-and-raised; I come complete with 12 years of parochial school, memorization of every prayer and hymn you've ever heard, and all the guilt you can eat, so I get it. I understand what these poor troopers are going through, being denied their chance to...rats! What is that word? It's like they're being told they're not special, that no one is special, that they are what they are. Oh, my awful memory.
I kid, of course, because I love. The word is FLAUNT.
Mr. Noble wants to flaunt his right to carry a firearm in public. He probably even has a bumper sticker with a pro-gun statement on it - something like Body Piercing by Smith & Wesson or If You Can Read This, You Are In Range. He might even attend gun shows or NRA rallies.
The troopers who forfeited their pastor roles want to flaunt their love of Christ. In fact, I bet at least one of them has one of those fish things stuck to his bumper, or one of them might wear a crucifix pendant every day, or one might even promote creationism. And hey, they all get to have mini-conventions every Sunday.
You know, the more I type, the more I realize that the gun people and the God people are really no different than the gay people. Just as gay people want to show their love of each other through public displays or bumper stickers or large gatherings, so too do gun people and God people want to show their love of guns and God the same way.
It begs the question, Why is one person's outward display called "flaunting" while another person's outward display is called "Second Amendment rights," and a third person's outward display is called "Ash Wednesday?"
The answer is hypocrisy. The gun guys and the God guys don't think the same standards apply to them as they apply to the gay guys. Don't believe me?
Imagine the reaction if someone said, "I believe that gun owners have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gun-owning community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gun owners. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."
Better yet, read aloud...seriously, if you can, read right out loud...how it would sound if someone said, "I believe that Christians have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the Christian community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were Christian. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."
So, if you say such a thing about the gun guys, you make them victims of attempted rights-stripping; and if you say such a thing about the God guys, you make them victims of attempted religion-assaulting; but if you say such a thing about the gay guys - as Norris actually did - you imply that no group should be treated special? You demand parity from a group that whole religions discriminate against?
With the goal of refuting their own intolerance towards their fellow man, people might say, "No one is special," or they might say, "Live and let live," or they might say, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." What they are really saying is that despite societal evolution, intolerance hasn't changed...people have just gotten better at masking it.
Showing posts with label Intolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intolerance. Show all posts
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
About That R-Word...
Last weekend saw the opening of the action comedy movie Tropic Thunder, starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr., and Jack Black. I'm not much of a Ben Stiller guy; some of his stuff is okay, some not so much. Ultimately, I think his parents are funnier than he could ever hope to be. The premise of the film (which Stiller directed and co-wrote): a bunch of movie stars making a jungle combat picture suddenly find themselves part of real jungle combat. Hilarity ensues. The film was only on my radar because of the 3.2 million commercials I'd seen for it. Other than that, I hadn't paid much attention.
Once the protests began, I started paying attention.
In a story dated August 14, 2008, found on DelawareOnline.com, Ryan Cormier of the (Wilmington, DE) News Journal reported that about 70 people protested Tropic Thunder at a local movie theater, and that similar protests were planned (or taking place) around the country.
(NOTE: I have not seen Tropic Thunder. The protesters in Cormier's piece hadn't either, so that makes us even.)
At issue is a portion of the film where Stiller's character laments his lost Oscar opportunity when he played Simple Jack, a man with an intellectual disability. The Simple Jack character, as shown using the movie-within-the-movie device, has the appearance and mannerisms, to a stereotypical degree, of someone with an intellectual disability. Also, the word "retard" is used liberally, including in a line uttered by Downey, who tells Stiller, whom he believes overacted his way out of the Oscar win, "Never go full retard."
Cue outrage throughout the land, as evidenced in news reports, online petitions, pieces written in print and online, and an initiative spearheaded by the Special Olympics that includes, according to their website, banning the "r-word."
For the most part, there are two camps here: the protestors and the dissenters, the latter of which disagrees with the former. I'm in the latter camp, but I'm not your typical camper. The problem with many dissenters is that they haven't been very articulate in their dissention, nor have they been very thorough in their thinking. Posts that I have read have included those chastising protestors for attacking only this film and not others that take similar liberties; suggesting offended people simply "lighten up"; trying to teach protestors a lesson in satire; screaming over potential freedom of speech violations; and offering the classic non-apology apology. (You know the one: "If you were offended, I'm sorry." What people never say after that is, "If you weren't offended, I'm not sorry." Why doesn't the spoken word have an asterisk?)
