Free Speech

It seems that people are finally becoming aware of the suppression of  free speech, even though it merits barely a mention from the main stream media which seems to instead spend its time trying to increase its already 90%  negative coverage of President Trump (in their own suppressive attempt to silence him or at least manipulate the public’s view of him).  It seems that the failed attempt to bring conservative Ann Coulter to speak at UC Berkeley has finally made even some Democrats aware of the narrow-minded suppression that goes on at college campuses these days. 

This is a start. But if the realization limits itself to just well-known conservatives whose speech is silenced at colleges, that realization is very limited.  For many years now the liberal/progressive agenda has been becoming more and more aggressive in its attempts to silence any opposing ideas.  That becomes visible when students violently react to a speaker with those opposing ideas, claiming they have a right to silence that opposing thought.  But these demonstrations only scratch the surface of a sickness that has been growing in our democracy for years.

Why do so many believe that they have a right to silence any viewpoints with which they disagree?  Why do they believe that it is appropriate to label as hate speech any position that does not fully conform to their agenda?    Why do they think that anyone who holds a position that they find objective should, or indeed must, be silenced?  And that, in light of that, it is both their right and their duty to use any means necessary to silence that speaker?  And why have college students not learned about the necessary benefit to both their education and our democracy of the exchange of differing ideas?

To think that attacks on free speech just suddenly appeared (or, as many Democrats would have one believe, that it is due to Trump’s election) is to ignore the subtle but effective suppression of free speech that has been going on for years.  For example, while political correctness may have some underlying noble goal, it is really just a form of suppression of free speech.  If people are forced to use only those words and phrases deemed acceptable, then their freedom to express themselves is compromised.  Not only are they not able to choose their own words, the fact that they must speak in a certain way has an even more chilling effect in that they often choose not to speak at all.  That is, their position, their ideas, are silenced.  And, as others witness this, their speech too becomes silenced.  Perhaps their ideas or their word choices would be offensive, but that is not a reason for them to be silenced.  Indeed, by allowing all viewpoints to be expressed, people can evaluate all, and choose to accept some while rejecting others.  This is how societies grow and stay free.

The chilling effect is pervasive throughout our country today.  People hold their tongue about how they really feel about issues for fear of being attacked for their position, either verbally or, as is becoming more and more likely, physically.  Yes, there are some who are still willing to speak, but they are labeled by the Left as provocateurs, and therefore properly silenced in any way necessary.  Their silencing has a ripple effect.  Fewer people are willing to risk speaking a viewpoint that does not conform to the accepted agenda.  People are afraid to express their viewpoints.  Think of one of the key characteristics of a dictatorship:  the people fear speaking out; they are not free to express their thoughts.

Democrats argued that President Trump wanted to or will become some sort of dictator.  But who has been behaving as dictators for the past several years? Clearly, it is the Left who are willing to accept no voice other than their own, who feel that tolerance by others of their viewpoint is not good enough but that everyone must be forced to believe what they believe, to speak only as they speak.  Anyone who does not fall in line with their agenda is silenced:  by being demeaned, mocked, rejected, or attacked.  When the people had enough and elected Mr. Trump, the Left was unwilling to accept the voice of the people and so, instead of working with the current administration, being a loyal opposition, they have done and continue to do everything in their power to destroy that administration and in so doing they silence the voice of the people for which it stands.

So, I am glad that at least some Democrats have become aware of what is happening to free speech on college campuses.  But I am more saddened by the fact that many others not only support the suppression, but also the right to violently object to opposing ideas.  And that so many think that this is a right is indicative of how dangerous and chilling the Left can be.   Many compare the current demonstrations to those of the 60s, but while the 60s demonstrations were mostly peaceful, when they did become violent the authorities stepped in.  Today, even the authorities fear involvement – they are afraid to enforce valid laws because doing so would come against that loud, ugly and suppressive voice of the Left.

I really do hope that this Ann Coulter-Berkeley incident awakens many.  I hope that people begin to see the subtle brainwashing that has occurred for many years, how students have been educated not in the principles of a strong democracy but in the suppressive principles of the Left.  The chilling effect of this is not something that can be undone overnight, but people can begin by demanding that there be a tolerance for varying viewpoints and an understanding that a democracy requires the free exchange of many viewpoints.  People must be willing to accept that all will not think alike and that it is beneficial, not harmful (not even micro-aggressive), to hear viewpoints other than one’s own.

