courtesy of my blog: http://cjferrara.blogspot.com/
So, Juan Williams, a reporter for NPR, was recently fired. See, earlier, he was a guest on the O'Reilly Factor, and in a discussion about terrorism, and mosques, and such; he said, "I mean, look, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
Fox immediately jumped on it declaring this a free-speech issue. Fox News has a tendency to do this often. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck often talk about how they lose sponsors because of their opinions expressed on the air, and how that's a violation of free speech. Remember Dr. Laura and Sarah Palin saying that Dr. Laura resigned because she is not free to express her views? It wasn't because virtually everyone got pissed when she said the N-word 23 times, was it?
I think the mistake here is a lack of true understanding of the first amendment. The above people and others seem to believe that free speech means that you can say anything you want without consequence. And that isn't true. The first amendment says that Congress shall make no LAW infringing the freedom of speech. In other words, the government cannot punish you for what you say. If Juan Williams or Dr. Laura had been arrested for what they said, then THAT would be a violation of their freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech works best when it works like the free market. For example, Don Imus has the right to call the Rutgers Women's Basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hoes." Imus' sponsors have the right to be offended by this and pull their advertising from the show. Al Sharpton has a right to complain about this to the people Imus works for, and promise that he and his organization will not be listening to the network or supporting the sponsors who advertise on the station. He also has the right to say that to the sponsors, who also, in an attempt to continue having a business, have the right to pull advertising from the show. CBS, who used to employ Imus, has a right to try and get these sponsors back by suspending Imus for a period of a few months. I have the right to not like CBS for caving to politics in this way, and Imus has the right to feel unfairly judged.
Nazis have a right to march and spread their hatespeech through my neighborhood, and I, in turn, have a right to call them assholes as they pass. As soon as someone throws a punch, THEN someone has violated the law, and they're wrong.
When everyone excercises their own freedom of speech, the real idiots start to emerge, and we can all make an informed choice about who we chose to listen to, follow, believe and support.
The holiday season is coming soon, so I'm sure we'll hear about the guy who was fired from Wal-mart for greeting customers with "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays." Wal-mart has the right to set its own standards of behavior of its staff. If it's store policy that you help customers find the bathroom, and you instead send them to women's wear, well, then they can fire you. If it's store policy that you greet customers with the all-inclusive "Happy Holidays" and you defiantly insist on "Merry Christmas," well, then you're defying store policy, and they have the right to fire you. Is this rule just? Probably not. But they have the right to do it, and if you don't like it you have the right to say so, and boycott the store.
In every scenario, the things we say have consequences. When you have freedom of speech, you run the risk of offending someone with your speech. If you are not prepared for the consequences of such an offence, then watch what you say. We often hear this rule as "Don't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre." Because if you do, you may start a riot which will hurt people. By the way, if there IS a fire in a crowded theatre, then, please, yell "Fire!" Then you can justify your words and live with the consequences.
NPR has the right to fire Juan Williams for whatever reason they want. Maybe his words were evidence that he's not that bright, and being NPR, they want to uphold the standard of intelligence in their staff, and that's why he was fired. Fox has a right to hire Williams and tout him around to every news show on the network praising his bravery and heroism. And I have the right to think that's stupid, and to continue NOT watching Fox News. What a wonderful country!
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Gay Robot and politics.
courtesy of my blog: http://cjferrara.blogspot.com/
I typically address these blogs towards people on the opposing side of an issue, in a futile attempt to try and sway them to my way of thinking. Today I'd like to address those who are ON my side of Gay Issues. We tend to approach these kinds of political and social issues without empathy for how the other side views the issue. So, I'd like to clarify.
Nick Swardson has a character on his new sketch comedy show, (which sucks, by the way,) called the Gay Robot. I was first introduced to this character on an Adam Sandler Album, "Shhh, Don't Tell."
