Fair Comment

Not Implied, Private Speech

Posted by

0

What's Behind the Door

Seeking the Truth; What’s Behind the Door

Diversity, inclusion, acceptance, racial and ethnic harmony. Interesting terms; usually desirable concepts. Then there’s the opposites such as implied (as well as blatant) racial hate / bias. Basically, they’re a lot of talking points.

Starting with “implied bias,” they’re usually not actually discussed in polite public arenas but they (as well as the remainder of the list) actually exist, endure, are taught to new generations, and grow. They actually thrive because the necessary elements to avert stepping into the dumphole are missing. Those tools of rising above lack of understanding are exposure, having an open mind, and education, and overcoming myths fed by fear.

Is the Golden Emperor the first [purported] sitting president to harbor such hate and racist ideas? Nope. We need look no farther back in history than the Reagan or the Nixon Administrations. And if we look even further back in history (now more than 50 years), we have the examples of WWII detention camps for Japanese as well as Wilson who insisted on certain programs and protocols that tended toward a bigoted stance during the time when women strove to gain suffrage.

The difference between the Golden Emperor and the four cited above is that they were somewhat diplomatic and held their ideas in check and in private while abstaining from speaking from the dais and promoting their private ideas as public policy, thereby deepening the roots of Jim Crow that endured for the time.

The news account of the racist views and exchanges of Nixon and Reagan points out the difference between the first two examples and the current speaker but overlooks previous administrations. Unfortunate, that. Yet the Civil Rights Era emerged, succeeded (in many respects), and has grown to embrace open speech and advocacy of the stakeholders of that legislation plus the benefits that accrue to society because of it.

We also see that those previous administrations appreciated the importance of a positive leadership stance. They used tact and diplomacy. They sought to build national cohesion in spite of their divisive ideologies. Nixon’s practices and lack of good ethics seems to have been part of his political DNA because his track record is replete with various tactics to demean, disparage, and defame his opponents. And then there’s All the President’s Men to bolster even more of how those who were part of his inner circle were used as pawns for his attaining his personal and political goals.

Still, outright racist ideas and hate speech from the purported leader of the supposedly strongest nation in the world is troublesome. The import of what type of path is being followed is troubling, to say the least. Yet, like the sheep of Animal Farm and the mindless following of rules as was the practice in the 1984, that seems to be the course being paved. However, Winston found a way to escape the doom. Perhaps that was an Orwell’s author lifebouy for us. The important thing about that lifebuoy’s effectiveness is our learning the lessons before we stand teetering on the precipice.

Resources:

For Your Appreciation:

Preserving a Right

Posted by

0

A request to sign a petition from Brigade + Causes hit my mailbox yesterday that raised my eyebrows. “Sign the petition to #fireColbert” read the subject line. The opening of the petition says: “Stephen Colbert finally took it too far with a disgustingly lewd anti-Trump rant on The Late Show on CBS.”

The author of the petition was sufficiently offended by Colbert’s monologue from last week that the author initiated the movement. In fact, he closed his appeal by saying, “This is certainly within Colbert’s right to free speech, but the networks should strive for a higher level of decency. This isn’t comedy. It’s just disgusting and offensive.” Apparently the FCC was also alarmed at the language used in the monologue.

However, we need to ask ourselves in what way did the Colbert monologue in question substantially differ from the many antics of #45 during his campaign. We also need to recognize that Colbert is in the entertainment business and relies on [Nielsen] ratings in order to keep his show on the air. Similarly, during the campaign, #45 was in several industries (including entertainment) and heavily relies (even now) on outlandish behavior for the sake of garnering ratings and attention. So where’s the difference? We also need to take into consideration that #45 was never called to task for any of his campaign behavior and was never penalized in any way. In fact, he was applauded. It’s difficult to understand why, in a post-Carlin’s “7 dirty words” environment that Colbert (or CBS for that matter) should suffer even a penalty.

Now, to be sure, it’s no secret that Colbert is not a fan of the 45th President. It’s safe to say there’s little evidence that he has ever had favorable feelings about #45.

It says a lot about what still remains of American freedoms that Colbert can express his political opinions during his monologue without being censored or have his way of life threatened. It’s called freedom of speech. True, there were objectionable words used in the body of the monologue but the blue language was bleeped from the speech. Even Colbert’s mouth was blurred when he pronounced certain words so that they could not be discerned and cause offense. Those were the instances when it went into territory not covered by Carlin’s “7 dirty words” but at least the freedom to express those feelings was in place.

Other TV hosts have also lampooned the First Family in this last week. It doesn’t appear any of those hosts are being called to task for doing their jobs while simultaneously pushing their audiences to engage in critical thinking or else express what their audiences fear to say aloud.

Likewise, the petition’s author has the freedom to express his distaste for the language – the language, mind you, not the thoughts and feelings owned by the speaker.

So, rather than endorse a return to Woodrow Wilson standards and suppression of one of our precious foundation rights, free speech, I will not sign that petition. Let us, without resorting to expletives and bullying, discuss and debate the policies of #45 and come up with solutions.

It appears both Colbert and the petition author have come up with a very meaningful topic for discussion as well as some meaningful tangents.