The ups and downs and uninteded consquences

[k j]

I don't usually post topics, but hey, it's April 14 and there's snow on the ground. ;-)
This is for everyone, but especially Sandnsea and Firespirit, two intelligent, articulate women who have said they may not be posting much here in the future.


The downside:
* We're a global village and we don't control the spotlight, corporate media does.
* Corporate media picks and choses among thousands of "OMG he/she said/did what?!" moments that are captured on camera (and we're all on camera and we all have cameras) and decide what the Outrage of The Week is going to be.
* We respond. We know we're being manipulated and we don't control the spotlight, but we respond anyway because the moment has touched a nerve.
* We tear each other up over differences of opinion while thousands of other moments of "OMG he/she said/did what?!" go unnoticed, because they're not in corporate media's spotlight. (For example, the on-going chaos of Katrina.)
* One person is scapegoated for all of our sins.
* The spotlight goes dark.
* We leave the area, bloody, fractured and sore, until the next time.

The upside:
* Despite the fact that we're not controlling the spotlight and what is publically discussed from week-to-week, an issue that has long festered in the public consciousness is brought to light. (Terry Shiavo/life support; Andrea Yates/post-partum psychosis & depression; Matthew Shephard/hate crimes; John Kerry/why are- which troops are- in Iraq; Trent Lott, Don Imus/Racism; and more.)
* We collectively weigh in on the issue.
* A decision is made.


Does anyone buy the rapper's (forget his name) argument that's it's okay for rappers to call neighborhood women 'hos but it's not okay to call women college athletes 'hos? I doubt it. The word 'ho has been brought to light, by the rappers, taken up and used in general, public conversation, by Don Imus, and the collective has weighed in and said, maybe not a great word to use. Maybe racist, sexist and all-in-all, not cool.

And in my thinking, an unintended (I assume) consequences of this is-- the word 'ho has been dispelled of its slamming intent.

And yes, I know Kerry's joke was misconstrued, but there was also an unintended consequence, we talked about who actually was in Iraq, and that's something we don't talk about much since we have an all-volunteer military.


Serving hot, fresh coffee and homemade (I didn't make it!) Cinnamon Strudel. Because, while we may not control the spotlight, we can control the outcome of the fray. :patriot:


Edited to add: I must have edited this thing 300 times for typos!
The thing is, we really aren't all going to agree, that's the only given we can count on. It isn't just words, it's what happens. But we can really truly agree to disagree without namecalling and/or "they need more personal growth" ing armchair analysting "you should" ing each other to death. Disagreement is the norm, learning from each other, getting along afterwards, that isn't the norm. And that's part of what I think the corporate media spotlight is designed to do- fracture us, splinter us into pieces, day-in and day-out. Screw that. I am not that easily manipulated. B-)

[ginnyinWI]

1. good thoughts.

In spite of the downside, the potential stepped-on toes and bloody noses, I do agree that it's important to discuss the issues. The world is moving so fast, and ideas and norms are constantly changing. You can no longer learn a set of values at your mother's knee and expect them to carry you throughout life. Different times call for different ideas, and it's a good and healthy thing to constantly re-examine and adapt what we believe and hold most important in life. So whether the MSM brings it up, or whether something surfaces out of the blogosphere, it's overall a good thing.

[k j]

9. It is!

I know that I need to learn to communicate with people that feel, think and experience life differently than I do-- without losing my temper. And if I do lose my temper, then I need to be able stuff my pride in a cubbyhole and go back to the table and see if I can find some value in what the people are saying.

I agree with you, the world is moving faster than I'll ever be able to catch up to. Re-examination is nearly a daily occurance!

[MarjorieG]

2. Blogging less with more activism.

I wrote below, in I'm Out, how we have so many long term issues begging for our help, with time we'd have available if not for the blog garbage and prom date angst over 2008. We'd all do better looking critically at the bills which are dishonestly passing for election reform.

As for the family bickering over Imus, I'm repeating, because I still believe with what I said last night, and too tired to think anew. I agree with KJ (as usual) that selective and hyped manipulation by the media does not serve us well for whatever the slight:

"As a postscript, I have a problem with the Imus scapegoating aspect. Like being involved in a stoning, mob violence, and then we're supposed to feel vindicated. Each group of people has a heightened sensitivity to remarks, which in this case were really bad and insulting to those heroic players, once made so very public. But so much has been said by so many which is worse, and more indicative of cruelty and sleaze. Limbaugh comes to mind. If the media circus produces across the board sensitivity, I could say the uproar worth it, but too many people were self-serving on this, and we're already pulled into the next soap opera. Television has an emotional trigger unlike anything else, that doesn't always illuminate. As we learned from 2004."

[k j]

8. I've yet to comment anywhere

about the Imus issue. Were his words hurtful, racist, sexist and did they harken back to the slavery days? Of course. And we stoned him in the public square for uttering them. Whether that was right or wrong or necessary or what the outcome of the stoning will be, either positive or negative, is all up to opinion, but the fact is, we scapegoated Imus for our sins. Was it necessary? I don't know. I know I had no control over the issue.

What I do have control over is whether or not I'm going to allow anyone else's opinions about this issue color how I learn from them in the future and the answer to that is a resounding, "NO."


I do hope those words, by being aired out as the dirty laundry they are, no longer have the power to hurt as they once did. In fact, if it would help diffuse the power of those words, I'll take to calling myself a nappy headed 'ho.

I do hope the experience can teach me more all about the power of the spotlight, and the danger of allowing myself to be manipulated into calling someone else names, which fractures my sense of union and puts me into an "me/them" mindset.

