‘NOW . . . ANYTHING GOES’

A Website headline says a lot about the current culture in the United States: “Whatever Happened to Private Sex?” Perhaps that could be also be stated as, whatever happened to secretive or secluded behavior?

Homosexuals wish for their passion to become recognized as normal behavior. But they also seek more. They wish to be labeled openly as a legitimate group, something akin to a nationality or race rather than an organization or class. Well, on second thought, none of those classifications seem to fit. Nonetheless, they wish recognition by society.

Heterosexuals need no such recognition because they are part and parcel of societal order.

Something is out of order for individuals to group together mainly because of a propensity to certain behavior practiced only in privacy because it is so personal. Heterosexuals generally are loath to speak of their distinguishing behavior because it is by nature a private act. Thus members of the latter category do not organize solely because of that shared characteristic. Why then should homosexuals coalesce because of private behavior?

Homosexuals go even further. They seek, by government action if necessary, to force heterosexuals to endorse their private behavior as a type or variation of normal behavior. Down through the ages, until recently, such behavior was considered abnormal and even illegal in many jurisdictions.

So, what has changed?

Much of human behavior and misbehavior has come out of the closet since people have stopped blushing about such things involved in what came to be known as the sexual revolution. Public attitudes seemed to begin evolving about a half century ago with Masters and Johnson reporting on their research, the Pill¸ and Playboy. Whispers became open talk. Also appearing about the same time were the Hippies, “Make love, not war,” Haight-Ashbury and bathhouses and AIDS and HIV, open use of marijuana and psychedelic drugs. Now, Cialis sponsors the golf Tour. Viagra is hardly a punch line. Cohabitation among the rich and famous is an accepted norm, in contrast with the time Ingrid Bergman had to leave the United States because of her romantic scandal. Same-sex marriage has become law in a number of states, although it is the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case.

Wide acceptance of open sexuality seems to have reached the tipping point. Perhaps polling would show more Americans ­– nay, humanity – than not do accept it. Does that make it right? (More and more, polls are citied to back up arguments over right and wrong.) It is to be hoped that morality is not a question of tallied opinion. Better, such an argument should be over what is logical and truthful rather than what squares with public opinion.

Current arguments about same-sex marriage could very well turn out to be the key to the whole sexual revolution outcome. The nature of marriage – its very definition, its purpose – is at the very center of the matter.

Marriage is the recognized union of one man and one woman, often with written contract, to produce offspring that will maintain the species in a civilized manner.

If marriage is only meant to make people feel good, which seems to be the boiled-down reason given through the mass media by some gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans­gendered advocates, then the traditional definition is worth nothing. The twain can never meet. If same-sex marriage were true, then a mutual understanding of marriage in various cultures maintained over the centuries comes to naught. “Anything goes,” as Cole Porter wrote. [In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking. Now, heaven knows, anything goes.]

If anything does go, lascivious life styles will lead, many of us old-timers believe, to further decay of civilization.

IS PUBLIC BROADCASTING BELIEVABLE?

Conservatives believe that public broadcasting is biased.

Progressives (that is, liberals) believe public broadcasting speaks the truth in the face of heresy.

Listening to public broadcasting with an open mind is the way to assay the worth of those news media. In this piece, public broadcasting will be referred to as PB, with no distinction made between NPR, PBS and other broadcast outlets.

First, staff questions to guests and news sources should not be judged as automatically prejudicial. In the early, radio days of “Meet the Press” listeners were advised that the questions did not necessarily reflect the views of the questioner. They were only meant to illicit information. Would that such an attitude were understood and practiced today by both broadcast and print journalism and opinion purveyors. When listening to and viewing PB outlets one cannot always be sure that fundamental to good news gathering is being practiced. Fairness demands that the questioners being given the benefit of the doubt, unless over the length of the program evidence shows otherwise.

Second, call-in listeners are more prone to be up-front with their feelings. If preponderance appears to be on one side of an issue, it can be assumed that the call screener has been instructed to put only certain callers on the air, or to make sure most display the desired stance. Of course, PB listeners and viewers tend to be of a type, although generalities can be misleading.

Third, the guest is not necessarily wisdom incarnate. He or she might have been chosen because of current notoriety of because of a certain reputation. Certainly, the more controversial the more likely the questioning will be focused tightly. Also, the more controversial, the more likely any pre-judging will surface.

A neutral assessor must strive to fairly apply those three provisos. Because PB as a whole is the subject here, individual programs can be only antidotal. Examples thus are called for, but those who choose examples are almost always intent upon making a point. That is true for all forms of discussion, debate, and argument. Reasoning wants particulars to be knitted into generally acceptable arguments. Preliminary premises must be true to reach truthful conclusions. The art of logic has taken on the correctness of mathematics to reach for conviction. The precision of the syllogism is marvelous to behold and to enfold. But can criticism – in the best sense of that word – of PB be expressed in a syllogism? And, how does the assessor of content leave his own prejudices behind?