What’s Wrong With a Special Dance?

My local news presented a story with the following facts:  A young boy with autism went to his middle school dance where the dress code required a button-down shirt.  He arrived in sweatpants, collarless shirt, and hoodie; he was turned away for failing to meet the dress requirements of the dance.  He was taken to the office where his parents were called to bring him a change of clothes so he could attend.   He is comfortable in the sweat outfit, not comfortable in the required attire, so rather than change he went home in tears.  His mother posted the story on Facebook, and soon there was a call for the community to support the student by wearing his favorite color one day.  Then a do-good group and the parents hosted an alternate school dance where he could wear the sweatpants outfit and the other students came to celebrate him.  The school has apologized, called it a miscommunication, and vows to work with the parent in the future. 

The story was presented sympathetically to the student, with the underlying message that the school was somehow uncaring or wrong.  The newsreader who presented the story was all choked up with sympathy for the boy and for the wonderful people who made the alternate prom happen and the community that came together to support the child.  This was clearly supposed to be a feel-good story.

So, what’s wrong with this you say – a student gets to have his own dance and wear what he wants where it is all about him.  Well, here’s one thing that is wrong:  we are sending the message that if you don’t like the rules then that’s OK, you don’t have to follow them and indeed you will be rewarded for not doing so, for being upset about being told you must.  We are sending the message that when something happens that one doesn’t like all they need is to post on social media and they will be loved.  The parents are sending the message that the child, because of his autism - because of who he is - is some sort of victim.  And, the school, with its apology, suggests that its rules are really meaningless and that it’s OK to violate them. 

What should have happened? First, the school, rather than apologize for a reasonable rule, should have simply reaffirmed this reasonable dress code and that students who want to come to the dance must indeed dress as required.  They are sorry if some don’t like it, but that’s the way it is. If not in place, they might create some procedure for requesting an exemption.   In reacting this way, the school would be teaching students that life is filled with choices and those choices come with consequences.  Here, there was a dress code.  The student had the choice to comply and go to the dance or not comply and miss the dance.  When he was not dressed appropriately he had the opportunity to change and attend the dance.  Students would begin to learn that life is filled with rules and obligations, and that while one is free to follow or not follow those rules, each course of action results in its own consequences.  That is, the school could teach the lesson that we don’t always get to have everything our way and do everything we want.  And not having things our way, choosing not to follow reasonable rules, does not make one a victim.

And, the parents might also have taken a different approach.  Since the student was in middle school his parents were likely (or should have been) still quite involved in his plans for the dance.  They would have known the dress code and should have told their son what he was required to wear.  If he regularly has trouble wearing clothes other than those he is comfortable in, then they should have taken extra steps to understand if any dress code was in force and if it would allow him to wear his choice of clothes.  If they thought the dress code was unreasonable, here was a wonderful opportunity to teach their son how one can have a dialog with a rule-maker and advocate for a change to a rule (and also an opportunity to perhaps teach that while there are ways to challenge rules, one does not always win that challenge).   What they should not have done was wait until their son was turned away and then make their child into some sort of victim on social media while they participated in attracting media attention to him as they sought to make him somehow so special that even reasonable rules should not get in the way of anything to which he (or they) feels entitled.

Once aware of the requirement for a button-down shirt, and, if unable to get it changed or an exemption for their son, if the parents thought their son would be too uncomfortable or if he was unwilling to comply with the code, then they should have gently explained to him that those were the rules and if he could not follow them then he would not be able to go to the dance.   If they wanted to have a party on their own with whatever dress code they liked that is fine, but it should not be billed as an alternate prom, presented in order to excuse the student’s failure to comply with the rules, and certainly should not be funded or sponsored by people who are in essence supporting the idea that rules are not important and if you are not comfortable with them you needn’t follow them and may also be rewarded for not doing so.

