A Tale of Two Juans

Greetings,

I’m not writing this in direct response to any particular story that’s abuzz at the moment. Indeed, I wanted to try something a little different for this entry and go for something that’s not as time- or issue-specific.

That’s right: the common bond between Juan Williams and John Cena. This will be one of those very odd moments in which the worlds of public radio and professional wrestling cross paths. [Cookie to whomever can name another one.]

As some of you may recall, last October, Juan Williams was the subject of a dust-up over at NPR over comments he made on The O’Reilly Factor in regards to American Muslims. At one point during the discussion, Williams remarked:

"Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Throughout the rest of the interview, however, Williams attempted to make the point that we must remember the difference and distinguish between moderate and extremist Muslims ["attempted" because he was scarcely able to get a full statement in without O'Reilly jumping in]. He supported using care when it comes to rhetoric dealing with Muslim terrorists and stated the need not to discriminate against moderate Muslims. To make this point against O'Reilly, he drew a comparison to the idea of associating Christians with terrorism:

"Because if you said, wait, Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals - very obnoxious - you don't say first and foremost we got a problem with Christians. That’d be crazy."

Two days later, Williams was fired as a contributor to NPR. Fox News, in response to the firing, gave him a raise.

Now, for Mr. Cena. [For those of you with no knowledge of professional wrestling, or who may even actively dislike it, bear with me—I’m using this to make a point]. 

A couple months ago, WWE announced they were working with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) to promote an anti-bullying campaign. This came largely as a result of criticisms made by GLAAD in regards to an in-ring promos cut by WWE performer John Cena—one in which he taunted his opponent (The Miz) by implying he had a homosexual relationship with his “assistant” (Alex Riley), and another in which he lobbed homosexual insults at another performer, The Rock. A surprisingly thorough summary of the ordeal is here.

Ironically, not too long after the announcement of the GLAAD partnership, WWE personality Michael Cole posted the word “faggot” on his Twitter account in reference to another WWE employee. Fail, indeed.

Both these entities—Juan Williams and WWE—are said by some to have been victims of the “scourge” commonly known as political correctness.

Without a doubt, this is one of the most derided phrases in our culture today. Political correctness is accused of stifling debate and inhibiting honest, free speech, all in the name of the--honestly--impossible goal of avoiding offending the sensibilities of any and every subdivision of society.

However, I think these two stories are useful in illustrating a fact commonly overlooked by people today: there’s a fine line between being politically “incorrect,” and just flat-out being an ass.

First: Juan. This is one of those very rare instances in which I am going to give Fox News some credit—they got this one right by sticking up for Juan.

Juan Williams was asked a question, and he gave an honest answer—one that was without any trace of malice, hate, or disparaging intent. Rather, what Williams’ answer exhibited was nothing more than his status as a human being. Many an article has referenced the incident only by quoting the first portion of the interview that I included above. They provide little context and don't mention the second portion in reference to McVeigh.

Prejudice is inevitable. Every one of us, in one form or another, pre-judges others based on some aspect of their outward appearance, whether it’s skin color, clothing, tattoos, hair, or anything else. Both our own personal experiences with others as well as our encounters with images and stories in the media ingrain stereotypes within us, often on a subconscious level.

The trick, though, is realizing this and recognizing that such overgeneralizations ultimately are inaccurate and unfair to members of the stereotyped group, and then reminding oneself of this when experiencing prejudicial thoughts or emotions. This is exactly what Williams was doing when he acknowledged the need not to discriminate against moderate Muslims, despite his own prejudice.

Unfortunately, this was a case in which fear of political incorrectness effectively stifled public debate and condemned the sort of honesty needed in our discourse, particularly when it comes to matters of race and ethnicity.

There are other moments, though, in which people will use this same charge as a means of defending the right to say anything at all under the protection of “free speech.”

Enter Fruity Pebbles.