And I do hope that we, the side that calls itself progressive, will learn that we simply have to be the change we want to see, and that might include lowering the profile of or eliminating altogether the soapboxes of the Imus' and the Armandos' on our "side." If I wanted to fight like Rove, I'da joined his side. Simple as that.

[cadmium]

3. good points kj

We chat here because we appreciate Kerry's unusual basic decency, honesty, and liberal positions. Having disagreements over Imus and 2008 seem less important than me. I agree with you that telling people what they should or shouldnt believe is divisive. I like Kerry because he weighs positions and sentiments honestly--sometimes flawed and sometimes right - on but always with decency.

[k j]

10. Always with decency. :-)

[karynnj]

4. Beautiful, thoughtful words

that point out the silver linings. Your warning that we need to step back from the armchair analyzing is good. Posting here, we all come from different places and have different experiences.

Our values are similar to some degree only because we are here because we all found something unique in John Kerry. This group formed after the election when the odds were low he would be the candidate, so this was not a place for people just wanting to jump on the bandwagon or to be on the side of the winner.

But, on given issues, we can still be apart beacause there will be issues where each of us disagrees with Kerry or at least is in a slightly different place.

On Imus, I suspect one difference is whether you saw the showes earlier this week - I have strongly disliked him since the 1970s, but I also hate seeing very powerful forces acting to utterly destroy someone. This is what happened. In this case, the person being destroyed was far from perfect, but I saw him on somethings - like Walter Reed - as more genuine than many reporters and politicians. He deserved censure and possibly deserved losing his show, but I was offended by many people who suddenly acted as if they were saints and he was satan himself.

Had I not watched the show - because my husband put it on because he thought the interviews worth it - I would likely have reacted the same way. This is good and bad - I could say watching it made me more tolerant OR I could say that watching incredmentally made me less sensitive to the obnoxious statements made. Both statements would be true.

Oddly, both responses are consistent with why I admire Kerry. He himself has a definite sense of right and wrong which he acts and speaks by, but he also seems to try to find the humanity in others and is as slow to condemn people as he is fast to condemn bad actions.

[k j]

11. What you said,

seriously, all of it.

I used to listen to Imus off and on when we lived on the East Coast, but I like to listen to music on the radio, not shockjocks. ;-)
What he said, off-hand, on air, was repulsive, cruel, low-spirited, mean, divisive, racist. He was also publically stoned for using the same words people have used for years, and some of the stones came from the very people who've also used the words in off-hand and in public. Human being's ability to justify their behavior, me solidly included, is, I think astounding.

The entire experience was/is ugly. And maybe necessary. Who knows?


typos, sheesh, i'm the world's worst typist!

[Inuca]

5. Wonderful post KJ

That's all.

[k j]

12. Thanks,

someone had to say it. :-)

[wisteria]

6. Much to consider in your post! n/t

[k j]

7. Well,

it's just happened too many times-- a person disagrees with another person, and suddenly, they're demonized, labeled, re-defined and they are either sent off to- or they voluntarily head off to- Siberia.

Way back when I taught pre-school, one of the things we attempted to teach children and ourselves was the value of active listening; that is, how to use, "I feel/I hear" statements instead of, "You are/your approach is... fill in the blank with a negative word." The approach is as old as the hills and allows the person who is talking to do the defining, and not the other way around.

I'm right, you're wrong
My way or the highway
Might is right, God is on our side
Etc, etc. etc.
and on it goes, over and over again, sometimes dressed up in the guise of new-age psychobabble. Oy.

I say, screw it. I simply won't allow anyone but myself to define who I am. I want to speak only from my own experiences and let others speak for themselves and from their own experiences, which will, probably 110 percent of the time, be diffferent than what I've experienced. Otherwise, how am I going to learn? I mean, so what if someone else has an extremely focused point of view on a subject that I happen to hold a broad view on, or vice versa? I can probably learn a thing or two from their point of view, or maybe from their experience, even if I never take up and agree with their assessment of the issue.

To me, that's what stories are for. Experience translated. We are our stories.

[YvonneCa]

13. We have a rule in...

...my family: Family is always first, over politics.

In my family, there is a range of political opinion. We love to discuss political issues. Some voted for this administration. (Eeeeek!) :scared: We often disagree. But we won't ever put that debate or disagreement above the love we share for each other as members of our family.

We, here, also are a family. Different than the one we were born into...but with a common foundation of shared concern for our country, respect for the integrity of John Kerry, and activism to move our country toward a common goal: a bright future for our children and grandchildren. That we discuss and learn from each other how best to reach that goal is our STRENGTH. But I think it is important to never forget our obligation to this family/community.

Our obligation is to put family first, over our disagreements. Should we take time off when we need to...of course. Might we need to escape altogether at some point...maybe. But the rest of us here have an obligation to be a welcoming family in the event one who has left, decides to return home. :grouphug:

[k j]

14. Well said.

:-)

My family is the same way, my husband and I are both aces when it comes to arguing, and we've learned from one another. The hardest lesson to learn was not to think the other one was morally bankrupt, just because they held a different point of view! LOL

I grew up with in a politically diverse and politically engaged family as well. My siblings voted for GWB. We still love each other, we still get together as often as we can.

There's nothing wrong with passion, there's nothing wrong with a single-minded point of view or a broad as the universe point of view... the idea, to me, is to learn to stretch, hold the opposing thoughts in mind at the same time for the "wow" moment, and in that moment, know that I've grown a tiny bit, thanks to the other person's pov.

Love the thought that retreats are necessary and so is being here around the fire, in case anyone drops in "home." Aka, "keep the home fires burning."
:party:

[YvonneCa]

15. Always...

...keep those home fires burning. :)