Of course it is easy to sympathize with the student and his parents.  He is autistic; the mother wants him to fit in but he has difficulty doing so.  As would any mother, she wants him to be happy.  But a parent’s job is far more than just providing immediate happiness or gratification for one’s child. Aren’t there times when even an autistic child will need to follow a simple dress code?  And, if the child cannot do so, then isn’t it important that he understand that because of who he is he will not always be able to participate in some things?  (And no, this is not cruel and not biased against the autistic.  It is realistic.  We all have things we can and cannot do and we need to learn that in life our abilities will to some extent guide our choices and that with our choices come consequences.  Hence, if we choose not to meet a particular requirement because it is uncomfortable for us or because we just don’t want to, then we need to understand that there will be consequences of not meeting that requirement.  And those consequences should not include a production of an activity replicating the one that our choice to not meet the requirements caused us to miss).

Sadly, what this story really underscores is that today we seem to be teaching not responsibility, understanding, and cooperation,  but selfishness, victim-hood, and entitlement.  A selfishness that includes support for violating rules and condemning those who imposed the rules in the first place.  These were not unreasonable rules; many schools have dress codes for their dances and proms and a button-down shirt is certainly not out of the mainstream of such requirements.   Here was an opportunity to teach how one can go about getting rules changed; here was an opportunity to teach how to deal with life’s difficult situations without playing the victim.  Do we really want to teach our children that they can always do whatever they want, ignore whatever rules they want and yet still have that for which the rules were a prerequisite?  That approach to life, that focus on immediate happiness, gratification, and entitlement is more suited to a toddler than to an adult.  Unfortunately, we already see this sort of mindset in many adults, and many more who continue to foster it.  Parents, schools, and society at large need to find the backbone to teach and demand a less selfish and more mature way of interacting with the world.

Reflections on Earth Day and the March for Science

I love Earth Day.  I participated in celebrations on the first Earth Day in 1970.  Since then I have tried to do my part daily for the earth (my cloth shopping bags are close to 40 years old and still going!). Every year on Earth Day a variety of groups get together to celebrate this wonderful planet that we call home, to share new innovations and ways to protect Mother Earth, and to come together as one people together on one planet.  It is always a wonderful day, a day for everyone, a day that, until now, has not really been politicized.

That is why I am so saddened this year by the March for Science taking place on Earth Day.  I have nothing against science or with scientists standing up for what they do. Indeed, much of Earth Day has always been about science.   But, I always thought that science was the one thing that would not become politicized.  But no, we now have a March (also referred to as a Protest) that, while it may have some good underlying intentions, is being commingled with a political movement and co-opting Earth Day.

There are many things wrong with this.  First, this politicization of Earth Day will prevent the attendance of many who might otherwise come out to celebrate and learn about the Earth (and in the process learn about and appreciate science).  Earth Day will become just another day to march or protest for or against some political cause, to chant and scream and to hate anyone who disagrees with one’s viewpoint on whatever.  It will engage some in the now political cause, but it will also alienate many others.  Earth Day this year is not a day for everyone to come together and celebrate Earth; rather, it is a day to take political sides.

Beyond my sadness in losing the essence of Earth Day, is my sadness in losing the objectivity associated with science.  When science begins to align itself with or against one party or another, it loses at a minimum its appearance of objectivity.  Can one really trust the hypotheses or reasoning of a scientist who is clearly aligned with, perhaps even a spokesperson for, one particular point of view?  By creating this sort of question, the scientists may be defeating their own purpose behind the march – to assert the importance of science and its objectivity.  If they create a climate in which science is open to question for its lack of objectivity, then they have weakened, not strengthened science.

But, beyond creating the question of objectivity, there is the deeper question of whether, when one is so personally and deeply involved in and committed to a particular point of view, that person can in fact be the independent and objective thinker that science requires.  We all, even scientists, are human.  Much as we might like to think that we can be completely objective, we all have beliefs and biases that to some extent affect our lives.  The stronger these beliefs and commitments, the stronger is their influence.  Hence, if one becomes an avid and active believer and advocate of a particular political view then that will have to in some way affect that person’s thinking.  And, when that thought is applied to scientific examinations and conclusions it is indeed possible that the scientific thinking will no longer have the objectivity necessary to support strong and valid scientific conclusions.

This is not to say that scientists cannot or should not hold political views or that they should not express those views.  But to coalesce themselves into a single group with a clear political voice biased in one particular way does seem to interfere in some way with their necessary scientific objectivity.