First, some context for the non-wrestling fans. John Cena is more or less this generation’s Hulk Hogan: the industry’s top good guy (or “babyface”) who’s nowadays portrayed as the squeaky clean all-American. For those who’s acquaintance with the business is limited to the profanity and obscenity of the late 90’s (the “Attitude” era), WWE is also now a PG product, as opposed to TV-14 or even MA. Meaning—even though a large segment of their audience during the Attitude era was made up of kids—they’re now actively pursuing that demographic even more so.

Crudeness is in some ways part of the charm of professional wrestling. After all, it’s a form of entertainment based upon scripted, simulated violence. In discussing the GLAAD story with others online, this was an argument used in defense of John Cena’s promos and the general use of homophobic taunting in wrestling. Basically, if you want something high-brow, you’re looking in the wrong place.

This is a total cop out. True: bad-mouthing and insulting are part of the "wrestling system," so to speak. Opponents trash each other, then settle their differences in the ring. However, it's more than possible to insult or threaten someone else without using bigoted speech. The fact that such historically has often been used in professional wrestling does not make it OK either, by the way.

I was upset by John Cena’s remarks during these particular skits because they promote, if not outright homophobia, then at least the perception that homosexuals are a defective group of people. In denigrating another person by implying they are gay, one thereby also denigrates those who are actually gay.

The response to this I've received previously, aside from the "high brow" thinking, was that not every time someone calls someone else ‘gay’ does it mean they’re a homophobe or that they’re even being serious. True. There are contexts in which one could make such statements and it be meant ironically, if anything actually poking fun at homophobia.

However, this was not one of those instances. Again, WWE is a PG product. They market to kids, who are now seeing the “goodest” of good guys disparaging, by proxy, a specific group of people. That’s it.

For the record, kids should not have professional wrestlers for role models. However, if this is the market to which WWE wants to cater, as an international company with huge exposure, they should do so in a manner that is genuine and responsible. Having your top babyface perpetuate the stereotype of homophobia within the world of professional wrestling (or sports in general) is not the way to go about this.

Criticizing someone for making bigoted remarks—whether part of “live action male soap opera” or not—is not an action taken in the name of political correctness so much as common decency and equality. Juan Williams’ remarks were part of a public discussion in which he was taking the—and I don’t feel this to be an exaggeration—brave (even if politically unwise) step of laying out his own imperfections for the world to see. Though part of a scripted performance, John Cena’s comments simply reveled in a form of prejudice still all too common today.

Nonetheless, both instances have been defended as expressions of free speech being curtailed in the name of political correctness. Not all controversial remarks are made the same, however. Political correctness can often serve as a sterilizing force in our society by removing the human element from our conversations, repressing honesty for fear of reprisal. At the same time, there are some things which should not be said--not because they don't conform to some ideal of what is "appropriate" wording, but because the mentalities behind them are reprehensible.

I admit: I was looking for these as soon as I heard he was dead.

Don’t worry: not every entry is going to deal with bin Laden. I’m going to try to branch out some soon, but I felt like this was a good topic to discuss, because it’s one that I’m still working through myself.

A friend shared a good article on Facebook today concerning the question of whether or not to release photos of the body of Osama bin Laden. Though the whole article is worth reading, the gist is that, regardless of whether or not the administration wants to release the photos (which, they've obviously decided not to), ultimately they may have to under the Freedom of Information Act.

Initially, I was in favor of the release of the photos for two primary reasons.

First, quelling any doubts around the world about whether or not we had in fact killed bin Laden. I am a little sympathetic (word used loosely) towards those abroad who may just be in such total shock that they won’t believe it—I’m particularly thinking of people in Abottabad or Pakistan in general who may not want to accept the fact that he was right there among them [Although, as an article I recently read--which I unfortunately can't find anymore--mentions, many may just be too busy with other maladies like avoiding drone attacks or feeding themselves to care or worry].

I don’t care as much about releasing them for the sake of “skeptics” or “conspiracy theorists” here at home, who likely would still claim the photo had been doctored or manipulated somehow.

