Five Questions for Edward "Ned" Downie, Satirist

 

Ned is thought to be hiding in Northwest Arkansas, where he is sought in connection with serial violations of the Elmore Leonard Rules. As the satirist member of the Northwest Arkansas Writers Workshop, his short stories have appeared in several anthologies.

We writers often meet for dinner before our regular Thursday night meetings. Often, the subject of politics arises, and I have found that some are happy to discuss opinions and others would prefer not. Ned has been someone with whom I've had several such discussions. Most are matter-of-fact and respectful, though a few have become heated enough that one or the other of us decided it best to bite our tongues. Ouch.

It has caused me some curiousity about political discussions and non-discussions. Why is it that politics (and religion) can be such a challenge to talk about?

In my humble opinion, it's because many of us believe we are right - that our "side" is the only side, and therefore, we owe no credence to what the other "side" thinks. To that, I quote Max Born:

The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world."

Serendipity Strikes Again

I love when serendipity strikes: like last weekend, when I drove to Dallas with my daughter, Andrea, to celebrate Christmas with my son, Adam, and his wife, Emily. As many of my regular blog followers know, I am a fan of Fox News. Okay, I'm a Fox News junkie. And, my car is equipped with XM Radio, which allows me to feed my habit perhaps more often than I should -- admittedly, in true junkie fashion.

However, being of a different political persuasion, Andrea is NOT a fan of Fox News. So, though I clutched the steering wheel with white knuckles through my slow withdrawal, I compromised, and we listened to Christmas music. When we both tired of all the fa-la-la-la-las, we listened to NPR. My jitters simmered a little then -- at least it was talk radio.

We listened to the discussions of a variety of topics:

1) "e-polluting": "The dirty little secret is that when you take [your electronic waste] to a recycler, instead of throwing it in a trashcan, about 80 percent of that material, very quickly, finds itself on a container ship going to a country like China, Nigeria, India, Vietnam, Pakistan — where very dirty things happen to it," says Jim Puckett, the executive director of the Basel Action Network, which works to keep toxic waste out of the environment.
NPR - What Happens to Electronic Waste

2) An Object of Beauty, by Steve Martin. Yes, that would be the comedian, Steve Martin. I didn't know he was an author. Well, this interview discussed the second half of his talented life - his life as an author. NPR - Steve Martin Finds his Muse in An Object of Beauty





3) The State of Kids - Highlights Magazine conducted their second annual survey of children between the ages of 5 and 13. The survey asked questions such as:

What do you like best about yourself?
According to the survey, more than twice as many girls than boys named a physical attribute. Hmmm . . .


If you could change one thing in the world, what would you change? Why?
I loved some of the answers provided by the children for this question:

"I would change cigarete factories into candy factories because cigarete factories are very, very bad for you and candy is sooo delishous."

"I would change the Statue of Liberty to a Godzilla statue because it will be my world.










What new inventions will happen in your lifetime?
Another great answer, perhaps by a future inventor?

"I want to invent a spoon that has 3 parts so you could eat 3 foods at once."

The honesty and imagination of children is fascinating to me. Read more at: The State of Kids Survey

As you can see, it was quite a medley of interesting subjects, and in the end, Andrea and I averted a political debate. I was happy and Andrea was happy.

I must admit, it does a soul good to de-tox every once in awhile.

Change of Heart

I was going to post a Thanksgiving blog today, but I learned a lesson that I thought important to write about, and in the end, it left me thankful.

As with most days, my morning started with sipping a cup of coffee as I flipped through various news channels. One story in particular caught my attention.

David and Susan Axelrod Put Up Fight Against Daughter's Epilepsy

The fact that I was not drawn to change the channel is a surprise in itself, because it was a story that involved David Axelrod, President Obama's senior advisor. Honestly, in the past it has not been unusual for me to flip to another channel or turn the news off completely when he has spoken. With all due respect, all I heard when he spoke was "blah, blah, blah." That will change after today.

The story was about how he and his wife, Susan, have been fighting a 29-year battle with their daughter's epilepsy. Strange, that seeing Mr. Axelrod as a loving father and husband came as a surprise to me, and I found it curious that all those times I watched him speaking on politics and policy I only saw him as another bloviating talking head.

It shouldn't have been such a lesson for me, as it is a subject that I often think about - learning about and respecting each other through open communication. I have even blogged about in the past:
Sister Left, Sister Right
Going Tapeless

I often miss a lot by turning the channel, or turning someone - anyone - "off" when I'm not interested in what they have to say. Perhaps it is a safety mechanism, so that I don't have to deal with that person as a multi-dimensional human being, only as a flat, one-sided person I can more easily disagree with.

But the story on the Axelrod family showed me - or perhaps reinforced to me - that every person is a multi-faceted human being, with unique triumphs and tragedies. If we open our hearts and learn from them, even those of us with differences might get along better.

