Blog Archives

Everyone has a right to their opinion, right?

Recently, I came across an article on Facebook from a conservative leaning website about the case of a florist in Washington state who had been sued (and lost) because she refused to provide flowers for a gay couple’s wedding. Nothing like taking a bold stance against someone else’s happiness. The article was bemoaning this miscarriage of justice and I began to mentally file it in my “circular file.” (This link is not to the original article- I can’t bear to drive traffic to the original article.)

Obviously, justice was served. Just as you shouldn’t be able to refuse service to women, or people of color, or the disabled, you should not be able to refuse service to someone because of their sexual orientation. It reminds me of Ellen’s recent response to a vitriolic pastor who was quoted saying that Ellen’s marriage (and he uses “quotes” around the word to undermine its validity) and her show are designed to attract young girls. Her deft response is wonderful and you should watch it.

But the thing that really struck me about the florist article was not the article itself, but a comment below it that basically said, “Everyone has a right to their opinion. Live and let live.” An admirable perspective, right?

Wrong.

Yes, everyone has a right to their opinion and to express it. As a constitution loving, die-hard advocate of free speech, I will strongly defend anyone’s right to free speech- even those I find reprehensible. Censorship is a coward’s tool. But I think matters have gotten a bit confused and frankly, the American public has gotten a bit lazy.

The public dialogue these days lacks the rigor and depth needed to have productive conversations about important issues. One of the by-products of this laziness is the giving of equal weight to all opinions. Certain elements of the media have embraced this gambit with ardor while others, usually of the Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and most recently John Oliver variety have turned up the volume on pointing out this logical fallacy (WATCH: John Oliver on Climate Change). Giving equal weight to all opinions is NOT guaranteed by the constitution and is NOT an important part of maintaining a democratic debate.

I’ll just pause to acknowledge that I am liberal by nearly all measures, so many of my examples fall along partisan lines- but I am not suggesting that just by being intellectually rigorous you suddenly become a Democrat. In fact, I think real debate is needed on many issues- but it needs to elevated back to a plane where facts, reason, and sound logic are valued.

mccarthy

Let’s be honest- we’ve gotten lazy. Opinions like Jenny McCarthy’s should never have gotten traction in the public sphere.

We see this show up all over the place in the news. Climate deniers given equal coverage on the news or worse, on the floor of the Senate. Anti-vaxxers given a broad platform, all the pseudo-science that flows out of the diet and nutrition world. Two words: Whole. Foods. The power of prayer in healing. There are a stunning number of examples that I could cite.

And it’s not all the public’s fault. It can be difficult to parse the truth from fiction because with the rise of the internet, there is essentially an unlimited amount of space to fill. Given this- it’s more important than ever that we, the public, take our obligation (and as citizens, I DO feel it’s an obligation) to be well educated, critical-thinkers, seriously.

binge watch

The founding fathers would have been like this with TED Talks and Coursera classes.

When this country was founded, the easy access to education for all that we have today would have been unimaginable. Particularly when you begin to think about the resources available on the internet through the Khan Academy, Coursera, and even TED talks, to name just a few. The founding fathers would have binged on these free fountains of knowledge the way that we binge-watch The Walking Dead and Downton Abbey. As consumers of information, we need to push ourselves to be rigorous- to think about source, context, laws, and to watch for the kinds of tricks that get used to skew perspective (check out this example). Thank goodness for Snopes.com.

Speaker's Corner in London- Don't expect a big crowd if you don't have something worthwhile to share.

Speaker’s Corner in London- Don’t expect a big crowd if you don’t have something worthwhile to share.

Further, we need to stand up to folks that are trying to advance their opinions on equal footing and say, No! Stand on a street corner and say whatever you want but you aren’t coming on CNN with that malarkey. Recently, the BBC did this by telling its reporters to stop giving climate change deniers equal coverage in their reports. Well done, BBC!

And so, back to the article about the florist. Yes, that florist has a right to her outdated, biased opinion. Thankfully, she does not have the right to discriminate based upon it. But a “live and let live” attitude toward her view is actually the same as endorsing it. If you find yourself thinking or saying that phrase, I want you to stop and really evaluate your position. Are you taking the lazy person’s way out of a discussion? Do you agree with the opinion but are afraid to be upfront about it?

Don't let this be you.

Don’t let this be you. Hazel Bryan will forever be associated with racism, no matter how much her views may have changed.