Newspaper editors have recognized these problems of good reporting for a long time. And, indeed, early editors made no attempt to be even handed, preferring to adopt a cause and publish whatever seemed to advance their positions on politics and on civics and on society.

An early conclusion might very well be that fairly judging the political leanings of PB is like judging those of a particular newspaper or news organization. Newspapers have clearly labeled opinion pieces, whether on the editorial page, the op-ed page or in columns. So the outside judge has to confine assessments to the news pages. The divisions are not so clear in PB, for opinion is not so clearly delineated.

Neutrality on the part of the assessor is paramount.

Even a truly neutral assessor upon expressing his conclusion would have a hard time convincing his audience of the truth outlined. His would be an opinion to be accepted, rejected or given a mixed grade. No single assessor of any public institution is going to be awarded the title of unassailable truth-giver. (Even a pope fails to get the respect of every Catholic.) Voters cannot be expected to collect all facts and select the officeholders best for country and local jurisdiction. Voters can ­– not always – be the target for public broadcasters that would like to influence the outcome of elections. Same for newspapers.

Let’s face it, not many of us are neutral. We need opinions. One cannot act without opinion.

Even if PB could be pinned as liberal or conservative what difference would it make? As long as audience members use its programming to form their own opinions . . . that is what counts.

A person who tries to keep informed by reading and listening and watching a spectrum of news and opinion sources might very well fail to find a single source that meets his ideal purveyor of facts. What he will find is that there usually is one -- maybe two -- source for every major story. After that, come the variations and emendations and interpretations that jam the various news and opinion media. The persnickety news user will masticate his grazing and arrive at a conclusion. It is to be hoped that sincere grazing and thoughtful mastication produces something to slake the public’s thirst for useful knowledge of public events.

In short, public broadcasting is just another source of news and opinion to be judged by the thoughtful listener and viewer. 

WHAT I REALLY MEANT . . .

Political correctness! Political correctness has become a scourge on public discourse, even private opinion on occasion.

PC, as it has become to be called, is an insult to the First Amendment. As Americans, we have freedom of speech. Let’s be blunt: Freedom of speech is meant under the first right of the Bill of Rights to permit (encourage?) criticism of the federal government. Controlling government – our governors and would-be controllers – would be impossible without that freedom. If our political leaders could manipulate what and how citizens speak and write, the American Revolution would have been for naught. We the people might as well have remained British subjects with all the restraints that existed for Britons of that time. The republican form of government we have – and hope to continue to enjoy ­– is dependent upon unfettered debate of public issues so that especially elected governmental officeholders are indeed representative of the citizenry. Plain talk is absolutely necessary to that end.

But as practiced, political correctness goes further than attempting control over political behavior; some intend it as a tool for controlling social behavior.  

Every day, it seems, some celebrity, local official, sports figure, senator, representative – whoever – says something that is reported in the news media; and pundits and others in the public eye opine and the person speaking his or her mind is subject to derision. Statements subject to such oversight usually involve sex, religion, self-conduct, in addition to politics. Switch on the TV right now to some cable news outlet and chances are, within a relatively short time, such a PC controversy will be front and center.

So pervasive has PC become that political leanings proffer no immunity. Right, left or center, someone is going to be offended by outspoken opinion, and he or she will complain. If that comment is deemed useful to advancing a campaign of some sort, the remark can go viral (in au courant usage). Unintentional use of a wrong word to express a thought receives no pass; such usage is deemed intentional and therefore damning. Widely known personages can no longer react naturally to questions. They must be ever alert to possible reactions to their speech.

A couple of problems with PC: Who decides what words and thoughts are correct; who or what idea is stifled by such restraint? What ever happened to tolerance?

The marketplace of ideas is the equivalent of academic freedom. Tenured professors will fight to say and teach whatever they wish in the name of pursuing truth as they see it. Yet, academe is notorious for PC. Speech codes have been imposed on faculties and students, speakers with certain political leanings have been barred from campus or hectored when they appeared. Examples are legion.

In entertainment, ethnic humor has been scorned in the name of political correctness. Only paeans to particular members of races or ethnic groups themselves are tolerated. Some religions are protected by PC while others are fair game. (Need Islam and Christianity be cited?)

Cries of racism are perhaps the most numerous. Phrases that have entered the everyday jargon are now being analyzed etymologically, bringing up origins that have long been forgot. Yet speakers innocently using such a word or phrase are hounded by both PC practitioners and political opponents. (See George Allen’s response to a heckler; Colin Powell’s take on “shuck and jive” as used by Sarah Palin.)