So, I will miss attending Earth Day celebrations this year; I do not want to attend a political rally nor do I wish to become involved in a political protest or debate at what should be a unified celebration of Earth.  I hope that next year Earth Day will once again become a peaceful and apolitical celebration where people of all political persuasions are welcome and where everyone can come together to share, discuss, and learn what we can do to protect this wonderful planet that we call home.

Just Whom Should a Representative Represent Anyway?

So, I succumbed to the hype and around the time the Georgia polls were closing last night I checked for the results of the special election for U.S. Representative for the 6^th Congressional District, the election to replace Republican Tom Price who is now in President Trump’s Cabinet. 

The initial results were reflected in ecstatic posts by Democrats and the media.  With one percent of the vote in, Democrat Jon Ossoff had over 60%.  Wow, they were going to show that Democrats had new found power, that the referendum on Trump successfully proved that the nation was overwhelmingly anti-Trump.  They elatedly proclaimed that this was a sign that times were changing and the Republicans were in decline, etc., etc.  When I checked back again later the elation seemed to have quieted; the news feeds were far less busy.   There were comments about things being very close, and discussions (if Tweets can be called discussions) about whether this would go to a runoff.  Later still, the verdict was in:  yes, it would go to a runoff. Things were then very quiet, but only briefly.  Then the headlines started telling me that this should scare the Republicans and Trump, that it is a wake-up call to them about how unpopular they and their president are, etc., etc.

Now, let’s just consider the facts of this special election to fill a seat vacated by a Republican.  To win, a candidate needed to get more than 50% of the vote, otherwise there would be a runoff.   A number of Republicans (11) threw their hats in the ring, probably hoping, but not expecting to exceed 50%, but rather to lead that pack and become the top Republican candidate in the runoff election. (The runoff does not require the two runoff candidates to be of opposing parties; rather, it simply pits the top two vote-getters against one another).   Jon Ossoff also threw his hat in the ring, and, as a progressive Democrat, he quickly became the hope of the Democrats to not just win the seat and not just take a previously Republican seat, but to show the world that Trump was in decline. 

The Democrats decided to make this election a referendum on President Trump.  They poured over eight million dollars into Mr. Ossoff’s campaign.  That money came from individuals outside of the District and most from outside of the State.  But, then, Mr. Ossoff himself does not reside in the district that he is running to represent.

So, what was this election about.  Sadly, the Democrats and the media chose to make it not about the people who will be represented by the winner of the election.  It was not about the needs of the district or the people who reside there.  Nor was it really about the candidates.  All the arguments presented seemed to be those of the Democrats against President Trump.  Did these folks forget what the job of Mr. Ossoff would be if elected?  Do they even know anything at all about the district or its people?  Do they care?

The job of a Congressperson is to represent the people of his or her district.  It is not to simply spout a general party line against the incumbent president.  Of course, if they are a member of the opposition party they will likely have more disagreement than agreement with the policies of an administration headed by the other party.  But their JOB is to represent their people, to listen to their concerns and be THEIR VOICE in Washington, not simply the voice of their party’s playbook.

Maybe this election was not a wake-up call at all.  Maybe it was just that there were several Republican candidates who split the Republican vote, while one highly funded Democrat was able to get a larger percentage of opposing votes for himself.   Maybe now that there will be a runoff, the two candidates, one Democrat, one Republican, will focus on what they can bring to the job of representing the people of Georgia’s 6^th Congressional District, instead of what they or their party thinks of President Trump.  I hope that the people demand that, and that they elect the person who is best suited to be their voice in Washington, regardless of that person’s party.  I hope they vote for the person, not one or the other party.

Maybe it is the politicians and the media who need the wake-up call – a call to remind them that elections are not just about proving some grand point that the presidential election result was some sort of mistake and the people have now changed their minds.  Maybe they need to be reminded that an election for a Congressional seat is about who can best understand and represent the people of the district being represented.  I realize that letting it be simply a local election involving local issues does not create the hype for a great story that the media is constantly seeking.  But, really, while whichever voice is chosen will have some larger consequences in Washington, the bottom line is that it is about the representation of the people located in District 6.  

