My Little Thoughts

I was listening to NPR today.  I do that.  I also listen to "talk radio."  Basically, I listen to the crazies on the left until I can't stand it any more, then I switch to the crazies on the right until I can't stand THAT anymore, then I go back to the left, then right, left, right... it's like a masochistic hokey-pokey (and believe me, it DOES "turn me all around").

At any rate, one of the senators from my state (I can never remember their names, so I just call them "Crazy #1" and "Crazy #2") was talking about the healthcare reform that is being pushed through Congress right now.  The details of her statements in their entirety are lost to the foggy mists of my memory, but I do remember her talking about one issue that is really beating people up: the whole whether abortions get funded with federal money, and if so, to what extent thing.  Less than her own particular stance on the subject, however, what struck me was one particular choice of words she used in one monologue.  I'll paraphrase her diatribe below:

"Blah blah blah blah blah blah PRO-choice blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ANTI-choice blah blah blah blah blah blah."

Again, that's a paraphrasing.  I may have gotten some of the words wrong.

What struck me about the ones I remembered for sure, however, were that they were so clearly calculated to "spin" the other side as rotten, evil, and stupid.  After all, who could possibly ally themselves with someone who is ANTI-CHOICE???  Satan, perhaps, or maybe the guy who wears the hockey mask and is always killing naked campers.  But other than them, only a moron or a Certified Child of Beelzebub (or "lawyer" as we call them in the free world) would be ANTI-CHOICE.

And, lest any "PRO-CHOICE" person get their noodle in a knot, I've also heard other speeches from the other side of the political aisle that go something like this (again, paraphrasing):

"Blah blah blah blah blah blah PRO-life blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah BABY-killers blah blah blah blah blah."

Once more, based on the wording alone you have a clear choice: be right, or join a game of Texas Hold-'em with Hockey Guy, the Father of Lies, and members of the American Bar Association.

Now I want to make one thing clear up front right now (funny how I'm making it clear "up front" halfway through my column...): I'm not talking here about which side of this particular debate is right, or which side is wrong.  That's an article for another time and another place.  What I do want to pick on a bit is the fact that both sides of this debate - and a lot of others - have essentially created a situation where it is impossible to even sit down and talk with the other side, because we've all resorted to name calling before coming to the table.

I mean, really, would it hurt Crazy #1 if she had said, ""Blah blah blah blah blah blah PRO-choice blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah PRO-life blah blah blah blah blah blah"?  I mean, would any rational human have heard those words and thought, "Egad!  Methinks she goeth over to the other side!!"  NO!  So what's the harm in using the other side's preferred term for itself?

And of course the harm is that people worry that in so doing they partially legitimize that side's point of view.  I've heard a similar argument go like this: "Israel is a state, an actual country, and Palestine is just a group of people or at best a geographical region, so calling them 'Palestinians' gives them an equal footing with 'Israelis' tantamount to conferring admitted national status on them."

And so another chance at moderated discussion is destroyed before even being begun... and because of nothing more than a "righteous indignation" over nomenclature.

I am appalled.

As a seven year old child, if I had determined I would never talk to a friend again because he insisted on calling me "freckles" (I have none - or at least, very few), my Mom would have called me an idiot (in nicer terms) and probably tried to set up a play date.  Similarly, I was taught from a young age to be a gentleman... and that that meant you called all females older than or close in age to you "Ma'am"... unless they didn't like that, in which case you called them whatever they preferred.

That is my ultimate point.  That is my ultimate rant here.  We can't even call each other by our preferred names.  How ridiculous is that?  How crazy have we become?  How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Roll?

In case you weren't aware, I have a weird name: Michaelbrent.  I would bet you any sum of money you want that I am the only "Michaelbrent" on earth.  And I prefer to be called Michaelbrent.  Mostly because that way if someone calls asking for "Mike" and I don't recognize the voice, I can hang up on them because I know it's a telemarketer reading my name off a list.  But if one of my friends wants to call me Mike, I'm amenable.  Heck, he or she can call me "Susan the Bangy-Haired" for all I care, as long as it's not something inherently nasty or pejorative.

Which, of course, is what the politicos are doing more and more... calling each other nasty names.  Or at least calling each other names that they know the other side does not like to be called, which amounts to the same thing.  And again, what does that result in?  A stupid fight that keeps anyone from even getting to the table and discussing the real issues.

Hypothetical: all baby seals are dying of baby seal-itis.  All people in the free world agree this is a tragedy, because baby seals are cute and also you can make great shoes out of them (don't ask me how I know that, just trust me).  So a convocation of world leaders is called together.  Two solutions are proposed.  One side calls themselves the "Adopt-A-Baby-Seal" group, the other side calls themselves the "Feed-A-Baby-Seal" group.

BUT... (remember, I always have a big, fat but...) the "Adopt-A-Baby-Seal" group insists on calling the other side the "I'd-Rather-Die-Than-Live-With-A-Cute-Baby-Seal" group, and the "Feed-A-Baby-Seal" group calls the other group "Hateful-Seal-Starvers."

How many people out there in interweb land think this convocation of world leaders is going to happen now?

[crickets chirp]

That's right.  It ain't.  Just like we're never going to have any kind of movement on so many of our own domestic and international problems until we can at least agree to treat each other civilly.  And that doesn't just mean saying "please" and "thank you," it means calling each other by names we know the other person prefers to be called.  Because I hate to say it, but if my argument is so weak that it won't survive me calling the other side by the name it prefers, I deserve to lose.