Oh, for the days when we didn't have to debate whether the extremes of our amendments were really necessary, and we could just have all of them and play nicely with one another, but alas... the idea of great power requiring great responsibility is out the window with the schizophrenic vitriol of both sides.
As a Parkinson's advocate, I need to be accurate of my experiences. I need to share my credentials (guy with PD sharing the knowledge I learn). I need to make sure I'm not spreading B.S. to people and being honest of the products I endorse (I get paid for nothing - though I did get an umbrella and cooler bag from Toyota, but I would support them for free). I can be funny and show human feeling, but I shouldn't use it to be divisive to my target audience. I also need to call out evil speech, but not insult it.... see Rush and Michael J. here.
When I think of Michael J. Fox, I see a man of class and commitment. If anything, he shows how we can face the enemy while educating and advocating against a guy who pretty much is a comedian talking the news in a full-on attack mode. I'm sure that it's possible to find people like him on the left. Michael Moore comes to mind. Even in a political world, Comedy Central could only sustain one nightly hate the Right show (and that 1 is terrible without Jon Stewart).
Nevertheless, I find myself more and more tuned out to the news. Not some of it... Almost all of it, and I'm a major history loving guy.
On one end, I see an endless anti-Trump swamp of news that's getting so redundant, it's hard to sift through it to find substance to judge (mind you, I'm a Never Trump). On the other end, I see an endless parade of counter attacks that feel just as rabid. It's like they get off on hating one another. It's now so bad that I can't read the news (though some parts slip through).
What's wrong with that? Is this part of the mission? Divide and conquer? Bait and switch?
Sadly, we've got nobody in the middle to support in the next election so that the 50% in the middle can push out a potential extreme candidate from either side's swamps.
I'm not asking for a compromise on the unethical. I'm looking for someone willing to cross the aisle and talk about larger issues that can be made better for all of us.
I sit here and think of my college law professor Bill H. (a brilliant man and former superintendent) talking about how most Constitutional cases are based on people who are pretty messed up (I've paraphrased his words a bit, but in his grandfatherly way, he implied that).
Ernesto Miranda, perfect example. You have the right to be read your rights because police were overzealous in obtaining his confession for rape and kidnapping. As he already had a history of rape, assault, and burglary, he was no angel. Obviously, as an ethical society, we want to be right in how we get it right, so now, our Constitution has been clarified to the point where the suspect who was later investigated for knifing and killing Miranda at a later date was given his rights (though he was never charged).
As a writer for Parkinson's (and sometimes the environment and education) I sit here and think about the power of writing. Opinions are a good thing, but anyone can have whatever one he or she wants, and in a world that mirrors Mike Judge's Idiocracy too closely, that's a dangerous thing. Sandy Hook conspiracy... perfect example.
I think about fact checking, and that doesn't matter anymore in a world that is just looking for what they want to see as it is flashed in headlines for clickbait.
Here, I think of Time Magazine. They have an emotional and powerful issue with immigrant families. People are upset that kids are being detained without their parents. Go figure.
Now, we get into the argument of illegal and undocumented, but that's not the point here. I'm not here to argue that since this is about contemplating civility and reality in news.
The point is selling a cause to get people to buy it for its truth, not its lip gloss.
If you can tell me that you as a parent wouldn't try to give your kid, who is living in a really rough environment like a lot of places South of the Border, a better life, then you're lying. Why wouldn't you want kiddo to be given the opportunities of wealth, healthcare, education, safety, possibility, and dare I suggest an opportunity to take a Caribbean vacation and not just watch it from outside the compound? Consider that for many people in these conditions, they have nothing to lose. Think about how they get here - they pay off unsavory types for a dangerous trip that they may not survive to come to a country with no work skills other than minimum wage jobs they must do in secret since they're not "legal." Then, they support family back home while living in hiding here.
Who does that? If you were the father or mother, would you make the trip if you could afford it? I'm sorry if you don't like the "put yourself in another person's shoes" hypothetical game. This is real. If you think your kids of all ages wouldn't obediently follow you on your journey to wherever, ask yourself why young kids wouldn't follow their parents on this journey to survival as well.
Mind you, this isn't about whether we should or shouldn't allow this. It's that this is real, and it's happening now. What are we going to do about it?
This doesn't mean we let everyone in, but can we make it more possible and less dangerous? Besides, Americans love the benefits of cheap labor. That's why we've been allowing this for years. These people often do the jobs we Americans are "above" doing. Our system lets this happen. Why not work together to help one another and provide better options? There has to be a good solution to make something happen other than stopping it because "they'll all vote Democrat since that's who wants them in here."
Besides, lots of people are immigrating legally and illegally from all over the place to all over the place. Remind me to tell you about the time I got detained going back to Britain after my time in the Air Force, as I (and my girlfriend at the time) were grilled on "my intentions" (and that was pre 9.11).
But anyway... major crisis... both sides shaking their heads... find a solution... wrap this up nicely.
