Category: Opinion

When someone forms an opinion and presents it in such a way that instantly clicks with folks and makes them nod vigorously in agreement, there’s something to be said for the one who forms the opinion. Typically those are columnists, editorial cartoonists, religious leaders, radio or TV talk show hosts, news pundits, and sometimes even politicians. The Internet has given a voice to far more people who would have otherwise never had the opportunity to make a statement (myself included). But when the opinion itself is based on an illogical comparison or argument, and followers buy into it because a single point fits their cause, extreme ignorance wins.

The graphic above has gone viral on Facebook and a number of folks are wrongly applauding it. George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watch vigilante who enjoys guarding his streets with a loaded gun and reporting ‘suspicious’ behavior, shot an unarmed child who was walking home. The Florida police let Zimmerman free because it was ‘self defense.’

There is no shortage of media attention on this case and it’s one that makes people want to play judge and jury with wild assumptions. And why not? Who would disagree when everyone is holding torches and pitchforks? Zimmerman is a Nazi, right? Yeah! Who’s going to deny it?

The outrage is absolutely justified over a shooting death of an unarmed child, especially when the trigger-man is allowed to walk free. I’m confident something will be done about this situation, despite those in the mob spouting irrational arguments, such as with the graphic above.

On to Michael Vick. A few years ago, he pleaded guilty to “Conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture.” So, he spent 23 months in prison. Because Vick is a big football star, people are quick to forgive, and even defend him. I’ve read a number of comments from supporters who say that it wasn’t a big deal that he ‘killed some dogs.’ Never mind that non-football stars are arrested for this and don’t get this level of support, or that Vick has pretty much admitted that what he did was wrong.

Why, exactly, are people applauding this graphic? I can only think that the point striking a chord with them is that it’s a tragedy that all U.S. authorities think it’s worse to kill dogs than humans. Right on! High-five! Maybe even: ‘Vick should’ve gotten no time and Zimmerman should get the death penalty!’ And, of course, people bring race into the equation and suddenly it’s the ‘white man who arrested Vick and let Zimmerman walk.’ Yes, I’ve seen that statement, too.

Did the people who are agreeing with this ever consider that the authorities who correctly arrested and prosecuted Vick are not the same folks who let Zimmerman walk free? Are they implying that it’s no big deal to torture animals? Are they saying that the Florida authorities should have considered the Vick verdict while deciding whether or not to press charges against Zimmerman? I’m absolutely confused how anyone who puts even a moment of thought into the comparison still finds it to make sense.

How’s this for a comparison? Vick got nearly two years for killing dogs but football player Donte Stallworth got 30 days in jail for killing a person while drunk driving. Did the graphic-making genius ever consider that for a Facebook post? Would the same folks applauding the Zimmerman/Vick graphic be moved by a Vick/Stallworth graphic?

To me, this graphic isn’t about how the U.S. judicial system is messed up. That’s a separate issue. It’s about how those in a mob mentality are quick to believe any point in the name of an otherwise logical and justified cause.

While Caps fans on Tuesday were treated to a 3-2 overtime victory, I instead attended a panel to honor the late, great Shirley Povich at the University of Maryland’s College of Journalism. While that doesn’t necessarily sound like more fun than a hockey game, I found it remarkable watching the banter of Washington Post legends Michael Wilbon, Tony Kornheiser, George Solomon, Don Graham, Ben Bradlee, and David Aldridge. Povich’s children, including Maury (yes, that one) also attended, as well as other established journalists and journalism students. (Only one Connie Chung reference during the evening.)

While much of the panel was dedicated to telling stories about Povich’s remarkable 75-year Washington Post career (he wrote six or seven columns a week), and while sometimes getting sidetracked (Kornheiser goofed on Wilbon for going to Dunkin Donuts before the panel), some notable advice did come out of this. I’ll skip the part about interviewing techniques with athletes after a loss, or how journalists aren’t as focused on the craft of writing any longer, and tell about the show-stealer.

In an angry rant, Michael Wilbon made it clear that sports journalists today do not dress professionally. He even cursed a few times (while this was being filmed). Perhaps it’s because journalists he learned from, including Povich, always dressed professionally.