To the dissenters, two quick lessons: 1) As soon as someone tells you they are offended, try to give them the benefit of the doubt and stop talking or typing while you consider their position. Don't simply discount their hurt feelings as a byproduct of their own oversensitivity. They might not be oversensitive at all. 2) Learn to spell. I mean really. Some of the things I've read...oy.
To the protestors...you are not off the hook. In fact, you have a bigger issue...two, really (plus an eerily similar spelling problem). Before I address your issues, though, let me first make it clear that I do not have a child with an intellectual disability. As such, I will not be so pretentious as to think I can possibly imagine what it is like to live your life, nor will I be dismissive of you if you have lived, or currently live, that life.
First, you should stop with the indictment of the entertainment industry for yet another social ill. Whether it's because of the Communists in Hollywood, or the lust in Elvis' hips, or the satanic messages in heavy metal records (when played backwards, of course), or the misogyny in rap videos, or the violence in video games, or the pornography on the internet, people have always pointed a finger at Hollywood and said, "It's their fault. Make them stop it." Now, it's the portrayal of the intellectually disabled and the use of the word "retard," when played for laughs, as perpetuating hateful stereotypes. "It's their fault. Make them stop it." No and no.
This line of thinking is indicative of a general line of thinking that most people follow from time to time. We don't like something in the world, and if there is an ill, then there must be a cause of that ill. But to blame humanity or society or the system is to be too broad in assigning blame. We can't point our finger everywhere at once; we need a target. (I'm sure doctors have a name for this, but my medical training ended when George Clooney left ER.)
The ill here is the wrongdoing of people, and if people do wrong, we think they must have been influenced by some specific outside force; but that outside force must be singular and easily identified. It's too difficult to look at a group of people laughing at a kid with Down Syndrome and say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because they weren't raised properly. It will take time and effort to educate them and correct their thinking." It's much easier to say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because that movie laughs at the disabled! If we stop the studios from making these movies, we'll stop the jerks from thinking/acting/behaving poorly!" That would be nice, but so would a pill that melts away the pounds without any exercise. You want change? You have to work at it.
As for my other point, you can't ban the word "retard" because it would set a dangerous precedent and, in the long run, it would do no good.
The dangerous precedent should be obvious. If you ban one word, why not ban another? Then ban a third, a fourth, and so on. And when do you finally stop? How far do you go before all of the "bad" words are erased from the dictionary, never to be spoken or written again? And please, don't get me started on who gets to say what words are banned and who gets to interpret their context.
Besides, would any of it do any good anyway?
Consider this: We teach our children that they should not use foul language of the traditional, four-letter variety. Then a mother and daughter each stubs her toe. The daughter screams, "Fudge!" while the mother screams...well, not "Fudge!" Each uses a different word, but isn't the sentiment, the visceral reaction, just the same?
If today we remove the word "retard" from the lexicon, the sentiment, sadly, will be the same, and tomorrow will bring another word; maybe doofus...maybe dork...maybe flapjack. Who knows? The point is that removing a word is nothing more than treating a symptom of a greater disease...intolerance.
If you focus your energy towards stopping the disease, as opposed to merely treating the symptom, then the symptoms will take care of themselves.
Once the protests began, I started paying attention.
In a story dated August 14, 2008, found on DelawareOnline.com, Ryan Cormier of the (Wilmington, DE) News Journal reported that about 70 people protested Tropic Thunder at a local movie theater, and that similar protests were planned (or taking place) around the country.
(NOTE: I have not seen Tropic Thunder. The protesters in Cormier's piece hadn't either, so that makes us even.)
At issue is a portion of the film where Stiller's character laments his lost Oscar opportunity when he played Simple Jack, a man with an intellectual disability. The Simple Jack character, as shown using the movie-within-the-movie device, has the appearance and mannerisms, to a stereotypical degree, of someone with an intellectual disability. Also, the word "retard" is used liberally, including in a line uttered by Downey, who tells Stiller, whom he believes overacted his way out of the Oscar win, "Never go full retard."