Second, closure. This sounds somewhat barbaric, and admittedly, to a degree it is. But, for those individuals directly affected by 9/11, a part of me understands how this type of visual confirmation that some sort of justice had been done could potentially bring a measure of closure. It’s not so much that I see such people as doubting that he was killed, but rather, having that tangible proof, experiencing that for yourself could potentially be more emotionally relieving.

[Admittedly, this also comes down to whether or not bin Laden being dead even constitutes justice. I'll leave that up to those most impacted by his actions.]

Of course, as we’ve all seen by now, the President has opted not to show the photos. I was initially disappointed, but after considering the decision and the logic behind it, it makes sense.

I’m not going to fault the administration for wanting to avoid the perception of engaging in any sort of "triumphalism" by taking a route similar to that after Musab al-Zarqawi was killed—unveiling the photo in a giant gold frame and all. While I'd say there are ways of releasing the photo without “spiking the football” (as Obama would say), I can respect the reluctance to even risk such a perception and the potential international ire that could accompany it.

Also, my first reason for supporting the release of the photos is no longer really an issue. Today [now yesterday...sometimes these things take a little longer], Al-Qaeda released a statement confirming the death of Osama bin Laden. If Al-Qaeda is admitting he’s dead, then he’s dead, and I would think this would suffice for doubters abroad. After all, what would they have to gain from leading the rest of the world along in a huge American conspiracy?

[As a brief aside, Al-Qaeda’s statement is rather odd. On one hand, whoever wrote it didn’t seem to be aware that we’d already dumped the body at sea (unless the next message will be about how we secretly still have it), which gives the impression that maybe it was a previously prepared statement. But on the other hand, they reference bin Laden being “betrayed,” which would seem to be a reference to the Pakistani government, which would indicate an awareness of the specific circumstances of his death. Have they had this ready for a while and just put in place a vague reference to betrayal figuring someone would do him over eventually, or did Al-Qaeda’s PR guy just miss all the burial coverage?]

While I realize that everyone mourns and reacts to loss differently, after hearing the families of some of the 9/11 victims comment on Obama’s photo decision, I feel less strongly about the pictures' potential to bring closure. If you truly want justice to be served, then don’t give bin Laden any additional means by which to be remembered. If you release photos, then inevitably someone will use them as a rallying point [I can’t help but be reminded of sidewalk preachers carrying giant banners of a bloody crucified Jesus] and they will become another way to memorialize him. Real justice will be found in doing all that we can to erase his name from history as much as possible so as not to give him a legacy, but while somehow balancing this with the need to remember his actions so as to do what we can to prevent more tragedy.

Some will call for the release of these in the name of “government transparency.” Transparency is good and necessary, of course, and we could use more of it to help keep our government responsible. But, I question how this specifically would make government more responsible. We have the confirmation from Al-Qaeda—he’s dead. Knowing that, how would releasing this picture keep the administration any more accountable? Confirming that he was in fact shot through the head and chest and that his brains were visible? What else do we need to know that these photos would provide?

If anything, the release of the video feed (assuming such exists) of the mission itself would do the most in the way of confirming the government’s narrative of the raid. However, I doubt this will ever happen for the sake of keeping potential military tactics and strategy under wraps. Which is understandable. It would be nice, though, to have some means of confirming the reports of the mission, which still seem to be changing rather regularly.

Finally, I really am not that up in arms over this decision because I think that, ultimately, the pictures will indeed be released. Maybe not now, maybe not this year, but somewhere down the line, they will see the light of day. And with time, I think they should, if for no other reason than the historical record itself. And release through a FoIA request seems like a good way to go, rather than simply shooting it off to the media or pulling back a big curtain and saying, “Ta-da!” Right now, though, it just doesn’t seem necessary.

Tyrant de Jour

I first learned of the death of Osama bin Laden while at work Sunday night. One of my co-workers called me a little while after he’d already left and gave me the news. I haven’t quite identified my exact emotions at that moment and through the rest of the night, but it was some combination of shock and excitement. Over the next 24 hours, those emotions would come to include bits of relief, satisfaction, and—yes—even pride.