More and more prevalent are PC errors involving sexual preference. Since the onslaught of the Pill, behavior once restricted to complete privacy has emerged, not into sunlight, but into the glare of klieg lights (or whatever has replaced that illumination in TV studios). Subjects once verboten in locker rooms are the material of advertising campaigns. Adherents to certain life styles are now celebrated when in the past they were the objects of derision and sometimes, unjustly, violence. Even a smaller subset (LBGT) is protected through legislation.

Some truly prejudiced people still exist in this country and elsewhere. They can be found up and down the class structure. But they are few. Society will always have its boors, louts and oafs. Yet few of those are among personalities covered by People magazine, The New York Times, CBS and Fox News.

Offended persons most likely to cite PC fouls too often are motivated by other than purity of human relations. Offending persons often seem not to have intended any wrong-doing, learning only of their so-called faux pas upon being hounded by opponent and by the press.

So persuasive have PC partisans become that everyday folks can receive correction from a PC adherent in the office, at the grocery or on the golf course. Descriptions that once were clear and used by professionals are now rejected. Cripple has become physically handicapped. Why is one condemned and the other acceptable? There is no obvious reason. The former inherently is no insult; the latter is no more sympathetic.

People of good will who champion polite behavior or who practice religion or who are “cultured” will, by the brunt of their upbringing, shun offensive speech and mannerisms. Some of these people, particularly the older ones, did grow up with some degree of racism in their outlooks or attitudes; and now reject and control those feelings. Not everyone, of course.

Political correctness’s real danger is that a few influential sources might, over time, steer an entire culture. Sure, mean intolerance and hatred have no place in any productive society, and such cannot be defended in any way, PC, nonetheless, can stifle and subvert open debate. Think not?

A great divide in the United States has developed and is widening over the observable societal ramifications of sexuality: Same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, single-parent families. All of these have consequences beyond general acceptance or rejection. Besides moral aspects, there are governmental actions dealing with problems that for amelioration end in expenditure of billions, trillions of public moneys. And other societal aspects are similarly important to the common weal. Listing them is for another exercise.

If those subjects are removed from the public square by severe application of political correctness and are not debated on their substance, this country founded for the sake of individual freedoms will evolve into something else.

That something else could be a country unrecognizable from what it now is.

TRUTH, ELUSIVE TRUTH

If I insist on giving you my truth, and never stop to receive your truth in return, then there can be no truth between us.”

Thomas Merton

American politicians, regardless of whether they practice their calling locally or at the highest federal levels, as paid advisors or as officeholders, argue without acknowledging the other side. They see only the truths they wish to see, seeing only untruths in their opponents. No wonder the state of the Union!

Now Merton, the Trappist monk and mystic who wrote some 70 books, was commenting on theological love when he wrote the above words. Nonetheless, his observation seems to express a universal verity. Could political discourse in the United States of the early 21^st century become more civil and more productive for the country’s citizens if those who would mold public opinion heeded the Merton quotation and avoided its dire conclusion?

On the face of it, Merton is assuming that the protagonist pushes his honestly held argument while refusing to even hear the ideas of the other side, thus barring any chance of agreement. Assuming the validity of that translation of the Mertonian axiom, how the hell are pols gonna get anything done?

If Archimedes were to move the world, he needed a long lever plus a place to stand. The ancient Greek physicist can be a model for a sincere modern observer who should stand back to discern good points made today by those who battle over crucial topics impinging upon the country’s future.

Politicians, pundits, pontificators will not suddenly become classical debaters, marshaling their arguments to garner the approval of judges. No, that is asking too much. The give and take of political discourse has become more intense in the past few decades, while losing the flowery language and vitriol of the early days of the republic. Compromise, the accepted way to accomplishment in divided government, is scorned. Scoring points through derision is the game.

All of these public actors, whether active in the political arena or just chroniclers, are playing to the house, especially to those in the balcony whose perceptive talents are disparaged. They are the so-called low information voters, they who don’t bother to educate themselves about public affairs.

Education is required ­--­­- self-education. Grasping facts and ultimately truth from the flood of information and opinion that spills from the news media becomes a formidable task. Perfecting that task means striving to sift truth from all those words spewed about public problems and their solutions. Even disputed arguments contain some grain of truth, especially if the final goal is the gaining of a good and not an evil. Without proposing solutions, examples of goods are those of helping the poor; or providing for the aged and infirm, or the common defense. In general, those are the issues of our day painted in broad brush strokes. To use that overused cliché, the devil is in the details. Arguments over details so often end in incivility.  

If senators and representatives and reporters and commentators and bureaucrats and lobbyists cannot separate truth from blather, bombast, bunkum, then how can citizen-voters?

