I have long believed that deep in her heart, America is not as divided as the media, career politicians, and other power seekers would like us to think. I believe that deep down, most Americans want a better life for their families, want to be left alone to pursue their dreams, and wish to simply live life as they see fit. I know that is all I want – to be left alone, to be allowed to keep the fruits of my labor, and to live life as I see fit according to my beliefs.
Naturally, while I do believe these are the things we all want in life here in America, I do recognize that we currently have differences in opinion about how we can obtain these dreams. I would argue, however, that the dividers like the media, politicians, and other power seekers, for their own benefit and to the detriment of the rest of us, have created these differences in opinion by continuing to divide us into pre-defined groups. The side effect of which, has been the distraction of far too many Americans from attaining their dreams, and instead, an unnecessary, continued concentration on the overly inflated differences between us.
Those who seek to divide us for their own prosperity and continued existence, seek to divide us according to things like gender, race, career choice, and net worth, when instead they should be using their voices to unite us as a nation. They should be using their voices to bridge the real gap between us – those who see America as the land of opportunity where anything can be achieved regardless of those very things the dividers use to divide us, and those who have been so pummeled with the divisive message that they have come to believe it, and wrongly, now live their very lives by it instead of fighting against it.
Here is an example of how these dividers quietly accomplish this goal, which also leads to the revelation that this divisiveness is what has put us into the two camps that, in turn, the dividers point to and say is the reason we are divided, instead of admitting that, in fact, they are the source of our divisiveness.
Each year, Time magazine selects a person of the year that they claim, for better or worse, has been the most influential person in the world. This time around, they naturally have chosen Donald Trump. In the video in which Time Editor-in-Chief, Nancy Gibbs, explains why they chose Trump, she states:
“One of the things that was remarkable in going to see him to interview him is to be in that penthouse, which is the most ostentatious imaginable marble and mirrors and gold, and see him in the suit and the diamond cufflinks. There’s a kind of dissidence that we pressed him about of how is it that the billionaire is the tribune of the working man? He said he thought that it had to do with that he wasn’t a phony – that there have certainly been wealthy politicians before who in some cases would bend over backwards to make themselves appear like the common man, or do anything that they could, eating the corn dog at the Iowa state fair, and wearing a flannel shirt in New Hampshire. I think he had a very strong instinct that his wealth and the flamboyant display of his wealth was not a liability, that it was actually an asset.”
This statement got me thinking about one of the most staunch and apparent differences in what the Time magazine cover calls “The Divided States of America”, as well as the root cause of this difference. I agree that we are a nation divided – a nation divided in principles and a nation divided in hopes and aspirations. And while I agree there are racists and homophobes and all sorts of others –ists –isms and –phobes living out there on the fringe ends of the political spectrum in this country, I also believe that a large majority of Americans are actually none of these things that the dividers use to steer us to their desired end through fear.
I do, however, believe there is a very real chasm between two sides in this country, and it is one that we must address – one that is clearly pointed out in Nancy Gibbs’ statements about how a billionaire could possibly serve as the tribune of the hard working people of America, and we can explain this phenomenon in two words: aspiration and perspective.
Ask a conservative who they blame for their plight in America today and they will say the government. Ask that same conservative what the key is to prosperity and they will tell you business. Ask a liberal who they blame for their plight in America today, and they will say business. Ask that same liberal what the key is to prosperity and they will tell you government. Granted, reality is not as clearly defined as this example, but you can easily see the relevance of this take on the American political spectrum today.
If you do not believe that you can achieve anything in this country because there is an entire group of people – business people – holding you back, then you see a successful businessman like Trump as an embodiment of the evil that is conspiring against you. If you believe that you can achieve anything in this country because those business people build companies and provide jobs, then you see a successful businessman like Trump and the embodiment of hope and aspiration.
If you believe that the entire corporate structure in America has been stacked against you, then you look to the government for salvation. If you believe that the entire government superstructure in America has been created to steal the fruits of your labor, then you look to business for salvation.