I’ll save the questions of celebrating death for another time, for what I’m interested in here is that, amazingly enough, it seemed at first that this historic event had actually provided a story around which the country could (mostly) unify. Even those who might not actively celebrate the killing of another human being could theoretically see it as the completion of a necessary evil. Again, not a total unity, but closer than we’ve been in quite some time. At least something that could make us step back for a second, set aside partisan disagreements, and exclaim in unison, “Holy crap. We finally got him.”

The operation that took place this weekend, and all the events leading up to it, entail with them a range of issues worth debating and discussing. One doesn’t “permanently compromise” the number one terrorist in the world without invoking some degree of controversy, after all.

Understandably, then, certain points are worthy of debate. Among these would be such items as: violating the national sovereignty of a supposed ally; said ally’s apparent incompetence or potential collusion with public enemy #1; the release of post-mortem photos of numero uno; and finally, in what I think could make for a very worthy discussion, the potential use of waterboarding in extracting intelligence critical to the completion of the mission.

Oh yes, and I can’t forget: did we fake the moon landing?And what really happened to Biggie and Tupac?

And some, thankfully, have started addressing these issues. These discussions are not only taking place, but they also aren’t necessarily falling strictly on party lines. Which in and of itself shows this is something unique.

Not everyone is taking this approach, however.

For the record, I voted for Obama. I have not been pleased with every action he’s taken (nor did I expect to be), but thus far, I wouldn’t say I regret my vote either. If anything, I feel more comfortable saying that now than I did when so many people seemed to think they were voting Jesus into the White House. The point of this, however, is to say that I will defend him when I think he’s worth defending, and likewise criticize him when I feel it appropriate.

There seems to be this spreading perception out there that Obama has been claiming undue credit for the success of this weekend’s mission, hoping to use it as a political tool and ignoring the accomplishments and work of those around him. I have seen people being very quick to say that, “Obama didn’t kill Osama—a soldier did,” or, “Obama is taking credit for George Bush’s work,” or—more specifically—“The only reason we got Osama was because of tactics [e.g. waterboarding] that Obama banned—he doesn’t deserve credit.”

For those who might feel the President is taking undue credit, I would direct them to a transcript of his speech from Sunday night. Note:

1. He acknowledges multiple times the efforts of ten years of work by the military and intelligence communities. He thanks the communities in general, and also specifically points out the team who carried out the operation.

2. No, he did not thank Bush by name. Even though I think there’s at least a decent argument against his need to thank Bush, if nothing else, yes, it would have been a nice gesture of bipartisanship. Might I point out, though, that he does reference Bush positively in regards to his outreach to Muslims following 9/11. Plus, even if tactics used during the Bush administration (e.g. waterboarding) were instrumental in extracting key intelligence, the fact that Bush was still subsequently unable to capture bin Laden during his tenure shows that the Obama administration apparently did something right  [more on that in a moment].

3. Nowhere does he thank himself or claim credit for the success of the mission. The only points at which he even mentions himself is explaining the sequence of events leading up to the mission [e.g. “I made decision X to do X,” "I ordered X to do X"]. This is what Presidents do: they make decisions. This is a narrative--not self-aggrandizement in the least.

However, some may still argue that, even if the President himself is not actively claiming undue credit, we as a people are still giving it to him. Much of this seems to arise from proclamations like, “President Obama killed/got/‘permanently compromised’ Osama bin Laden.” Some feel it necessary to point out that it wasn’t Barack Obama who stormed the Abbottabad compound and put two bullets in bin Laden’s head—it was members of the U.S. armed forces.

