Rock and roll isn’t going to be the downfall of our society, the likes of Merrill Kidd, Rush Limbaugh, and Republican candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
I’m all for free speech, but I am sick and tired of people abusing the privilege that the First Amendment affords us. We’ve had three great examples of this recently.
First, we have the case of a member of the Manchester Board of Education, Merrill Kidd, sending another board member outrageous, rude and threatening emails. Here I am working with the school systems to educate children that this sort of behavior is completely unacceptable and we end up with elected officials role modeling the exact opposite of what we’re trying to promote. Are you serious?
Next we have Rush Limbaugh and his tirade against Sandra Fluke. Limbaugh is little more than a “shock jock,” and like most shock jocks, he has to keep upping the ante to keep his ratings up — which is, of course, his real agenda. At some point, these shock jocks end up going overboard and society finally steps in to slap them on the wrist. With Limbaugh, I think it’s too little, too late. But these guys tend to get away with it because they hide behind “free speech” to spew their hate and intolerance in the guise of legitimate commentary.
And finally, we have the sophomoric rhetoric of the Republican candidates. The trash talking of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich is embarrassing to say the least. Are these guys really the best we can come up with? Are we OK with these guys stooping to this level all in the name of the all important sound bite? Is this the behavior we really want as representative of the United States?
What message are we sending out to our youth, and the entire society for that matter, when we accept through complacency rude, hateful and egregious behavior from adults in positions of power, whether they are elected officials, talk show hosts or presidential candidates?
As I said earlier, I do a lot of work in the school systems trying to stop bullying in all its forms. I have said all along that we need to take the focus off “bullying” specifically and make it more about developing a culture of respect, tolerance and good character. Bullying tends to disappear in a positive and empowering environment. Fortunately, the “anti-bullying movement” has started to make the much needed switch to the “civility movement.”
When I worked in corporate America and had many employees, they knew never to bring me a problem without a few possible solutions to go along with it. It serves no one to simply focus on the problem, progress is to be found in the solution. So here are a few ideas...
Merrill Kidd: There have been those who feel removing her from the Manchester school board is a bit excessive. I disagree. We need to make an example every time this type of behavior rears its ugly head. It’s time for our society to take a stand against incivility. What do you do with a child who demonstrates that they can’t play well with other children? You remove them and don’t allow them to play with other children until they demonstrate that they can "play nice." The mere fact that Ms. Kidd won’t step down from her elected office demonstrates that she doesn’t see much wrong with her behavior. She is not someone I want setting policy for our school systems. She might have some good ideas, but I’m sure there are plenty of other people out there with good ideas who can promote them with civility.
Rush Limbaugh: People are calling for the Republicans to denounce what he said. I don’t think that goes nearly far enough. Every group in the United States should denounce his behavior — Republicans, Democrats and every other group out there. Every group that strives to make this country a better place. A more tolerant country. A more peaceful country. After all, we’re all at risk if this behavior goes unchecked. I am proud of the sponsors that have pulled out of Rush’s show, but I want to ask, “What took you so long?” This is not the first time he has stepped way over the line. He has made his career by stepping over the line. He could get his views across without trash talking the people he disagrees with. Keep hitting him and his radio stations where it hurts — their pocket books.
The Republican 3: I’ve heard people in the media say that once the Republican nomination process is over, whoever wins the nomination is then going to go after the president in exactly the same way that Romney, Santorum and Gingrich have gone after each other. Forget their ideology, do we really want such as these representing us as elected officials? The election process of our highest officials doesn’t have to turn into a mud-slinging spectacle. We could use a bit of true leadership from our supposed leaders. And if our media would stop focusing on the latest trash talk, the candidates would have to go back to offering brilliant and innovative solutions to our nations problems to get their next “sound bite” (read that as "air time"). If I want trash talking, I’ll watch a soap opera.
For the betterment of our society, we need to take a stand against incivility in all its forms. A lack of basic civility is the real issue. When you make the discussion about abortion, gay rights, racism, or whatever, people on opposite sides of these issues use their values and beliefs to justify egregious behaviors, even when their supposed values and beliefs generally speak against such behaviors. These issues aren’t the problem, they are symptoms of the problem. Being civil has nothing to do with a person's values or beliefs, it has to do with a person’s character.
I’m not talking about what you say, but how you say it. The First Amendment gives us the right to speak our minds. Unfortunately, it doesn’t say anything about how we should be voicing our opinions. Perhaps the Founding Fathers thought that this was obvious, so they didn’t bother to mention it in the Constitution. So let’s fill in that hole. Let’s promote, indeed require, basic civility when dealing with each other. What if, as a society, we make a decision to make civility a priority? This needs to be the first domino. All the rest would quickly follow once this one is taken care of.
One final note, before I get a ton of comments arguing political points and value/belief systems, please re-read the column and understand the point of it. Don’t give in to the knee-jerk reaction of needing to argue about your favorite hot topics when they were simply used as examples as part of this discussion.
From a government-centric point of view, the government loves the concept of buying control through the redistribution of our money. In the land of the free, it is a concept that is repugnant to many.
Although the government would undoubtedly like religious institutions to be under its control, the pesky First Amendment keeps getting in the way.
She was right. You were wrong once again, although I am confident that you will want to redefine what the meaning of "within a few miles." is.
I suppose people who never walk anywhere would have a different sense of distance, though. But here is an assignment for you, walk about 30-35 minutes to the nearest subway station, wait 10 minutes for a subway train, spend 10 minutes on the train, get off the train, wait another 5-10 minutes, get on another train, and then travel 10-15 minutes on this train, get off the train at the subway stop, and then walk another 10-15 minutes to the Target store, making sure you are not followed by some weird-looking guy talking to himself. The subway will cost you about $5. Of course, if you have a sprained ankle, this little jaunt would be impossible. My hunch is neither you or Tricia could manage such an outing.