And this is why you can pluck one working man off of the street – one who has bought into the liberal idea that the cards in America are stacked against him and that there is this mythical group of –ists, -isms, and –phobes constantly working against him – and have that working man tell you that Trump is history’s greatest monster, yet can pluck another working man off the street – one who has bought into the conservative idea that America is the land of opportunity and anything can be achieved if he plays by the rules and works hard, and that there is no mythical group of –ists, -isms, and –phobes, only a bloated government that needs his hard-earned money to survive and perpetuate itself – and have that working man tell you that Trump is an aspirational figure that represents that working man’s own potential for success in America today.
I hate to continue to narrow the differences caused by the divisiveness perpetuated by the media, politicians, and power seekers down to such a clearly defined line, but let me give you one more example. You take a young person in their early 20s who has just started their career and you show them a picture of what embodies success to them, and then ask if they too can achieve that success, and you will get one of two responses.
I believe the person who was raised on the idea that they were born in the greatest country in the world that provides people with the greatest opportunity to make something of their lives will tell you that they most definitely aspire to the success in the picture, and that their aspirations of success are achievable.
I also believe the person who was raised on the idea that they were born in an oppressive country that is filled with –ists, –isms, and -phobes that are constantly working against them will tell you that the type of success in the picture can only make someone miserable, that success of that type can only be achieved on the backs of others, and that not only is the scene in the picture not attainable for them, but in fact, is the last thing that they would want for their life, even though the image actually and truly embodies that person’s very definition of success.
And this is where the dividers have left us. They have successfully used their voice to classify us into every category under the sun and divide us into all these tiny little groups, which have led us to unite these groups into two camps – the so-called haves, and the so-called have-nots – even though each one of us has the same opportunities in life here in America. Yes, not entirely exactly the same, but still, the best opportunity of anyone else in any other time on this planet. Then, we all fight amongst each other while the dividers perpetuate their message of division, further solidifying their own existence in this world by point to us and blaming us for the divisions they have created.
I propose that the time has come for those of us that the dividers have divided to no longer allow them to divide us. We should hold journalists to what they call themselves – being journalists. We should also hold the elected representatives of the people to what they call themselves as well. And lastly, we, the divided, should come together to remove the division that is being imposed on us by no longer allowing the dividers to classify, categorize, and split us apart.
Photo by Ingo Joseph via Pexels
I remember us worrying…worrying that all of those poor journalists would be out of work once those environmentally-unfriendly newspapers started boarding up their windows and chaining their doors like something out of an old black and white movie about The Great Depression (or a Michael Moore movie).
But it turns out, the ones who have not already found a second life writing for websites on the print-newspaper-killing internet, actually have a pretty good chance of being hired by large enterprises to serve as storytellers in their very own corporate newsrooms.
That may sound odd and leave you wondering why in the world America’s enterprises would need their very own journalists, but, as consumers are evolving, so must the marketing department and the ad agency. Consumers fast forward through ads on TV, change the radio station as soon as a commercial comes on, ignore a-hell-of-a-lot-a online display ads, and things are only going to get worse for marketers and advertisers.
While this all seems scary for companies that rely on advertising to help generate revenue, many are finding a silver lining, a light at the end of the tunnel. While consumers simply don’t care to be bothered with advertising anymore, apparently, they are still interested in a good story, even if it is published by the very same companies whose advertisements they are ignoring throughout the day. In fact, not only did marketing web magazine CMS Wire call 2014 the year of storytelling, but based on what they’re seeing so far, 2015 might turn out to be…you guessed it…the year of storytelling.
And who better to research, develop, and tell the stories these consumers want than the folks that were classically trained in gathering and disseminating stories in a way that makes people want to listen…journalists.
Needless to say, the journalist at a dying newspaper or the barely-hanging-on-by-the-skin-of-their-teeth news site is going to jump at the chance to translate their skills into some real big, evil corporation money.
So, gone may be the days when our top journalists are working for newspapers, online rags, magazines, and the evening TV news. We just might be witnessing the dawn of the age of advertising and storytelling where our top journalists are reporting on the historic ties between Coca-Cola and Santa Claus, reporting on the philanthropic efforts of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for either Microsoft, Berkshire, or the Gates Foundation, or maybe even compiling a seven-part series on the history of Mercedes-Benz Racing for mbusa.com. It’s a brave new world out there, people…
Photo via Wikimedia Commons
At least you never disappoint in being completely and totally predictable, mainstream media. Quite literally, even before the suspect in the Arizona shooting was identified, already blame was being placed on political discourse and specific people other than the shooter. Journalism, this is a prime example of why I left a promising career in you very early on. As I came to realize that facts and the truth were actually very subjective things to you, I sought a career elsewhere.
