Friday, November 14, 2008

Groupthink 2

OK, here's the story. There's this issue that sharply divides public opinion, with strong feelings on all sides. So the people had a serious discussion about it, and then they voted. Of course, one side didn't get they result they'd hoped for (perhaps even, the result they'd been convinced they should have gotten), but that's the way these things go. One of the cool things about democracy is that it offers a way to resolve such differences without violence.

The best thing to happen after such an exercise is that all sides involved, including the side that lost the argument, puts it behind them and gets along with life. Sometimes, however, the losing side can't do that, because it's too important for them, so they respect the result but keep the discussion going, in the hope that at some future date their position will prevail. Democracy allows that option, too. Society can change its mind.

What isn't supposed to happen is that the losing side goes witch-hunting. Say, by forcing a public figure to resign from his post in disgrace, because he took a position in the discussion. That's not supposed to happen. Nor suggesting that if he publicly recants and beg forgiveness he might, just might, be reinstated, after abjectly appologizing and changing his ways of course. It's not supposed to work that way.

Weirdest of all, in this very weird tale, is the justification given for punishing the man: that his position was hurtful. Even he has accepted the premise, and is already tearfully begging forgiveness that his convictions were hurtful to anyone.

Looks to me like someone ought to start teaching the fundamentals of democracy in American schools. I apologize if this hurts anyone's feeling, my saying so, but no, I won't retract it. Not.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...


Before I clicked onto "this very weird tale," I expected to find the story about the soldier sent to prison by his commander, for yawning. At the Rabin Memorial. Where the commander was given a speech.

Now, to tell you the truth, I thought that 21 day punishment in prison, was insane.

As to "gay-ness" ... it's pretty hard to redefine behaviors that are ancient. Even in terms of heredity, homosexuality is passed down each generation by MOTHERS. Per the research done by Marlene Zuk. At the UC Riverside. (Heck, you can go to Amazon, to see her books. Which are very entertaining.)

Anyway, according to Zuk, homosexuality is stuck onto a woman's mitrochondria. Passed from generation to generation, for a longer period than a mere thousand years. (While most of our DNA/RNA is no more than 7 generations' ago, long.)

How did people deal with homosexuality? The way they dealt with all things SEXUAL: IN SECRET! Otherwise, you explain to me how people could believe a pregnancy takes place without a man involved. Just because "there was light?" An attack of light?

Light should help you see stuff.

Now, in America the new big issue is marriage, for two alike people. So I asked a cousin of mine, who is a lesbian. Who gets to be the groom.

No, no, she said. Two brides.

Just like a kid being told he has "two mommies." (Kids figure this one out early enough. Even if they've been adopted.)

Can marriage be re-defined, ahead? Will people eschew violence; when there are more crazy people born than there are gay people?

I have no idea.

But in our recent election, 3 different states ran with "propositions." Where the people who vote can "choose policies." Or even choose to be taxed.

Here's what happened.

In each of the 3 states running to ban gay marriages ... You'd find that the votes went to keep marriages sacred between a man and his wife. No "two brides," or two grooms, showing up, here.

For Californians, it means the amendment will go into the State Constitution. Which means? It means judges can't breach it.

Do I care what individuals do? NO.

Heck, I even know, because Oscar Wilde suffered at the hands of anti-gay laws, that when he was alive, he could get married to another man. But only in a whore house. Whore houses cater to all sorts of aberations. Believe it. Or not.

Heck, if we begin with "gay-ness" to pass laws of accommodation, why do we bother with IQ tests? What's this that you can measure a person's ability to think? To be human is to have some capacity to think. Why think a high score means more than one in the double-digits? Why even bother?

In democracy, as a matter of fact, you're supposed to get ahead, (leaving, for instance, one "class" ... and "moving on up." Or down. Based on your own "bootsraps.")

OH, please don't confuse what gets written. Everyone's got free speech rights, here.

But there are weirder things under the sun than ever get reported.

As to "closets," I found them to be the same as "adoptions." Something gets severed. So you never really know the woman who birthed you. While every adoptee always wonders about that. Even in the act of looking into mirrors. And, wondering. What were the "real people" like?

Well? Every homosexual had to find his or her own way, in a hostile world.

The world being a hostile place, anyway.

And, very few knew how to look around. Because? Among the living are adults who share those genetics. Even if it wasn't their own mothers! The families kept secrets, just as they kept the mentally ill members hidden away in attics. Not so much "behaviors," as customs. People learn early in life to wear clothes.

People learn early in life that they like appearing in public, well dressed. "So heads turn."

Maybe, the thing to consider is how human we all are? And, we don't have to move Constitutions to set apart what it means to be free.

Human nature will take care of business. It always has. And, it always does.

Can schools be improved? Only if you understand IQ's. Some kids are dumber than rocks.

Or as P.J. O'Rouke says, "all kids are stupid." Just ask their parents.

Oh, yeah. Some issues are divisive, too. Like bad marriages all they give you are t'zuris. Doesn't change the dream, though. Seems there are a lot of humans with romantic hearts.

Good for Martin Buber to point out how things in our hearts are IRRATIONAL.

Buber never thought much of those intellectuals. He said that love resides only in our hearts.

Still, If you put your jacket on by placing your legs in the arm-holes, and your underpants on your head, it wouldn't take long for you to know there are "social mistakes." No. You don't have to fix a thing.