What does Time do? No, it's not the endless op-ed pieces painted like articles that appear any time anyone has an accusation about anything a border guard might have done, and sadly, they are everywhere (Why? Because people are listening to what it's assumed they might want to hear.). Instead, they took a picture that has nothing to do with the story and made it a cover story photo.
Thus, for those people whose issue is based around amnesty / human rights, you just lost credibility to a side that thinks this is somehow OK for a first lady to wear. Mind you, this is also the mindset that gave us a candidate who couldn't lose until she did.
Is it true that some people only care because Trump is doing the opposite of it? Yes. Social justice keyboard warriors and their right leaning equivalents (who did it to Obama) are empowered by hating their opponents just because. Many of them will forget this cause just like they did the Ice Bucket Challenge and Elian Gonzalez.
That said, other people really do care, and for this, they shouldn't lose headway for the sake of cheap headlines based on a foundation of poop (THIS APPLIES TO ANY CAUSE).
Now, I get why the Red Hen did what they did (I wouldn't have - I would have posed for a picture next to her and made goofy eyes so I could showcase it on Facebook). Employees who felt particularly attacked by policies of the administration (homosexual rights) felt it went against their values to serve her. Fair enough. I get that, too. It's easy to counter hate with hate. Like Bartleby, they preferred not to put up with her. The manager chose to support them. Fair enough. If you don't want to come to the restaurant because of this policy, that's your choice and your right.
Just make sure it's the right restaurant you're attacking, and if you're told it's the wrong restaurant, apologize, move on, delete your comment, and take a "Net Etiquette" course.
Also, in this case, the boss chose to see her business as a "person with values and ideals." That's her right, and a very modern business kind of thing to do. I get it. We have to stand for something and so should her business. Because of this, I'm giving 10% of my income to the Human Fund.
However, when it comes to business entities, I was of the opinion that it wasn't left acceptable to see a business as a person.
Alas, I digress.
The point is that people have the right to protest injustice. Cool. Do your thing to support your thing as long as it doesn't involve "chicken poop" (this is real, and it's not protected speech) or hurting others.
Just make sure it's the the right restaurant if you're going to tell them you're not coming to their restaurant anymore. Don't be surprised if they look at you and think, "OK, I'll have a completely new audience to support me as soon as you go." It worked for the Dixie Chicks for at least a little while.
Anyway... yeah... learn to use the right search engine the right way. Apparently, a lot of people still don't know how to Google search. See THIS and THIS.
Nevertheless, the anti-Red Henners know how to celebrate Jack Phillips' right to refuse service to a gay couple based on his beliefs, which weren't just about cherry-picking Leviticus to justify one option not to serve one type of person. Apparently, his religious views beat the litmus test because he won in the final battle 7-2. That's pretty surprising when it comes to a lot of Leviticus claims in 2018.
In the end, the point here isn't to argue which side is right or spending all day being annoyed with hypocrisy. The solution you choose is your choice based on your values (and mine is based on mine). This is still America, and we are given the right to believe the world is flat (in a B.O.B., not Tom Friedman kind of way), even if it's not.
The first point here is that you get it right. Do your research. Challenge the other side respectfully. Don't lose your class by being a pain in the butt. Don't slander or libel. Don't yell. Don't lie. Your job is to be Jackie Robinson. When we see ANTIFA and Anonymous, they are warriors, vigilantes, and thugs. Who respects that? When we see the dogs and hoses turned on the protesters in the 1960s, we see martyrdom. Who wants to allow for that?
Think about it; which side stands for something real instead of replacing intolerance with hate and violence?
The other point is that the new so uncool thing that transferred from Left to Right is going after people's right to work. If you don't want to support Phillips or the Red Hen, fine. If you think one stupid act by a teenager / adult is enough to put them out of work for life, then you don't get it.
But no... what matters instead? The only thing that matters is B.S. partisan politics and destroying a person just because. We make someone else suffer to justify our uptight self-important B.S. Too cool, dude. From the days of taking the attack to those who take the attack to them (Joe the Plumber), we've moved quite nicely in social media land. Anyone can hate / slander anyone in any way that he or she can imagine.
It's like the tweet response is either the unlimited posts of E.D. medications I have to delete from this site or some troll is hating someone else for something somewhere online.
That's bad enough, but now people are changing the question to a complete lack of sense..
"I know you're the wrong person, but you didn't answer the question, so you're in cahoots. Tell me now! If you don't agree with me, you are just as evil!"
Sadly, to ignore it is to allow it to fester, which is why we get conspiracies on Sandy Hook, Obama's birth certificate, and everything Alex Jones advocates.
Which leaves us in conclusion.
For Pete's sake, learn to discuss things civilly. Stand for something. Be ethical. Be respectful, and turn off the microphones on those who can't.
Better yet, just tune out all of the news and live life in a way that makes your immediate world better. Replace the babysitters with independent adults looking to work together.