Archive: Opinions

Taking a week off was a difficult thing for me to do. Always has been. My brain has always imagined the world saying upon my return: "Oh, you were gone?" When I retired from radio, it turned out I had thirteen weeks of unused vacation. They agreed to give me three weeks pay, not thirteen. But I had scheduled a lot last week, probably too much, into my life (a church workshop, writing a sermon, a trip to western NY, just for starters) so getting a week to gather my thoughts was allowing myself some regeneration and, really, just common sense. And allowing some of the world to seep into my brain and pen. Leave it to me to rationalize and/or apologize for taking time off.

I'm somewhat bemused at listening to James Comey's comments (and the answering rants on Twitter) on his book tour as reported/repeated by various radio outlets. He continues to use various ways to call Trump a liar, a prevaricator, a stranger to the truth, etc. I think the veracity of that judgement is probably accurate, but (and?) I look back over much of my life (both experience and historical readings) and come to a sad conclusion/question: Don't we Americans have a tendency to elect liars?


C'mon, let's jump in our Wayback machine again: Set the controls for the late 40's, and move forward in time from there. Harry Truman may have been the last of the men in the White House who believed in telling the American people the truth, no matter the consequences, damn the torpedoes. 'The buck stops here' was, in reality, a mission statement, wasn't it?

Now, roll the tape: Eisenhower denying our U2 flights after Francis Gary Powers was shot down, Kennedy's extramarital affairs (the press complicit in the secret), Johnson's 'credibility gap' and 'light at the end of the tunnel' (though, to be fair, he used neither of those phrases that I can discover). How about Nixon's 'The American people need to know if their President is a crook, and I'm not a crook.' George H.W. Bush's 'Read my lips, no new taxes', and of course Bill Clinton's 'I didn't inhale', or 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman'. George W. Bush's 'Mission accomplished', and Obama's 'You can keep your doctor under our plan'.

And, naturally, much of what our current President says is under the same microscope. I think the difference these days is that the lies (and the accusations of untruth) have started much earlier in this administration than previously. Seems the above quotes (and I'm sure you can fill in your own favorite stretching of presidential 'truth') took time for the American public to become (or made) aware of the variances between truth and fiction coming from the White House.

But I also feel that the media cynicism makes it all feel like one lie after another, and this is unfair and damaging to all of us. As Thoreau (the original millennial, methinks) once said: 'Even a broken clock is right twice a day'. It's just getting harder and harder to sift the chaff from the wheat, and fairness is no longer the issue. Like, 'The buck stops WHERE?' I have a bad feeling that the average American thinks no one is telling truth anymore, regardless of what we consider 'truth'. The world becomes more Kafka-esque every day. If you doubt this, might I recommend 'The Trial' (difficult reading) or downloading Network (1976), or Wag the Dog (1997).

And while I'm in that neighborhood, here's a little exchange between Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Mark Zuckerberg at the Senate hearings last week:

Sasse: Can you define hate speech?

Zuckerberg: I think that is really a hard question. And I think it's one of the reasons why we struggle with it. There are certain definitions... that we have around, you know, calling for violence or---

Sasse: Let's just agree on that.

Zuckerberg: Yes.

Sasse: If somebody is calling for violence, we---that shouldn't be there. I'm worried about the psychological categories around speech. You used language of 'safety' and 'protection' earlier. We see this happening on college campuses all across the country. It's dangerous. Forty percent of Americans under age 35 tell pollsters they think the First Amendment is dangerous because you might use your freedom to say something that hurts somebody else's feelings. Guess what? There are some really passionately held views about the abortion issue on this panel today. Can you imagine a world where you might decide that pro-lifers are prohibited from speaking about their abortion views on your platform?

Zuckerberg: I certainly would not want that to be the case.

Sasse: But it might really be unsettling to people who've had an abortion to have an open debate about that, wouldn't it?

Zuckerberg: It might be, but I don't think that would... fit any of the definitions of... what we have. But I do generally agree with the point you are making. Which is... as we're able to technologically shift towards especially having artificial intelligence pro-actively look at content, I think that's going to create massive questions for society about what obligations we want to require companies... to fulfill. And I do think that that's a question that we need to struggle with as a country, because I know other countries are, and they're putting laws in place. And I think that America needs to figure out and create the set of principles that we want American companies to operate under.

Sasse: Thanks. I wouldn't want you to leave here today and think there's a sort of a unified view in the Congress that you should be moving toward policing more and more and more speech. I think violence has no place on your platform. Sex trafficking and human traffickers have no place on your platform. But rigorous debate? Adults need to engage in vigorous debate.

(As reported in the Wall Street Journal.)

To Senator Sasse, I couldn't have said better myself, especially in reference to the stifling and gagging of speech on college campuses, both students and professors, by the left wing as it bandies words like 'racist' and 'hate speech' to weaponize and mobilize against views they do not like, or that do not conform to certain viewpoints. Right on, Senator, in your defense of all points of view on legitimate subjects of concern in classrooms of so-called higher learning.

And, to Mr. Zuckerberg, I have a simple answer to his frightening assertion that 'American needs to figure out and create a set of principles... to operate under.' Hey, Mark, we call it the First Amendment, as in 'Congress shall make no law...' Literalism has its place in those words, regardless of how you feel about Antonin Scalia's definition of Constitutional literalism. 'Congress shall make no law...' Get it? Q.E.D.

v14i15