Month: April 2014

Posted on

tolerance

Are all men and women entitled to their own opinion?   Rightly or wrongly?  Wise or not?  Can we allow dissenting opinion?  … even if it’s perceived foolish?

In 2008, Brendan Eich gave $1000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, an amendment that defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman, which was later judicially struck down.  Last month, Eich was appointed as CEO of Mozilla Firefox, the world’s second largest Web browser.

Upon Eich’s appointment, the popular dating site, OkCupid, called for their visitors to boycott the browser.  Their boycott had nothing to do with Eich’s resume nor professional qualifications; in fact, Eich actually invented the programming language Javascript and co-founded Mozilla.  OkCupid’s boycott was based solely on that $1000 donation.

As written by OkCupid:  “Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people-all people-together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.”

On Thursday, Brendan Eich resigned as CEO.

Mozilla released the following statement:  “Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.  We have employees with a wide diversity of views.”

The White House was asked about Eich’s resignation in Friday’s daily press briefing:  “Does the White House think that there should at least be tolerance… and that there should be other views heard?”  The White House said they’re not “in a position to weigh in on decisions made by a private company.”

Never mind that the White House regularly weighs in on decisions by private companies.  Never mind that the White House has consistently called out both companies and citizens to point out agreement and/or disagreement.  And never mind that in 2008, the year of Eich’s donation, Pres. Barack Obama was also against gay marriage.

Friends, there are good people on all sides of our nation’s most intense issues.  There are also “bullies” on all sides of these issues.  Bullies are not confined to middle school playgrounds; bullies are people — regardless of age — who by definition, use their influence or power to intimidate others, forcing them to do what they want.  Bullies see holders of dissenting opinion as “enemies.”

If we are going to be a tolerant nation — if we are going to be a nation that “reflects diversity and inclusiveness” — then that means we also tolerate the person who thinks differently than we do.

Otherwise, we are not as diverse, inclusive, nor near as wise as we like to think.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

squelching opinion

How-to-reduce-outside-sounds-at-homeTogether we are a collective bunch of  “pro’s” and “anti’s.”  Some of us are pro-abortion; some of us are anti-abortion. Some of us are pro-gay marriage; some of us are anti-gay marriage.  Some of us are pro-yada-yada-yada; still others are anti-yada-yada-yada.  The bottom line is that there are good people who disagree on challenging issues.

The Intramuralist is comfortable with our differing.  It’s not my job nor your job nor anyone’s job — nor even anyone’s capability —  to be the convictor of truth.  No one, my friends, is capable of usurping such a sacred role.  What disturbs me, however, is when one works not to “win the argument,” so-to-speak, on the merits of the opinion itself, but instead works tirelessly to squelch opposing opinion.  Allow me to borrow from Tuesday’s editorial in USA Today, written by Jonah Goldberg, member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors.  Let’s discuss the yada yada yada… [Note that the emphasis will be mine.]

“… A writer for the website Gawker recently penned a self-described ‘rant’ on the pressing need to arrest, charge and imprison people who ‘deny’ global warming. In fairness, Adam Weinstein doesn’t want mass arrests (besides, in a country where only 44% of Americans say there is ‘solid evidence’ of global warming and it’s mostly due to human activity, you can’t round up every dissenter)… Weinstein suggests the government simply try the troublemakers and spokespeople… ‘Those malcontents must be punished and stopped.’

Weinstein says that this ‘is an argument that’s just being discussed seriously in some circles.’ He credits Rochester Institute of Technology philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello for getting the ball rolling. Last month, Torcello argued that America should follow Italy’s lead. In 2009, six seismologists were convicted of poorly communicating the risks of a major earthquake. When one struck, the scientists were sentenced to six years in jail for downplaying the risks. Torcello and Weinstein want a similar approach for climate change…

The truth is this isn’t as new an outlook as Weinstein suggests. For instance, in 2009, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insisted that ‘deniers’ in Congress who opposed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill were committing ‘treason’ while explaining their opposition on the House floor.

‘The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected,’ Krugman insisted. How fast the earth is changing is open to all kinds of debate, but short of an asteroid strike it won’t change as fast as the global warming pessimists have claimed. For example, in 2008, Al Gore predicted that the North Pole Ice Cap would be ice free by 2013. Arctic ice, which never came close to disappearing, has actually been making a bit of comeback lately.