You were trying to refute Tricia's statement that there was a Target in the "Georgetown area" "within a few miles". It could not be more simple, she was correct and you were wrong. You predictably try to rationalize your errors rather than simply ever admitting that you are actually wrong. Regarding your contention that DC is dangerous. I think proponents of limited government would actually agree with you. Congratulations, you got one right.
"I try to understand, which is superior to some individuals who don't even know these workers exist." Doubtless you don't "understand" that most of those $ 8.25 per hr. workers are there because they are either young and have not completed good education, or they quit school, and are thus suffering the consequences of their own bad choices. You know what happens when you "assume," right? Well, you have done it to yourself frequently on Patch. You might try a google search about the facts on the 30 yr. old professional ACTIVIST Sandra Fluke, instead of making specious claims and wailing that this episode is a "war on women."
Milton Friedman on money: 1. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. 2. You can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. 3. I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, I don't care how much a spend but I am going to make sure I got a lot! 4. I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. Ms Fluke is #3. The government is #4.
There's certainly quite a bit to say on this topic, but please move the conversation forward. If it continues to go in circles with recycled arguments I'm going to close the thread. Thanks, Megan
Have we become uncivilly to one another because of the way our Politicians are running their campaigns? Probably so! Has the Media fueled the fire on each Political side? Probably so! When it comes to the "Constitution or Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America" should we demand it be changed or made to our liking? It does seem both Political sides want to make changes. Government is giving us Topics that affect each and everyone of us in our daily lives choices we don't want or making changes we don't like therefore, dividing the people. The author of the above topic just wants people to become civil to each other and not allow the out of control government pit one another against each neighbor for our differences of opinions.
In a quote that has been attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." Is it appropriate to point out when someone is being fast and loose with the facts? I believe it is. (Upon further review, because of the alleged “war on women”, I would like to replace the idiom used in the last sentence striking “fast” and “loose”. Instead, insert “careless with the facts.” Thank you.)
Let's "Occupy Patch!" to bring enlightenment to the uninformed about the Constitutional Principles and Liberties which are being ripped away from Americans (or stealthily smothered)! I love using the forum of Patch, because here the mindless liberal, statist "progressives" cannot shout us down or just divert to another subject, as the pro BIG government propagandists do in most of the media outlets--including CNN, PBS, and on FOX News interviews (ie: Jay what's-his-name with Hannity last night!). I just found some great quotes which have become instant new favorites with me: “An exaggeration is a truth that has lost its temper.” [Reminds me of me sometimes, in my zeal to help save our great nation. ;-p] “In battling evil, excess is good for he who is moderate in announcing the truth is presenting half-truth. He conceals the other half out of fear of the people's wrath.” Khalil Gibran http://www.famousquotes.com/author/gibran/3 Megan and all--have a great weekend! And Bob and Spiff, my new anonymous 'friends of Liberty and TRUTH,' keep up the great work!
Progressives love to talk about the value of diversity and their tolerance for others, but at the end of the day, they inevitably show their true colors. Word of the day: "prejudice" means to prejudge.
And weren't the last words of the industrialist Henry Clay Frick to his former business associate, Andrew Carnegie, "I'll see you in hell." Frick was not kidding.
1) No where in the Bible or in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize "government" to be an instrument of "charity." What government is doing, by "wealth redistribution," is both un-Constitutional and illogical THEFT! 2) "Charity" means pure Christian love of your neighbor, and actions (service, money etc.) to prove that "concern;" and comes from individuals, neighbors, churches, etc. NOT from government! Maria, your Marxist blogging on Patch and elsewhere, and "dropping your life to go demonstrate, etc. for the poor in Hartford" (I'm now paraphrasing an earlier post of yours on another discussion) does NOT constitute "charity." The most "progressive" leftist politicians (some with the greatest wealth!!) like Pelosi, Obama (nouveau riche, but before election), John Kerry, Chris Dudd, Biden, Clinton (before he was pres.) etc. were/are the STINGIEST when it comes to charitable donations!!
Tricia, re paragraph four, I think you have me mixed up with someone else.
I'm sorry to have to get so blunt with you, Maria--and I am probably still wasting my time with you, because: "He who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." You will no doubt blast me for some other reason as you you go on "LA LA LA, I can't hear you" whenever someone disproves your faulty logic or knowledge of history, economics, etc. but you are very WRONG about your assumptions about me and other conservatives!! And I don't write this to be prideful myself, but you exhibit your arrogant prejudice when you write: "I don't remember you or some of your fellow believers ever using the words compassion or empathy in any other post." I now know no other way to get through to you than by this: In 2010, my husband and I donated 25 % of his NET earnings to CHARITIES. The dollar amount we donated constituted 18.4 % of the gross before taxes income.
99% of the comments have nothing to do with the topic. But then again, maybe this is a good thing. "Abusing the First Amendment." Who is for "abusing anything? And what is "abusing the First Amendment?" There is NO SUCH THING! There can't be. And then the author says "civil" speech is ok. Who's the judge? The ONLY speech that is bad is speech that threatens harm or defrauds, in other words, speech that takes away the rights of others to be free. Bottom line. The first Amendment doesn't exist to protect "civil" or popular speech. It exists to protect the unpopular or even vulgar. Popular and pleasant speech needs no protection. In fact, the idea behind the whole bill of rights is PROTECTION OF THE MINORITY AND UNPOPULAR. The author shows no understanding of liberty and individual rights, as do many of the posters who blab on and on about topics having nothing to do with the post. Yes, I wasn't civil, so what? THAT'S freedom of speech!
'Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us. For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed.' - St. Augustine
Best, Megan