And wouldn't that be something to be thankful for?

Going Tapeless

I may have missed my window of opportunity in posting about NPR firing Juan Williams, but the subject matter—that of political correctness—still weighs on my mind.

For those of you who may not be familiar with the story, the evening of Wednesday, October 20, NPR fired Juan Williams for comments he made to host Bill O’Reilly, Monday on The O'Reilly Factor:

"But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Later in the interview, Williams said it was wrong to generalize about Muslims, just as it is wrong to generalize about Christians, such as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. His point was that Americans need to come to grips with their prejudices.

However, NPR chose not to take the entire context of Mr. Williams’ commentary. I believe they were wrong for doing so. Though I do not agree with Juan Williams on many issues, I listen to him often, and have a high respect for his honest, respectful and open dialogue. Are we supposed to express only that which is in total agreement to the opposition?

It is NPR’s loss.

More and more, I am frustrated by the degree to which “political correctness” limits our freedom of speech. It is turning us into mealy-mouthed wimps, afraid of speaking our minds about a variety of subjects. We should always seek to be respectful, but if we are so afraid of being offensive that we don't express our opinions, we might as well walk around with duct tape over our mouths.

Over the last week, as the news media bloviated about the right or wrong of Mr. Williams’ firing, I tried to put myself in the position of those who may have been offended by his statements. I imagined someone being afraid of me, a half-Japanese mother of two, a struggling novelist who lives on a dirt road and therefore drives a dirty SUV. Whether or not that fear was rational, I came to the conclusion I would want to know about it, so that through open dialogue, we could hopefully alleviate those fears. Whether or not I was offended, I would want to know.

I'll admit, I am sometimes one of those mealy-mouthed wimps, afraid of expressing an opinion that might offend, hurt or anger someone. I often walk away, and miss the opportunity to have an open dialogue. Sadly, it means we also missed learning something about the other that might have brought us closer to understanding.

So, thanks to a fellow writer friend, Greg Camp, who posted a blog about Juan Williams’ firing, I decided to “go tapeless” and post this blog. Better late than never. And, if I have offended anyone, I’m sorry. At least now, you know how I feel.

Click here to read Greg Camp's blog.

Prejudice vs. Racism

prej•u•dice [prej-uh-dis]
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

rac•ism [rey-siz-uh m]
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Lately, the word racist has been thrown around, seemingly without thought as to what the word really means. The Tea Party has been accused of having a racist element. Shirley Sherrod was prematurely accused of having racist views, prompting the NAACP, White House and news media to overreact based on incomplete information. And accusations of racism have been thrown on the immigration debate like gasoline on a fire.

Some call those who disagree with President Obama’s policies racists, though many of the complaints lodged against Obama are not so different from those against Bush, and the criticisms from the right (and far left) are no more vitriolic today than what was expressed by the left toward Bush in his eight years—and even today.

I believe many of us have prejudices—we form unfavorable/favorable opinions or feelings based on our experience with a person or event, and we take those feelings and make decisions or form opinions about others.

Prejudice is a two-sided fence. On one side of the fence is the person who holds the prejudice. And on the other side is the person against whom the prejudice is held. The important thing to consider, and what I think is often missing today, is that it is the responsibility of both individuals to change the prejudice, sometimes even more so up to the person against whom the prejudice is cast. Prejudice is a kind of ignorance, and ignorance must be unlearned, or re-taught. Who better to re-teach?

But instead of unlearning or re-teaching, we call “racist!” We see it everywhere these days: “Gotcha! Gotcha! Gotcha!” But it gets us nowhere.

Though I can’t deny racism exists, according to the definition above, few are truly racists. Just because we disagree politically, does not make either side racist. Just because we can’t agree on policy, does not make either side racist. Just because we don’t understand a person or culture, does not make us racist. Ignorant prejudice—though also wrong—is not racism.

We toss racism around because there is hardly a word more inflammatory or hurtful. But for us to continue to carelessly cry “racist” is to water down the heinous nature of real racism.

Sister Left, Sister Right - Conclusion

Many of you have asked about the results of the experiment my left-leaning sister and I (right-leaning)agreed to perform. (See my blog dated February 18, 2010.) Sister Left, Sister Right

In this experiment, we each selected a program from a media source which we both agreed was biased to the "right" -- Fox News, and the "left" -- MSNBC. I asked her to watch "Special Report with Bret Baier" on Fox News, and she asked me to watch "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC. We felt these two programs tended to be "fair and balanced."

I watched 2.5 of Rachel Maddow's shows, trying to keep an open mind. Initially, I found much of what she said provocative, and worth considering -- after all, I was trying to keep an open mind. However, the more I listened to her, the more offended I became at her sarcasm and wisecracking, usually at the expense of conservatives. The longer I watched, the harder it became to keep my mind open to her views and opinions.