The Gay Robot, being a computer, is a whiz at remembering sports stats, and calculating things. He hangs out with a clearly heterosexual group of guys who watch football. They love the Robot because he's an endless source of information. While hanging out, the Gay Robot, will subtly yet explicitly come onto the guys, asking them to engage in sex with him. "Oh, yeah, the Giants have been losing a lot of games this season, but their quarterback still has a 5-0 record, so they can still win. Can I suck your dick?" The guys are cool and politely remind the Gay Robot that they are straight and they don't want to. Throughout the skit, the Gay Robot continues to try several approaches to getting some love, even trying to manipulate them. "Guys, seriously, I run on Semen. Without it I could die."
This is how many conservatives and people who oppose Gay Rights view homosexuals. They believe... REALLY BELIEVE... that they can't control themselves and think of nothing but sex, and are constantly trying to "convert" straight people. Now, anyone who has actually MET a gay person knows that this could not be further from the truth. Why would anyone waste their time trying to pick up someone who has absolutely no interest in them? Not because they just "need to get to know you better," but because they are not even attracted to your gender. Does rape, misconduct or harassment ever happen? Sure, probably, but it is not the norm. The gay community is probably as offended by this stereotype as I was when my Sex Ed teacher in college called rape a "distinctly male behavior." To these conservatives, Gays are sexual deviants who want to victimize straight men.
The Three BIG gay issues this year are Gay Marriage, Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, and most recently the relentless bullying of gay youth.
Gay Marriage is NOT, I Repeat, NOT a sanctity of marriage issue. The Vatican handles matters of sanctity, the Presbytery, the Synagogue, the Ground Zero Mosque, but NOT the government. The Governor of your state, or your Senators do not have jurisdiction over the sanctity of shit! It's about the LEGALITY of marriage, and giving gay couples the 1500 individual LEGAL rights and privileges that come along with a marriage licence. Plain and simple, those who oppose gay marriage want to deny a minority group the basic rights and privileges afforded to the rest of us. Why? Because it would legitimize what gay people do; which, in their mind, is molest straight men into becoming gay.
The two big arguments supporting Don't Ask, Don't Tell are thus: 1) Gay men can't control themselves and will try to engage in activity with their fellow soldiers. See Above. If the other soldiers aren't gay, then no, they won't. Besides, isn't engaging in sexual misconduct ALREADY against the rules of the military? Well, isn't it? 2) They suggest that once the troops discover a person's gayness, they will give that person what Aaron Sorkin called a "Code Red." Don't Ask, Don't Tell is supposed to protect them. If you ever hear a conservative, republican, or tea-bagger say this, do me a favor: assume that they have no respect for our troops; because they clearly don't believe that they are disciplined enough to control themselves around someone that they hate. It's also assumed by these people that our Soldiers are inherently prejudiced and of such low character that they will not be able to resist bullying a gay soldier. They also presumably believe that a gay man, fully trained by the United States Military, is unable to handle himself in such a situation. Bitch, Please!
Bullying in ANY form is unacceptable, of course. I was a victim of bullying. I was a nerd, a musician, and a weakling. Other kids felt powerless, so they belittled me to make themselves feel better. Boys who are effeminate, tomboyish girls; they also make easy targets for bullies. Add to this the contempt that some parents have towards gays, which rubs off on the kids, and you've got viciousness that feels justified. Seriously, it's to the point where my students are afraid to sing "Don we now our Gay Apparel" in Deck the Hall. And worse, the victims hear the anti-gay rhetoric, and they feel as if the bullies are right. They need the support of us. They need their role models to stop incorrectly labeling them as deviants.
I can't solve all these problems, but I can make sure I don't vote for people who are prejudiced. I am starting to center my political views around just one ideal: Vote for Smart People. And if any candidate is on the other side of this issue, I consider them too stupid to serve in government.
I typically address these blogs towards people on the opposing side of an issue, in a futile attempt to try and sway them to my way of thinking. Today I'd like to address those who are ON my side of Gay Issues. We tend to approach these kinds of political and social issues without empathy for how the other side views the issue. So, I'd like to clarify.
Nick Swardson has a character on his new sketch comedy show, (which sucks, by the way,) called the Gay Robot. I was first introduced to this character on an Adam Sandler Album, "Shhh, Don't Tell."