As is often said, “all politics are local.”  While those local politics have national and international ramification, to turn every election into a referendum on the president is to ignore the people who make up the electorate and our democracy.  Elections are not just about winning to prove a point.  They are about governing and finding the best people for that job, regardless of party.  If we could just remember that, if we could get rid of the us vs. them, our party is good and theirs is bad mentality, if we could remember that a U.S Representative represents the people and not the party, this country would be in far better shape.

I stand with Arturo Di Modica

I agree with artist Arturo Di Modica, the creator of Charging Bull, that Fearless Girl should be removed.  I agree that Fearless Girl interferes with the artistic image of Charging Bull; it has become impossible to view Charging Bull without having that view interfered with by Fearless Girl.

It is no secret that I find Fearless Girl offensive and a poor representative of the power of women (see http://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2017/03/fearless-girl.html).  While Di Modica’s statue is fully capable of standing on its own, the Fearless Girl only exists because of the Charging Bull.  Not only does this demean women as being somehow incapable of defining themselves and rather only being capable of being defined by another (in this case a male), it also shows the lack of artistic capability in the sculptor and sculpture itself.

Di Modica’s statue is original.  It stands on its own.  It reflects the artistic and creative vision of the artist.  In contrast, the sculptor who created Fearless Girl (Kristen Visbal) did not create a work of art that can stand on its own but rather had to appropriate the work of another as part of her presentation. She chose to create a statue that is fully intended to and does interfere with the work and the creative dynamic of another artist.  She likely did this for both political and financial gain.  But the act, like the sculpture itself, shows enormous disrespect for another artist and his work.

Let the Fearless Girl statue be placed where it can stand on its own.  That would be the true test of it as a work of art, just as it would be the true test of the supposedly strong female that it allegedly represents.  But, sadly, this supposed representative of women only gets its power via the destruction of another – in this case a beautiful statue that the current women’s movement has changed into some sort of representative of their hatred for males.

It is sad when a political movement and its supporters (including the mayor of NYC) believe that it is OK to destroy people and things outside of the movement to make a point.  Yet, it is reflective of our society today which is so full of hate and blame.  I realize that art has, throughout history, been used to make political statements.  But usually that is done without interfering with, usurping, or destroying the work of other artists. 

Di Modica has filed a lawsuit.  I hope that he wins.  I hope that Fearless Girl is moved.  If she is really the great work of art that many claim, then she should have her own space where she can stand and be viewed on her own.  If she needs a bull to exist, then let her artist create that bull, or whatever else is necessary.  Do not appropriate the work of another artist, destroying that work’s dynamic and originality, in an effort to support a work that apparently cannot stand on its own.

Wishing for Quality, not Attack, Journalism

Tuesday evening the major networks began their nightly news, spending close to five of their 30-minute programs, on what they apparently believed was such a major story that it deserved to hold the lead position.  That story was that Sean Spicer, President Trump’s Press Secretary, was “in trouble”:  the report was that he had compared Hitler favorably to Assad, that he had attacked Jews, during Passover no less! And that he should be fired.  They played the tape from the news conference.  Then they told us that Spicer “attempted to clarify” and finally the story ended with the fact that Spicer had apologized. 

So, then, it really was not much of a story.  Moreover, any normal person with any common sense at all understood that Spicer was simply attacking the horror of Assad’s random and indiscriminate use of bombs loaded with chemical weapons.  Period.

But, the news and the anti-Trump brigade saw an opening and viciously attacked.  Meanwhile, they wasted valuable time out of their 30 minutes.  Time when they could have been providing actual news.  After all, it’s not like nothing else is going on – China, North Korea, Russian support of Assad, good economic news at home, etc., etc.  Surely any of those was more deserving of the lead story position.

Andrea Mitchell claims that it is the job of the news to be adversarial.  Apparently others in the profession agree and agree to the extent that they believe adversarial attacks of little significance are more important than major news stores.  Funny, I always thought the job of the news was to inform us, to give us the facts so that we could use our own minds to assess those facts.  How silly of me, and how wrong that belief has become in this day and age.

This all might be entertaining or funny if it weren’t so sad and so detrimental to our country.  By failing to inform us the media is participating in creating an uninformed electorate, that is, a people who are ripe for picking by those more interested in tearing our democracy apart than in supporting it.  By clearly picking sides in political debates, by taking positions that affiliate with a particular political party, the media easily becomes a propaganda arm of that party.  And by acting as attack dogs against individuals, the media models a behavior better left on some elementary school playground.