Gore’s prediction — echoed by then Sen. John Kerry and countless others — was always ridiculous hyperbole. But even most serious, non-hyperbolic, computer-modeled predictions have overestimated the amount of warming we’ve experienced. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has had to retract several histrionic predictions, such as its erroneous prophecy that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Its new report, out on Monday, contains a new raft of dire prophecies requiring trillions in new spending. If I greet it with skepticism, shall I pack a tooth brush for my trip to jail?

Climate change activists insist that in science, revisions are routine, and that such corrections prove the good faith of scientists. Even if that’s true, one might still note that incentives are unhealthily arranged so that even well-intentioned researchers are encouraged to exaggerate the dangers of climate change and discouraged to criticize hyperbole. Moreover, were it not for the skeptics and deniers, many such corrections would never have been brought to light…

The real problem is that political activists and many leading institutions, particularly in the news media and academia, are determined to demonize any kind of skepticism — about the extent of the threat or the efficacy of proposed solutions — as illegitimate idiocy…”

The point is not the proposed validity of global warming.  The point is that it’s foolish to squelch opinion — whatever the yada yada yada.

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

important

IMG_1457So as I sat in silence, prepared to pen today’s post, I ran through my mental list of what’s most important and what I desire to discuss today.

I contemplated writing about health care…

Sorry.  I know this is an issue to which the Intramuralist frequently refers; my sense is simply that it’s a glaring example of partisan politics, in which transparency is scarce, economics and ethics are compromised, and neither advocates nor opposition are respectful of contrary opinion.  Today is supposed to be the first day in which annual enrollment is complete, and mandates and fines are imposed.  Talking with several of you across the country, I also hear your irritation in regard to how this has been implemented and executed.  We could discuss this today, but my perception is that it isn’t what’s most important.

We could speak of Russia’s armed aggression…

Two weeks ago, they voted to annex the Crimea region of Ukraine after the people in the area supported a public referendum.  (I wonder…  if Minnesotans voted to be part of Canada, would we so easily support letting them go?  But lest I digress…)   I cautiously watch Russian Pres. Putin as he strongly and swiftly alters the Ukrainian border.  I watch, too, how his military amassing seems unthwarted and his ambition unmoved no matter the words of Western leaders.  And then I see Pres. Obama on ESPN.

I contemplated writing about Obama on ESPN…

I have mixed emotions on this, friends.  The Intramuralist is no fan of being a critic for critical sakes.  I expect our nations’ leaders to have interests outside of foreign policy.  But there’s something about Pres. Obama’s frequent flirtation with pop culture that makes me uncomfortable.

On ESPN, the President did his annual analysis of his NCAA college basketball picks.  We all do that.  (Ok, most… sorry, Mom…)  But the point is that the kind of analysis the President presented takes significant time.  It takes focus.  It takes energy and concentration to know that the Spartans of Michigan State were in position to make a long run in the tourney, due to their preseason ranking, early season injuries, and late season prowess.  That takes time — more than the 2 hours interviewed by the original Entertainment and Sports Programming Network.  Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I want the leaders of our country, regardless of party, to spend their time on what’s most important.  Right now, our foreign policy and relations are vital.  Pop culture is not.  Is it right?  Is it wrong?  I can’t definitively answer those questions.  I simply suggest it makes me uncomfortable.

 

And so as I was seeking to focus today’s blog on what is most important, I had to chuckle.  Down at the bottom of my page, as I prepared to type, was the following:

“josh is a awsome son”

So my 12 year old, special, special needs son doesn’t consistently hit the “shift” key.  His spelling isn’t always correct, and sometimes he talks differently that you and me.  There are a lot of things he can’t do.  But what am I focused on?  On what he can’t do — or what he can?  Only one of those responses prompts gratitude in me this day.   So I stopped writing, went to his room, and teased Josh about his semi-humble, self-assessment.  He immediately matched my chuckle with his own contagious glee, and then joyfully said, “Mom, I want you to write about me today.”

Once again, when I look at life through eyes other than my own, I see what’s most important.

 

Respectfully,

AR