The Gay Robot, being a computer, is a whiz at remembering sports stats, and calculating things. He hangs out with a clearly heterosexual group of guys who watch football. They love the Robot because he's an endless source of information. While hanging out, the Gay Robot, will subtly yet explicitly come onto the guys, asking them to engage in sex with him. "Oh, yeah, the Giants have been losing a lot of games this season, but their quarterback still has a 5-0 record, so they can still win. Can I suck your dick?" The guys are cool and politely remind the Gay Robot that they are straight and they don't want to. Throughout the skit, the Gay Robot continues to try several approaches to getting some love, even trying to manipulate them. "Guys, seriously, I run on Semen. Without it I could die."
This is how many conservatives and people who oppose Gay Rights view homosexuals. They believe... REALLY BELIEVE... that they can't control themselves and think of nothing but sex, and are constantly trying to "convert" straight people. Now, anyone who has actually MET a gay person knows that this could not be further from the truth. Why would anyone waste their time trying to pick up someone who has absolutely no interest in them? Not because they just "need to get to know you better," but because they are not even attracted to your gender. Does rape, misconduct or harassment ever happen? Sure, probably, but it is not the norm. The gay community is probably as offended by this stereotype as I was when my Sex Ed teacher in college called rape a "distinctly male behavior." To these conservatives, Gays are sexual deviants who want to victimize straight men.
The Three BIG gay issues this year are Gay Marriage, Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, and most recently the relentless bullying of gay youth.
Gay Marriage is NOT, I Repeat, NOT a sanctity of marriage issue. The Vatican handles matters of sanctity, the Presbytery, the Synagogue, the Ground Zero Mosque, but NOT the government. The Governor of your state, or your Senators do not have jurisdiction over the sanctity of shit! It's about the LEGALITY of marriage, and giving gay couples the 1500 individual LEGAL rights and privileges that come along with a marriage licence. Plain and simple, those who oppose gay marriage want to deny a minority group the basic rights and privileges afforded to the rest of us. Why? Because it would legitimize what gay people do; which, in their mind, is molest straight men into becoming gay.
The two big arguments supporting Don't Ask, Don't Tell are thus: 1) Gay men can't control themselves and will try to engage in activity with their fellow soldiers. See Above. If the other soldiers aren't gay, then no, they won't. Besides, isn't engaging in sexual misconduct ALREADY against the rules of the military? Well, isn't it? 2) They suggest that once the troops discover a person's gayness, they will give that person what Aaron Sorkin called a "Code Red." Don't Ask, Don't Tell is supposed to protect them. If you ever hear a conservative, republican, or tea-bagger say this, do me a favor: assume that they have no respect for our troops; because they clearly don't believe that they are disciplined enough to control themselves around someone that they hate. It's also assumed by these people that our Soldiers are inherently prejudiced and of such low character that they will not be able to resist bullying a gay soldier. They also presumably believe that a gay man, fully trained by the United States Military, is unable to handle himself in such a situation. Bitch, Please!
Bullying in ANY form is unacceptable, of course. I was a victim of bullying. I was a nerd, a musician, and a weakling. Other kids felt powerless, so they belittled me to make themselves feel better. Boys who are effeminate, tomboyish girls; they also make easy targets for bullies. Add to this the contempt that some parents have towards gays, which rubs off on the kids, and you've got viciousness that feels justified. Seriously, it's to the point where my students are afraid to sing "Don we now our Gay Apparel" in Deck the Hall. And worse, the victims hear the anti-gay rhetoric, and they feel as if the bullies are right. They need the support of us. They need their role models to stop incorrectly labeling them as deviants.
I can't solve all these problems, but I can make sure I don't vote for people who are prejudiced. I am starting to center my political views around just one ideal: Vote for Smart People. And if any candidate is on the other side of this issue, I consider them too stupid to serve in government.