Honestly, I was holding out hope for you that you weren't going to once again fly off the handle, dive into the deep end, and sensationalize why this horrible tragedy happened, but as usual, journalism, you have proven to us all once again that ratings and sensationalism will always trump responsible reporting. The Founding Fathers saw your role as so important in our society that it is protected by the constitution. Today, however, journalism, you are no longer earning that privilege.
Yesterday, as the whack-job who committed this horrible crime was still playing his twisted game with society and the government in court, I read and heard story after story and heard plea after plea about how the political discourse and rhetoric of the day was to blame for this incident. I'd like to say that I am doing my best to see it, but honestly, journalism, I can't say that I am trying that hard, because I just don't see it.
This is a classic case of a complete and total psychopath who was determined to make his mark on the world somehow, no matter how heinous an act it took. He knew his life was destined for obscurity and set out to shock us all.
Journalism isn't alone in this, though. The politicians are also chiming in with just as much fervor to support the ridiculous. I mean no disrespect to the people who have died, those who were injured, and their families, but to simply blame this all on political discourse and what we perceive as an elevated level of it here in America today is simply inaccurate in this case.
This self-appointed "revolutionary" was going to strike out against the world, regardless of what was going on around him. It was simply a matter of him choosing a high-profile victim, then picking what he felt was the right time and place. This is the classic MO of all of these whack-jobs in the past. Take a minute and think back to all of the assassinations and assassination attempts that you have ever seen in a documentary or news story, or read about somewhere, and you will find that this one is no different.
Freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and the right to political discourse are some of the most important concepts that have made America such a wonderful nation. We have the right to speak out against the government and we have the right to question the policies of whoever happens to be making the laws at the time, regardless of their political party and beliefs. While I would never think to downplay this tragedy and how saddened I am by it, I am also bothered by the fact that journalists, politicians, and some Americans are misidentifying the cause of this incident in misguided attempts to change and dull political discourse to a level of their liking. I just do not think it is a good idea to tamper with something that has worked so well in this nation since its founding.
The thought that doing away with political discourse will somehow keep something like this from happening again is as crazy as never going outside because you might get hurt, or never driving in a car because you might get in an accident. We better not say that healthcare reform sucks, or that we don't like Nancy Pelosi, or that we think taxes are too high, because there might be some whack-job out there who is going to hear that and then go on a shooting spree. Well, you better do away with high school all-together, then, America, because you now have to make sure that there isn't a single high school student in the entire country that is ever teased or heckled or excluded so that we can ensure that something like this never happens again.
I am not saying that we shouldn't learn from what happened in Tucson, but I am saying that we need to be learning the right lessons and not fabricating politically-motivated rhetoric about political rhetoric. Let's look at why this whack-job was still walking the streets, and why he was able to buy a gun and ammunition despite obvious warning signs. Let's make sure that he was not part of a larger group of people, and truly acted alone. Quit blaming political discourse and look at what was really going on here. Look at what we could have done to avoid this by getting this kid off the streets when there were clear warning signs that something like this was coming, not how we can use this tragedy to make American politics more comfortable for those who don't want to be bothered by the discourse and just want the easy answers - the easy road.
The problem with the average American civilian is that their idea of staying current on what is going on in the world is when they buy into the PC-driven-crap served up by the media during the one or two times per month that they are actually paying attention to the news. Even with our nation fighting two wars and still in the midst of the worst economy in three generations, the average American civilian still has it so good that they can find the time to participate in ridiculous crusades like the one that relieved Captain Owen P. Honors of his command for the content of his XO Movie Night intro videos that were made to boost morale and provide a bit of humor to the sailors under his command that spend months away from home in America's war zones.
I just finished watching a 12-minute, partially-bleeped out version of the video that the Virginia-Pilot compiled for viewing on YouTube, and honestly, while the humor in it is juvenile and crude, I can honestly say that I was not offended, especially when I think on the context in which these videos were made.