I would think that everyone is well aware that Obama hasn’t been re-enacting his favorite moments from Call of Duty any time lately. Saying “Obama got bin Laden” is the same as saying “Bush got Sadaam” or “Lincoln invaded the South” or any other reference to an action taken under a given president’s administration. To take it from the complete opposite angle, by this logic, one might even argue that bin Laden couldn't be blamed for 9/11 since he wasn't on board the planes.

Of course Obama’s not the one who put the bullets in bin Laden’s head. He is the one, however, who gave the orders for the mission to go ahead, and thus should be credited for that decision. If something had gone horribly wrong Sunday and the events had come to light, I have a strong suspicion that those slow to give any modicum of credit to the President would have no problem heaping blame upon him.

What I think this reveals, and what I might have taken away from the last three days more than anything else, is the existence of a blinding negativity towards our President steeped in something between ignorance and hatred. I do not use the words “hate” or “hatred” very often, for they are indeed very strong words. This is part of why I feel (or hope) that at least most of this is based on ignorance.

But the fact is that I am unable to come up with other reasons why people should be so loathe to acknowledge one positive thing the man does. It’s as bad as (if not worse than) how certain segments of the Left were under Bush. Only now, instead of having Hitler in power, we have Lenin…or still Hitler. Honestly, at this point, I've lost track of what tyrannical maniac is supposedly running our country.

Disagree with him, yes. Criticize him, of course. Because there are plenty of fruitful opportunities for such, and it is not mere differences of opinion or even general dislike to which I'm referring in this entry. But don’t let your ideological divergence cloud your reason so much that you are incapable of recognizing it whenever he—directly or through the actions of his executors—succeeds.

[Though I admittedly didn't live up to my own exhortation to ask questions this time around, that will come in later entries.]

Greetings!

Over the last few years, I have made several attempts to maintain blogs, online diaries, etc. “Attempts” is the operative term here, as they all inevitably are abandoned for one reason or another.

I am hoping that this will not also be the case with this one. And yes, I’m pretty sure I’ve begun each with an entry just like this, basically saying, “Well, hopefully this will last more than a week. But don’t count on it.”

I have become increasingly dissatisfied with the state of our nation’s social and political discourse. It’s not that the policies I advocate are or aren’t being enacted—it’s that there seems to be a growing inability on the part of our citizenry (e.g. politicians, pundits, anyone with a laptop and ten minutes to spare, etc.) to discuss and consider them in a manner that is respectful and sincere. Sensationalism rules the day, and, unfortunately, it does so at the expense of rationality and genuine reflection.

This is likely nothing new to many people, nor is it really to me—anyone who’s ever heard my thoughts on our primary sources of “news” is aware of this much. However, the recent coverage of the death of Osama bin Laden has finally brought my frustrations to a head and moved me to begin airing some of my own opinions.

I expect very few (if any) people to read this, particularly considering it may not be maintained for very long.

If you should happen to read it, though, I ask you, please, do two things for me: 1. Consider seriously the issue at hand, and then do the same for my thoughts or questions in regards to it, and 2. Comment on the entry and share whatever thoughts or questions you might have in regards to it.

I do hope that people read this and that ultimately conversations will begin, because this is what is missing from our discourse. Fewer and fewer people want to listen to one another and have civilized conversations. Instead, we see who can yell louder and come up with the more outlandish statements, all for the sake of appearing convicted and informed. The arts of listening and inquiring are seemingly on life support.

Though I’ve been trying to become more active on Facebook in the way of responding to posts, or making my own, or sharing news articles, a lot of times this approach is too responsive and dependent on what others may be sharing. With this, though, hopefully I can be more proactive and give others at least one more opportunity to share ideas for which they might otherwise not have an outlet. That’s what I’m using it for, after all.

Assuming this blog is capable of some form of longevity (as well as keeping your attention), then you’ll become acquainted with my stances and beliefs in time. Many are fluid, and even for those that are solid, there is always more information to be learned and stances to be integrated.

On that note, there is one final request I’d make of any read this: don’t jump to conclusions about what others may or may not believe. Instead, listen thoroughly, and inquire often. I’ll try to do the same.