Friday, October 8, 2010
30 issues in 30 days.
courtesy of my blog: http://cjferrara.blogspot.com/
On WNYC, New York's Public Radio station, Brian Lehrer is doing a feature called "30 issues in 30 days." Every day leading up to Election Day, he discusses with his guests a different issue facing this campaign, many of which are suggested by listeners. Today was issue #10: immigration. As I listened, I had a surge of indignant opinion, and conceived the strangest project ever imagined: I will attempt to formulate my own opinion about these 30 issues, and blog about them all.
Now, why on earth would I want to do this? And don't I have anything better to do? Well to answer the last question first, yes, I do. And yet, to answer the first: A) In an earlier blog entry, I insisted that smart voters should get out and vote intelligently and in a well informed manner. I'd be a hypocrite is I didn't do so myself as well; 2) I like to bring a unique political view to the debate, and in the process, reinforce that political view. Here's the problem.
As I started to write my opinions on the Immigration issue... I felt it. The IQ leaving my body. The Anger welling up. I was becoming political. I hate the feeling of being political.
As I finished my third paragraph, I found that I had already outlined the entire Pro- and Anti-immigration points of view. Now, what significant difference am I making if I'm simply re-iterating the debate that's being fed to us over the media over and over again. I wanted to bring a unique point of view; not merely regurgitate what's already out there. That's what they want. By "They" I mean those in political power. They don't want to actually solve the problem. They want us discussing the problem; perhaps to generate some misdirected hatred; and to sway us towards NOT thinking about the issue; and, instead, voting the way they tell us to. And as they said in the third Reich, "If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes perceived as the truth."
So, no, I'm not going to blog about all 30 issues. If something comes up that I feel I can present a unique perspective on, then I will. Otherwise, I'll focus on more important things, like my job, my family, my music, and my life.
For the Record, though.... The only difference between an illegal immigrant and a legal one is that the legal ones told the government that they're here. I believe that they should be allowed to register and become citizens or legal immigrants. If it were not for immigration, none of our ancestors would be here, and neither would we. There was opposition to Irish, Italian, and other immigrants back then, too. And it was based in prejudice back then, also.
On WNYC, New York's Public Radio station, Brian Lehrer is doing a feature called "30 issues in 30 days." Every day leading up to Election Day, he discusses with his guests a different issue facing this campaign, many of which are suggested by listeners. Today was issue #10: immigration. As I listened, I had a surge of indignant opinion, and conceived the strangest project ever imagined: I will attempt to formulate my own opinion about these 30 issues, and blog about them all.
Now, why on earth would I want to do this? And don't I have anything better to do? Well to answer the last question first, yes, I do. And yet, to answer the first: A) In an earlier blog entry, I insisted that smart voters should get out and vote intelligently and in a well informed manner. I'd be a hypocrite is I didn't do so myself as well; 2) I like to bring a unique political view to the debate, and in the process, reinforce that political view. Here's the problem.
As I started to write my opinions on the Immigration issue... I felt it. The IQ leaving my body. The Anger welling up. I was becoming political. I hate the feeling of being political.
As I finished my third paragraph, I found that I had already outlined the entire Pro- and Anti-immigration points of view. Now, what significant difference am I making if I'm simply re-iterating the debate that's being fed to us over the media over and over again. I wanted to bring a unique point of view; not merely regurgitate what's already out there. That's what they want. By "They" I mean those in political power. They don't want to actually solve the problem. They want us discussing the problem; perhaps to generate some misdirected hatred; and to sway us towards NOT thinking about the issue; and, instead, voting the way they tell us to. And as they said in the third Reich, "If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes perceived as the truth."
So, no, I'm not going to blog about all 30 issues. If something comes up that I feel I can present a unique perspective on, then I will. Otherwise, I'll focus on more important things, like my job, my family, my music, and my life.
For the Record, though.... The only difference between an illegal immigrant and a legal one is that the legal ones told the government that they're here. I believe that they should be allowed to register and become citizens or legal immigrants. If it were not for immigration, none of our ancestors would be here, and neither would we. There was opposition to Irish, Italian, and other immigrants back then, too. And it was based in prejudice back then, also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)