I agree with him. I’m betting that it’s the relative relaxed nature of the sports beat (as opposed to, say, presidential beats), and over time some journalists tossed the suit and tie and now it’s come to being completely casual. I’ve personally witnessed Dave Feldman from Fox 5 show up to a Redskins preseason game press conference in shorts, and a Capitals game in torn jeans (keep in mind that TV reporters are often shot from the waist-up.). And Feldman is a veteran reporter, not a blogger out of college.

Wilbon has a point. Journalists, especially those out interviewing people, ought to class it up a bit, just for the sake of respectability, before the next generation comes and makes it even worse.

Update: The Post picked up the story.

The passing of Apples Steve Jobs got me thinking: Why arent more decision-makers like him?

Jobs was a perfectionist, and by being that way, he created one of the most valuable companies in the world, one in which people LOVE. Everyone wins. Why dont other companies take this approach?

For years, Microsoft got away with releasing problematic software, causing users major headaches, and ultimately costing companies and consumers time and money, which makes this world a worse place. Having worked at a couple of companies, Ive seen firsthand how short-sighted business decisions can cause major headaches and ultimately cost the company more money. Even worse, lessons rarely get learned, and bad decisions get made all over again. Its 2011, and people are still having the same computer problems from 10-15 years ago.

If Jobs ran Microsoft, would we have suffered so many Windows crashes and viruses? If Jobs ran Dell, HP, or whatever other cookie-cutter PC company, would we have so many computer problems? If Jobs ran IBM, would awful software, such as Lotus Notes, still exist? Forget the tech industry. If Jobs ran any of the automakers, would that industry be in such trouble?

Im certain the answer is no. If Jobs ran any of those companies, consumers and businesses would have better software, better hardware, wed work more efficiently, and wed spend more of our time getting things done than wasting time and spending money on repairs.

So long as businesses and consumers are looking to save a few bucks in the short term, and continue spending on service and repairs for inferior products, these products will continue to get made. But sooner or later, as with Apple, folks will figure out that it doesnt need to be so difficult, and spending more on quality is the better option. Once that happens, the business model of making crap will go away.

What Jobs did at Apple wasnt genius. It was obvious, something that too few people are willing to do.

Certain people instinctively enjoy being loud and confrontational on a stage set for them to angrily express their views. Freedom of speech and the Internet have made this easier to do, and groups that bind together in the name of a cause provide an unapologetic opportunity for the members to scratch these protest itches.

Back in the mid-90s on college campuses, everything seemed right with our world. Never mind that Al Qaeda was plotting to spread fear throughout America and people throughout the world were living under oppressive, murderous governments. Bill Clinton was in office, the stock market was soaring and the U.S. was merely patrolling Iraq for fly-zone violations.

At University of Maryland, College Park, there wasn’t much to be angry about. Sure, there were Lyndon LaRouche supporters handing out pamphlets and poorly-attended anarchist rallies, but nothing to get bent out of shape over, unlike a few decades earlier when Vietnam War protests took hold of the campus.

Some people, perhaps those who had these instincts that I speak of, suddenly found a cause which gave them a chance to socially bind together, carry signs and shout slogans. By golly, there was no Asian-American Studies program at the University of Maryland. It wasn’t a major, and it needed to be, now. (Keep in mind there never was a program for this at UMCP – it was something they simply demanded. The protests would have been vastly different if they were arguing to retain the program).

“Gooks, Chinks, Spicks and Japs, take these labels off our backs!” Yes, they yelled this during their ‘protests.’

<Insert cause here>. Round up students. Make signs. Get together and be loud. Asian-American Studies at University of Maryland was the cause, and the supporters wouldn’t be ignored. There was simply no argument good enough for not having this program. It was their right. It was a violation of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness not to have these classes on demand.

When people have this passion and enjoy confrontation, they’ll adopt a cause. They’ll decide which side and group of people that they feel more comfortable with. They’ll stretch their view to justify every last point and anyone who disagrees is a racist, regardless of any credentials. They’ll look at the same unbiased facts as their opponents and interpret them to suit their own beliefs. They’ll attend protests, scream in people’s faces, and justify their poor behavior by claiming that they can’t be civil to the terrorist opposition. They’ll make great friends – a necessary bonus – and the cause is suddenly their life. If and when they win, it’s off to another cause, because the itch will return.