Believe me, I realize this happens all the time on "the right," also. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh -- all present opinions with which I generally agree, but I am often "turned off" by their presentation, and I wonder if those center-minded, and certainly left-minded people must shut their minds off to it, also.

As for my sister, she did watch Bret Baier, and commented that she felt it was a fairly balanced (no pun intended,) and calm, unemotionally presented news program.

But shortly after that, when I asked her what she thought of later editions, she commented that she had decided that watching or listening to politically-oriented programs -- on either side of the political spectrum -- brought her unnecessary anxiety. She told me she didn't think it was worth it to have that kind of stress in her life, and she didn't really want to participate in the experiment anymore.

I was disappointed, but I also understood, especially after recently getting into a political discussion with a friend with whom I'd previously been able to discuss any difference. On this particular instance, we'd gotten into a discussion about social justice or injustice, as the case may be. Should we take from the rich to give to the poor? Is it "fair?" And what about bailouts? This discussion did not remain calm and unemotional as most of our previous discussions had. Things were said by both of us. And though they may have been intended to provoke thought or change, instead, they brought hurt feelings.

It was a sad eye-opener for me. If I can't discuss differences with a sister I love and respect, and a good friend who I've respected for several years, the vitriol and lack of respect for differences of opinion really has gotten out of hand.

I did not come away from this experiement with any answers. Only more questions -- the first one being, "Why?"

Sister Left, Sister Right

This week, Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator from Indiana, announced his retirement, stating:

“For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much partisanship and not enough progress -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples’ business is not being done.”

What is it about politics that makes us so divisive?

Recently, my sister and I made a repeat attempt at discussing our philosophical differences, and though we each started out tiptoeing on proverbial glass paths, we managed to deep-breathe our way into an interesting discussion.

I love my sister. I admire her thoughtfulness and intelligence. She is one of few people in this world I trust completely. Yet, in the past, when we have discussed politics, we barely broach the second sentence before one or both of our blood pressures begin to boil with defensiveness and/or anger.

I don’t like titles, and I believe in politics, they are used too-often as name calling. But for the sake of clarification, my sister leans liberal and I lean conservative. We both feel strongly about our beliefs, but I also think we are both interested in the opinion of “the other side,” if not open-minded.

So, in our last discussion, as we each found ourselves working hard to keep our emotions in check so we could continue the conversation, I asked, “What do you think it is about politics that makes it so hard to discuss a topic without vitriol and emotion sabotaging the conversation?” I went on to tell her about the many liberal friends I have, with whom I can discuss any topic, EXCEPT politics, even though I am hungry to hear their opinions about current events. But I fear the anger it will stir up. In fact, with many of my friends, I sense such disdain of “the other side,” I remain a “closet conservative.”

Some friends and family to whom I’ve confessed my political leanings have replied, “Oh, Jan. You’re not a conservative,” as if there is something nasty or criminal about it.

So, my sister thought about my question for a moment, then said, “I think it’s because of Fox News. They feed on drawing anger toward the left from their audience. It’s like a drug.”

My heart pounded, as I prepared to come to the defense of the beast that feeds my political soul. I was ready to throw my hands in the air, feeling as though she’d just attacked my child. But I took a deep breath, and realized that my very reaction should make me reconsider. So, I toned down my defense, and replied, “I agree there are some people on Fox News that play off people’s anger, but not all of Fox is like that.”

But, I admit. I couldn’t let her get away with her “attack” completely unscathed. I couldn’t resist knocking “the left’s babies” around a little, too. “Besides,” I said, “what about Air America and MSNBC? Do you think they’re ‘fair and balanced?’”
We watched each other for a moment, and I think the answer struck us both at the same time.

It’s the media.

Each “side” has its own media, whether television, print, blogs, etc.; monsters that feed on sensational disagreement. And it is like a drug. The more sensational the disagreement, the more we watch for confirmation that our opinions are the right and true opinions, and that the other side is wrong.

Politics has been turned into a kind of prejudice.

prej•u•dice (prěj'ə-dĭs)
noun
1.a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.

It has become a battle, with each “side” doing what it can to be the winner. The ability to have decent dialogue has been lost in the battle. And the problem with that is, as evidenced by retirements such as Senator Bayh’s, the real loser is our country.


So, we are considering an experiment. For a month, we will each watch a program of the other’s choosing. I picked “Special Report with Bret Baier,” on Fox News Channel, and she picked “The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC. Once we each accept these challenges (and they will be challenges,) we will watch, take notes, and if necessary, do the research to rebuke what the programs discussed.
I know each of us is hesitant to proceed, because we’re not sure if we can tolerate “the other side’s” media through the experiment. But, isn’t that the very reason we should conduct it?

If the experiment works as we hope it will, I’ll post results on my blog.