So can truth ever be shared in the marketplace of ideas? Can the meaning of truth in a particular situation of condition or problem or incident ever be found?

Truth is defined as conformity with fact, indisputable fact (such as mathematical laws), and actuality.

Common sense solutions can only be realized when innate reason is sincerely exercised by those seeking solutions. Perhaps a starting point would be acceptance that most people really want truth. That’s want when it means, not wish, but require or need. Right now the need is great.

DON’T MESS WITH THE 2ND

People in the Lone Star state warn outsiders “Don’t mess with Texas.” Americans should warn their fellow citizens, “Don’t mess with the Second Amendment.”

A blogger has noted that James Madison in one of the Federalist papers explained that people needed the right to keep weapons for joining their state militias to fend off, if need be, a national government intent upon taking away other  rights granted to it by its citizens. Citizens give authority to the government; not the other way around.

Today, that is the real reason to uphold the Second Amendment and to turn away attempts to weaken it, even in the face of horrendous events such as happened at Newtown.

Opposing restraints on the purchase of assault weapons and high-capacity ammo clips is being characterized as – can this be too strong? – Barbarian. Defense of the amendment is not the same as acquiescence to more slaughter of children in their classrooms, although some control-control advocates seem to argue that.

All right, what if some autocrat should appear in Washington and to erode the freedom of the citizenry to an untenable reality?  Armed bands could form and unite, only to face the Army and elite military units such as the Seals and the Rangers. Any quick success for the citizen bands would be unlikely. Look at Syria.

No one wants such a confrontation. Although it might be sanctioned by the message of the Declaration of Independence, the structure of the Constitution, and the existence of the Second Amendment, such rebellion could very well end America as the haven it has been for people from all corners of the earth. The hope of America’s promise must, nonetheless, be kept alive.

On the other side, to those who would erode the American system, the very fact that the Founders foresaw the need for strong reaction to unconstitutional usurpation of freedom should be a strong disincentive.

Our current situation does not – repeat, does not – demand any overt action against legitimate political forces. What exactly what would engender such action need not even be the subject for speculation.

Still, the principle that the source of governmental authority in the United States of America originates with the consent of the governed cannot be tinkered with. A fight to retain the Second Amendment’s integrity must be waged.

One does not have to own a gun to believe that.

SIMPLIFY BEFORE SOLVING

Liberals believe taxpayers owe government a living.

Conservatives seem to acquiesce.

Libertarians wish for complete lack of governmental restrain, while admitting a teensy bit might help.

Constitutionalists believe that government is necessary, but only enough governing to protect the weak and to encourage enterprise, as in get-up-and-go.

Most American citizens wish Washington would get it right.

Right now, our U.S. government appears to have been won over by liberals. There may be a way out, and there may not be. What seems certain is that the very continuation of government in this Land of Liberty – as we struggle to keep going – is to hit the taxpayers for even higher taxes for a government that would stall out without more money, whether earned or borrowed.

Government can only “earn” its living by doing what it was meant to do, and that is at the heart of our current problem. Otherwise, citizens should agree that government cannot produce wealth; government can only live because of the wealth created by its citizens.

Constitutionalists can agree with that assertion.

Conservatives would agree if they were not so imbued with the political imperative of re-election.

Libertarians sort of agree but advocate only enough taxation to ward off invaders and keep states from trade wars.

Liberals appear to think that government earns the money it needs for “investing” in the indigent so they, in turn, can earn their livings by their dutiful dependence on a beneficent government. Investors are the “wealthy” taxpayers.

Of course, government is not as simple as the above would suggest. Yet, similar simplification needs to be employed in public debate if the current fiscal problems are to be resolved.

Politicians, who seem more interested in governmental careers than in serving constituents, need to buckle down and do what they were elected to do: Serve citizens, not rule and impoverish them.

                                        IF GOVERNMENT WERE A BUSINESS
 If a business – any size – were in a similar financial condition as the U.S. government it would be out of business. If a business owned by shareholders was in a condition such as our national government, top management would have been fired by now, if such an “enterprise” even could have survived to be in such disarray. With any organization, the shareholders would have long rid themselves of such a board and management. Indeed, perhaps it is impossible to imagine a corporation, maybe even a family-owned business, getting into an untenable position that is our three-branched government. There is but one solution for American voters: Vote the rascals out at the next election. Use the intervening time to organize a grassroots effort to accomplish that as far as possible. A 10 percent replacement would cause turmoil; 25 percent mass hair pulling; 50 percent¸ the Congress would see the light and do something about the national financial disaster ahead, at least – rationally – getting it under control with some hope of saving our constitutional system of self-governance. Replacing any more than half of the elected members of the House and a third of the Senate would bring the backbone of lawmakers to bring some sense of reality in the executive.