Another good test of whether you need to spend more time developing your view, is by asking whether you would say it to the face of a person that would be impacted by it. Hazel Bryan has had to live with the consequences of her iconic moment intolerance her entire life.

We are so incredibly lucky in America, on so many levels. But I worry that a by-product of our bounty is an ugly blooming of passivity and a general lack of intelligent discourse, curiosity, and rigor. Evolution has endowed us with brains that keep us alive in these modern times almost on auto-pilot, but we have the ability to use them to such great advantage for ourselves and each other. We should take that opportunity and obligation seriously.

Thanks for reading, sharing, and joining me on this journey to challenge and inspire ourselves and others!

Locked and Unloaded: Getting Real About Gun Safety

I was in my favorite place on earth, Winthrop, WA, a few weeks back to celebrate the 4th of July. Winthrop is charming, rustic, Western-themed town that today continues the tradition of being a hub for ranchers and farmers, and importantly has transitioned into a tourist destination for those seeking active getaways in a beautiful valley. On a busy summer weekend, every car on the street will bristle with all manner of outdoorsy paraphernalia from mountain & road bikes, to kayaks and inner tubes, to camping and hunting gear, bulging from Thule roof racks.

We were enjoying a break from mountain biking ourselves, strolling down the diminutive main drag, ducking in and out of the shops, without a care in the world- when it happened. One moment I was saying something to my 6 1/2 year old daughter, and the next moment I was staring at a gun. Now, it wasn’t pointed at me, but it was about eight inches from my daughters face, so to say my heart skipped a beat is an understatement. It was as out of place as if someone had walked up and slapped me.

The man in front of me was participating in the practice known as open carry. As in, I have a gun stuck in the back of my pants and I want you to know it. The gun was in some kind of fanny-pack (he’d call it a holster) and it was perched there like a flower stuck in a vase- a very deadly flower. My initial reaction was shock followed quickly by anger. Then, almost as quickly as he was in front of me, he was gone. He turned into the next shop and we kept moving down the block toward our destination.

However brief that moment was, it was a lightening strike. As bright and harsh as a fiery bolt of electricity, it illuminated in a flash why open carry is so harmful.

Let’s Get One Thing Straight

Let me state emphatically- I am not opposed to gun-ownership and I am a supporter of intelligent gun rights. Please don’t read any secret agenda into that- I truly support the right to bear arms and given the chance, I’ll happily have a dialogue about the parameters that should be implemented to ensure everyone who wishes to, can enjoy and own guns safely. The comparison to car ownership and operation may seem like a cliched argument (and may not be enshrined in the constitution- because let’s be honest, it would be an amendment about horse ownership) but it is incredibly relevant and apt. I’ll come back to that in a little bit. In fact, NYT Opinion Columnist, Nicholas Kristof, just had some great thoughts about this idea.

Like most Americans, I have many friends who are hunters and frankly, if you are a meat eater, you are a bit of a hypocrite if you don’t support hunters. I admire the ability to dress a kill and have enjoyed the fruits of these endeavors (whether as jerky or steaks). When the zombie apocalypse happens, I’ll be glad to count these folks as friends. Further, I have many friends who enjoy owning a handgun and although we may argue about whether or not possessing a gun actually makes them safer- in many ways that’s beside the point, they have the right to own a firearm.

Not to mention, the United States has the highest rate of firearm ownership in the world, 97 guns for every 100 people; 50% more than the next two closest countries (those paragons of civil society, Serbia & Yemen)- so to a very real degree, regardless of your feelings on the subject- guns are here to stay. No one (at least not me) is arguing that fact.

What I do want to address is the impact of reducing the complex issue of gun regulation to a one-dimensional “all or nothing” argument. It’s ridiculous. We should feel embarrassed as a nation to allow that kind of shallow invocation to distract us from the real opportunity and need in front of us. We must find a way, both in terms of our laws and more importantly, in our attitudes and social mores, to ensure public safety and security. To do nothing is selfish, arrogant, and short-sighted. One place to begin is with a careful look at the impact of open carry on social dynamics, freedom of speech, and safety.