It is becoming more and more difficult to watch the news, and even more difficult to take it seriously.  I hope that others feel this way, because that means they must realize that what they are getting on the news is neither a total nor an objective picture of what is going on.  I have no idea what, if anything, can make the news return to quality journalism, but I hope that it does happen, and sooner rather than later, because without access to quality journalism and a fair and objective media, we lose the informed electorate which is a cornerstone of our democracy:  And, when the cornerstone crumbles and falls, the entire building that it supports loses stability.

Misogyny and Responsibility (or lack thereof)

In the news recently was Hillary Clinton’s statement that misogyny played a role in her loss to President Trump.  This would seem to be her latest scapegoat, and, while it would be easy to spend this entire post talking about her and her list of the many blameworthy people or ideas that she asserts caused her loss, what I want to talk about is, more generally, the inability of so many today to take responsibility.  Hillary and her lengthening list of blame is a prime example of someone who cannot do that – cannot admit that she herself may have been responsible, at least in part, for her loss.

Sadly, this type of behavior is not uncommon.  Whatever is wrong, whatever failures one has, seem to be most frequently proclaimed to be the fault of someone else.  Whatever happened to being able to say something like, “yes, it was me, I messed up”?  Is everyone so afraid to admit that they are not perfect, but simply human?  Think about how many times you have heard someone whose job application has been rejected place the reason for the non-hire onto some sort of discrimination against themselves (They didn’t want a woman; they didn’t want a person of color; they wanted a person of color; they had to hire a woman; they wanted someone with different political views; they wanted someone older, I was too old for them, etc., etc.). It is far rarer to hear someone take some personal responsibility (I didn’t really prepare well for the interview; my abilities really didn’t match those of the person hired; etc.). 

Similar blame/failure to take responsibility is seen in more abstract situations and as a motivating force behind many activist movements, especially those based on identity.  The women’s movement blames men; minority movements blame whites or white privilege; people not living the life they would like to lead blame those who are; Republicans blame Democrats and vice versa, etc., etc. 

All this blaming reveals and results in several problems.  One is that it is divisive.  When one’s own failure is made the fault of someone else, that someone else becomes the “bad guy,” someone to dislike or even hate.  That dislike and hatred builds into anger, a very destructive emotion.  When groups of people build an anger against another group, not only is there very little likelihood of understanding, there is also a strong likelihood of developing a mob mentality that is totally incapable of seeing the individuality of the people within the groups.  Again, this sort of thinking is destructive.

A second problem is that when one blames others rather than taking responsibility for their own acts, they do not have the motivation to look within themselves and consider how they can improve.  Hence, they are much more likely to repeat the same failures and never succeed to their goal.  The same is true of the many activist movements: if they simply base their movement on blame and hatred of some other group they are less likely to take the actions necessary to actually improve their own situation.  Moreover, rather than empowering the group’s members, such approach demeans them by sending the message that the members themselves are incapable of success. 

If we are to grow as people and as a nation, if we are to reach whatever goals we may have, the first step is to take responsibility for our actions and, when our steps falter, when we fail, we must accept responsibility for that failure.  Then, we must self-assess, not blame; we must consider how we can do it better next time, take the action necessary to improve, and move forward.  Then, when we succeed, we can take responsibility for that success as well.

So, back to Hillary Clinton.  To her, and to the many like her who play the blame game, I say, “grow up, put on your big girl pants, and take responsibility.”  And, to the many movements based on identity and blame I say, “Look to what you yourselves can do to improve your situation, rather than building anger against and hatred for those on the outside; empower, rather than demean those within your group.”  

I am not sure why taking responsibility is such a difficult task today.  Perhaps it stems from the coddling that begins with things like every child must get a prize so that no one's feelings are hurt. Perhaps it stems from a fear of competition.  Perhaps it stems simply from an insecure need to be perfect.  Regardless of the why, it is time for individuals and society to stop the blame game and become accountable.  Such accountability, self-awareness, and individual responsibility are, I believe, among the necessary ingredients for the better society that so many are seeking.