Imagine that you are spending months on end away from your family, stuck on an aircraft carrier, continually working and continually aware that at any moment, the wars that America is fighting could be at your door step. So, to try to keep your mind off of things and give you a couple of hours away from it all, the closed-circuit TV on the ship runs a movie. To try to boost the humor and enhance the "movie-going" experience, further taking your mind off of war, duty, and work, the ship's XO, who in addition to his long list of responsibilities, is charged with keeping up the morale of the sailors on the ship, recruits some of his fellow sailors and throws together what he and his cohorts believe are funny little pieces of humor.
The XO gets to seem more personable and approachable, the sailors helping create the movies get a bit of a break and get to have some fun and everyone watching gets a laugh. It is clear when you are watching this video that the intention of the XO Movie Night intro videos created by Captain Honors was to boost morale and be funny, to add some levity to the very serious work that the sailors of the U.S.S. Enterprise undertook each and every day during his stint as XO.
It also becomes very clear that it was not his intention to alienate, discriminate, or do anything more than poke a little fun. America, you have forgotten how to laugh! You are too concerned with the possibility of hurting someone's feelings and adhering to a ridiculous PC standard that none of us can have any fun anymore.
The problem that media sources had with these videos, as is stated in the articles I read, were that the videos were "lewd and homophobic". I will give you that they are a bit lewd, and of course, more lewd to some of the more sensitive souls in America, but they were shown on-board an aircraft carrier during a tour of duty on which everyone was an adult who was there of their own free will.
Watching the XO's intro videos was also not mandatory. Anyone who might have been offended was free not to watch. Have we gotten so PC that looking away and not watching is no longer an option? Are we simply left with nothing being able to even exist anymore? Everyone is not going to like everything all of the time.
As for the videos being "homophonic", I think I honestly went into watching this video thinking that the "gay" jokes would be a lot worse than they were. I think I have seen and heard far worse on just any normal cable channel out there. There is definitely nothing in this videos that you cannot see during prime time network television on any given night.
After having watched the video, I really find it a stretch to call it "homophobic". The videos have same-sex couples in the ship's showers with what the people who made the movies honestly thought was funny commentary, and every once in a while then-XO Honors calls his meeker alter ego (played by himself) "gay" or "faggot".
If the simple use of these two words offends you, then you might not like the video, but is that enough to cost a career Navy man who has led tour after tour year after year his job? I am sorry, oh sensitive American souls, but I just don't think so. If these videos were so bad, how in the world are we just hearing about them now, years after they were made? This is nothing more than years-after-the-fact PC political wrangling.
The video has the word "fuck" in it a lot, which I understand can also be offensive to some, but to say that I have never heard that very word at ANY of the jobs that I have ever had would be quite a ridiculous statement. In my personal opinion, sometimes the situation just calls for that particular word over all others.
You might not agree, but what makes me wrong and you right? In Honors' defense, the video that is out there shows a montage of the use of the word "fuck" over the course of years crammed into a minute or so. Again, if the word "fuck" offends you, I apologize, but to scapegoat one person for it's common use in American society today, regardless of their position, is completely ridiculous. I also say the same goes for the use of the word "gay". I say "gay" all the time and you can freely go ask any of my gay friends how homophobic they think I am.
I also find it very fishy (how offensive to fish!) that this is all happening right after the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. I'm not saying that homophobia doesn't exist in the military, but I just do not think that these videos are an example of it. I think that the press and the navy couldn't find a good post-repeal story to show that they are championing the cause and settled for the persecution of Captain Honors instead.
It is so sad to see such a prestigious and respected organization as the U.S. Navy, an organization that I have always held in such high regard, bow to the ridiculous pressure of a few people that found these videos offensive in the face of an overwhelming majority that obviously did not.
For Captain Honors to be reprimanded for these videos, given the centuries-long tradition of humor just like what is depicted in these videos within the U.S. Navy, and given the man's years of dedicated service and leadership, is not only hypocritical, a prime example of overly-PC-thugery, but also, in accordance with what I said earlier about there sometimes only being one word that can described something, quite gay.