I don’t have these instincts to scream in the face of someone who has a different view than me (Though I did attend the Rally for Sanity), but I do have the instinct to analyze the arguments of people like this and dissect the extreme claims they created to support their cause. They call me names when I play devil’s advocate, though what I say doesn’t necessarily contradict the overall issue. You can still agree broadly with a cause but disagree with certain arguments that justify it, or acknowledge that it may have consequences that would need to be addressed separately. But close-minded people don’t want it that way.

Here’s a real-world example, more common and controversial than Asian-American Studies at UMCP. The basic argument surrounding the abortion debate is whether or not a fetus (typically only in the early stages of pregnancy) should have the same rights as anyone else. Either yes or no. If someone says no, that doesn’t necessarily put them on the same page as angry feminists who claim abortion is self defense, pregnancy oppresses and harms women, and that a fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Average pro-choice people reject these ideas, but those who like to scream and protest are more likely to embrace them, then shout them to the world. The same formula happens with other controversial causes, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

When someone is so passionate about a cause, the extremism may not be just about their actual beliefs, but their personal desire for confrontation.

For what it’s worth, there is now an Asian-American Studies program at UMCP. Maybe that slogan put them over the top.

 

Abortion is one of the few topics that people on either side of the debate are applauded by enablers for shouting mantras, announcing flawed arguments, and name-calling while holding their fingers in their ears toward opposing views. And as expected, extremist pundits have come out to discuss Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania abortion doctor who is accused of delivering live babies and murdering them with scissors, as well as other charges.

On Google, I’ve subscribed to news alerts for Dr. Gosnell and tried to read every last article that came across. What I found were opinions that were so flawed that anyone who can set aside their views on abortion for one minute and dissect them would realize that these folks have no business in these discussions. Free speech is one thing, but dumb speech is another, and dumb speech on abortion is too often accepted as if it adds anything to the discussion.

Let’s look at the extremists on both sides of the debate.

The most extreme antiabortion folks are blaming the Roe vs. Wade decision for Gosnell’s horrors. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Gosnell’s actions would be multiplied if it weren’t for Roe vs. Wade. That’s not to justify the decision, but ‘back alley’ and illegal abortions are just as much a cause for concern for the antiabortion movement as ‘clean’ and legal ones.

The most extreme pro-abortion rights advocates are blaming the antiabortion folks for Gosnell, which is just as silly. They claim that it’s restrictions on abortion that enabled Dr. Gosnell to operate. After all, if abortion were cheap and/or publicly funded, and easy to get, women would do it earlier in the pregnancy without resorting to going to Dr. Gosnell.

This argument is absurd to the largest degree possible and folks who even uttered these words clearly didn’t read past the second paragraph of any news article announcing the facts of the case. Dr. Gosnell made millions doing what he did, charging women an arm and a leg (no pun intended) for the procedure. Women often went to him because other abortion doctors turned them down since they were too far along in their pregnancy. If anything, the women ended up spending far more money to get rid of their late-term pregnancy. Seems to me that: The woman (and man) often bypassed using contraceptives (cheapest alternative), bypassed an early-term abortion (relatively cheap), then paid thousands of dollars to Dr. Gosnell for what they knew was an illegal procedure, only to suffer the consequences. Obviously, circumstances differ for each woman but it’s hard to see someone as a victim if they willingly entered Dr. Gosnell’s office. And somehow, this is the antiabortion movement’s fault?

The antiabortion folks need to work on changing the hearts and minds of people who feel there’s nothing wrong with abortion. Legalized abortion or not, no sensible person wants unsafe abortions to happen. Overturning Roe vs. Wade won’t help that cause, but only lead to more people like Dr. Gosnell.

The abortion rights advocates, particularly those on the extreme left, need to recognize that regulations on abortion, like in any industry, are put in place for a reason. It was politically-driven regulation failures that allowed Dr. Gosnell to operate for decades. Many argue that Bernie Madoff operated the same way as his connections with the SEC led to decades of illegal activity. While regulation in any industry often slows down progress, we’ve clearly seen the consequences of its failures in the banking industry and now the abortion industry.

But we’ve also seen the most unhelpful of them all: Those who refuse to see the obvious and only blame their opponents, while capturing the minds of drones who don’t think for themselves. Fortunately, in the case of Dr. Gosnell, the Grand Jury actually explored how this happened and who is to blame, and justice will be served. Then, those with extreme and foolish views will be back to spouting their absurd arguments.