Cue outrage throughout the land, as evidenced in news reports, online petitions, pieces written in print and online, and an initiative spearheaded by the Special Olympics that includes, according to their website, banning the "r-word."
For the most part, there are two camps here: the protestors and the dissenters, the latter of which disagrees with the former. I'm in the latter camp, but I'm not your typical camper. The problem with many dissenters is that they haven't been very articulate in their dissention, nor have they been very thorough in their thinking. Posts that I have read have included those chastising protestors for attacking only this film and not others that take similar liberties; suggesting offended people simply "lighten up"; trying to teach protestors a lesson in satire; screaming over potential freedom of speech violations; and offering the classic non-apology apology. (You know the one: "If you were offended, I'm sorry." What people never say after that is, "If you weren't offended, I'm not sorry." Why doesn't the spoken word have an asterisk?)
To the dissenters, two quick lessons: 1) As soon as someone tells you they are offended, try to give them the benefit of the doubt and stop talking or typing while you consider their position. Don't simply discount their hurt feelings as a byproduct of their own oversensitivity. They might not be oversensitive at all. 2) Learn to spell. I mean really. Some of the things I've read...oy.
To the protestors...you are not off the hook. In fact, you have a bigger issue...two, really (plus an eerily similar spelling problem). Before I address your issues, though, let me first make it clear that I do not have a child with an intellectual disability. As such, I will not be so pretentious as to think I can possibly imagine what it is like to live your life, nor will I be dismissive of you if you have lived, or currently live, that life.
First, you should stop with the indictment of the entertainment industry for yet another social ill. Whether it's because of the Communists in Hollywood, or the lust in Elvis' hips, or the satanic messages in heavy metal records (when played backwards, of course), or the misogyny in rap videos, or the violence in video games, or the pornography on the internet, people have always pointed a finger at Hollywood and said, "It's their fault. Make them stop it." Now, it's the portrayal of the intellectually disabled and the use of the word "retard," when played for laughs, as perpetuating hateful stereotypes. "It's their fault. Make them stop it." No and no.
This line of thinking is indicative of a general line of thinking that most people follow from time to time. We don't like something in the world, and if there is an ill, then there must be a cause of that ill. But to blame humanity or society or the system is to be too broad in assigning blame. We can't point our finger everywhere at once; we need a target. (I'm sure doctors have a name for this, but my medical training ended when George Clooney left ER.)
The ill here is the wrongdoing of people, and if people do wrong, we think they must have been influenced by some specific outside force; but that outside force must be singular and easily identified. It's too difficult to look at a group of people laughing at a kid with Down Syndrome and say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because they weren't raised properly. It will take time and effort to educate them and correct their thinking." It's much easier to say, "Those jerks laugh at the disabled because that movie laughs at the disabled! If we stop the studios from making these movies, we'll stop the jerks from thinking/acting/behaving poorly!" That would be nice, but so would a pill that melts away the pounds without any exercise. You want change? You have to work at it.
As for my other point, you can't ban the word "retard" because it would set a dangerous precedent and, in the long run, it would do no good.
The dangerous precedent should be obvious. If you ban one word, why not ban another? Then ban a third, a fourth, and so on. And when do you finally stop? How far do you go before all of the "bad" words are erased from the dictionary, never to be spoken or written again? And please, don't get me started on who gets to say what words are banned and who gets to interpret their context.
Besides, would any of it do any good anyway?
Consider this: We teach our children that they should not use foul language of the traditional, four-letter variety. Then a mother and daughter each stubs her toe. The daughter screams, "Fudge!" while the mother screams...well, not "Fudge!" Each uses a different word, but isn't the sentiment, the visceral reaction, just the same?
If today we remove the word "retard" from the lexicon, the sentiment, sadly, will be the same, and tomorrow will bring another word; maybe doofus...maybe dork...maybe flapjack. Who knows? The point is that removing a word is nothing more than treating a symptom of a greater disease...intolerance.
If you focus your energy towards stopping the disease, as opposed to merely treating the symptom, then the symptoms will take care of themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)