The Reality of Open Carry

Back to that moment in the sun in Winthrop. Recall, the open carry individual and I didn’t even make eye contact, though my first impulse was to reach out and tap him on the shoulder. I wanted to ask him, “What the HELL are you thinking?” How dare you introduce that kind of threat into our peaceful afternoon? What if my daughter had tripped and instinctively reached in front of her to catch herself? What if I had tripped (a pretty common occurrence) and stumbled into him? What if he thought I was a threat? An unarmed person, even one spoiling for a fight, would do no more than push me, but this guy- who’s arrogance and slavish devotion to belief puts every member of the community at a very real physical disadvantage. He could shoot me. He could KILL me. In front of my daughter. And he might even successfully claim it was self-defense. That’s the reality we invite when we tolerate open-carry in the public sphere.

It’s important to note that in Washington State, open carry is legal (even without a permit), so this man wasn’t legally doing anything wrong, but he was in a very tangible way, impacting every person around him, by destabilizing the dynamics of power, community, and freedom from fear that our society relies upon to function.

Critics may move to dismiss my assertion as hysterical or naive, but that’s the lazy voice of misdirection. The crux of the issue is this: when one person has a gun and another doesn’t, the person without a gun has less power, less voice, and in point of fact, can be under threat of death in an instant. Standing eight inches behind that open carry person as a pedestrian, I was “safe”. However, I have no doubt that I could have provoked the guy into shooting me (perhaps with words alone) and that is not okay. It is not okay that my ability to speak and move about on a public street was limited because one guy had a pointless point to make. The other lazy answer to this is to arm *both* people. But we know that’s a violence multiplier, not a violence reducer. It’s bananas to think that any rational person would want to live in a society where we all walk around armed.

Cars vs. Guns

Back to the cars vs. guns analogy. Although the right to own a car is not in the Constitution (again, it would be a horse amendment), US car ownership is on par with gun ownership; particularly with respect to other nations. We have the highest level of car ownership in the world. Car ownership and what it represents in real terms and psychologically, is vitally important to America and yet, we have a whole body of comprehensive laws that folks are more or less happy with and abide by. It is not only against the law to drive on the sidewalk in the US, but it’s also socially unacceptable. You may laugh, but that’s NOT true in all other countries. Social norms in Kenya (where I lived as a Peace Corps volunteer), dictate that cars can drive wherever they can fit- sidewalks, center dividers, into on-coming traffic- whatever they can get away with. Through enforcement of our laws and our social norms, we have made car ownership a reasonably safe and regulated prospect. Insurance, training, safety features, consumer protections. Remember when seat belts weren’t mandatory in cars? Okay, me neither- the law was changed in 1968, but I DO remember when it became the law to *wear* a seat belt in California in the mid ’80’s.

Only someone grossly out of touch with reality would *ever* suggest we abolish cars in the United States. It’s not even a serious conversation, BUT it is a good discussion to talk about ways to continue to improve safety, efficiency, affordability, and alternate methods of transportation. The same holds true for gun legislation. Criminal background checks for gun buyers has overwhelming popular support among Republicans and Democrats and yet it becomes Kryptonite the minute Capitol Hill goes near it. And it’s true- no one piece of legislation will be a silver bullet (see what I did there?), but again, that’s beside the point. That’s like saying that seat belts don’t save ALL the lives, so let’s just forget them. We must take some moderate, common sense steps toward improving the safety and security of guns for the benefit all Americans.

Our Collective Responsibility

Changing our attitudes and laws takes courage and it will, ultimately take trust. So I am taking a first step, gathering my courage and showing trust. It was difficult for me to write this post. I had to consider whether someone might decide that my voice, my words, would be considered a threat to their “security” or “freedom”. In writing this, do I put my family at risk? As a parent, this is a sickening question to ponder. But the answer is- if I don’t speak up, if I don’t advocate for common sense, if I don’t call for the nation to join together in support of safety for all, in conjunction with (not at the expense of) the rights of the individual, who will? There are many individuals and organizations doing this, but we haven’t seen the groundswell of moral conviction and support that must be present to change, not just the laws, but our society itself. Again- it’s crucial to reject the urge to marginalize or derail progress by sounding the “slippery slope” alarm. It’s a specious cry and one that Americans must step up and prove that we are smarter than.

So, my call to action? Share this post, comment on this post, write your own post. Get involved. Add your voice. Conventional wisdom would say call your senator or representative, but maybe it’s time to expand our approach. Contact your local gun store, contact your local NRA chapter, your hunting club, your shooting range. Contact the gun manufacturers- tell them you will support the makers and sellers who are committed to responsible gun ownership.

As for my encounter in Winthrop? It was a grim reminder of what we are allowing to become “the norm” in the public sphere.

 

%d bloggers like this: