Two Minds

It’s painful to see what happens to people when they get hung up on what they believe to be absolutely right and can’t abide conflicting ideas. The Colorado Springs shooter apparently targeted the Planned Parenthood clinic because he believes the organization is actively harvesting fetal body parts, perhaps even encouraging abortions for that purpose. It’s likely he believes abortion is murder -- but he was willing to commit some himself to get his point across.

Look, I will be honest. I’m pretty well convinced that human life begins with conception. The ball is rolling, so in broad concept, I’m not a fan of abortion. But do I think a woman who has been raped or subject to incest should be forced to bear a child? Or that one who simply can’t afford to raise a baby be forced to give birth? No. But it all doesn’t affect my core belief. That said, I’m not interested in changing the law of the land. It’s a situation where I just have to hold two conflicting positions at once. How do I live with myself? Well, for the moment, I do.

Maybe you’re against abortion because of what you feel is the sanctity of human life. But are you also in favor of the death penalty for those who commit especially heinous crimes?

More examples: Many of us believe that we have to kill suffering animals to release them from their misery. But we have an awful problem with human beings getting similar help to be released from theirs.

You may be against humanity’s contribution to climate change. And you may love animals. But have you considered that your enjoyment of red meat not only requires slaughtering animals, but contributes to global warming? Will you really re-think dinner tonight?

Are you a nice person who abhors violence but likes to watch a little football or boxing on weekends?

Are you a social drinker, but troubled by the prospect of legalizing marijuana?

For centuries, otherwise good people tolerated bad things, like slavery. It was a given that women weren’t allowed to vote. These were once absolutes. But what needs to change for the better usually does, when it’s time. The right ideas survive, and eventually, we sort things out – but it doesn’t happen with guns. In practice, we watch the tares grow with the wheat – and it’s not always easy to tell the difference when we’re standing in the middle of the field.  

When we find ourselves of two minds once in a while, maybe we need to cut ourselves a little slack. If you hear more than one voice, maybe it’s not such a bad thing. At least it means you’re listening.

The Garden of Good and Evil

By now, we know what the acronym PC means. To start with, it’s the thing I’m typing this post on – but you know what I’m talking about: Political Correctness. Inoffensive ways of saying, doing, or demonstrating things. Disabilities being renamed “challenges,” you know the drill. But then there is the revision, or more precisely, the suppression, of history. Removing the statues of former heroes who turned out to be bad guys. The late Penn State football coach Joe Paterno is one of the best examples, for his perceived cover-up of child sex abuse. The number of winning football seasons, and the prestige and money he brought to the university, became secondary. As for the living, Bill Cosby is being stripped of an honorary degree because of the numerous drug-date-rapes he is accused of. The comedy albums that made millions laugh will stay in the back of the record cabinet (do you even have a “record cabinet”?).

This week, though, it hit closer to home for me. An organization of students wants Princeton University to make the name Woodrow Wilson go away. Wilson was the 28^th president of the United States, but before that, he was governor of New Jersey and the president of Princeton, where I went in the last century. But he was a racist. He supported segregation. His favorite movie was “Birth of a Nation.”  But President Wilson also supported women’s suffrage. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his sponsorship of the League of Nations, a precursor to the U.N. One of the most prestigious schools of international affairs at Princeton bears his name, so far, anyway. Oops, but then there’s the income tax.

OK, so what are we to conclude here? He wasn’t the greatest president we’ve ever had, but nor was he the worst. He was a human being, full of contradictions. Thomas Jefferson fathered children with a black slave. Andrew Jackson signed the legislation forcing Indian tribes off their land. But I'm not ready to teer up my $20 bills just yet.

I partly went along with the Confederate flag thing. I agree that it had no business being on state flag designs or on the flagpoles of state buildings. But is it only about slavery? Or is the symbolism a little broader than that in the South? Is it quite the same as the Nazi flag? I’m supposed to be sure about the answers – but sorry, I’m not.

The Civil War was an awful thing.  Hundreds of thousands of young men died. Yet, Fort Sumter in South Carolina, where the first shot was fired, is a national monument. A friend who visited there recently told us that the bricks at the fort were created by black slaves. Civil War battlefields are historic sites all over the East. Every year, many slightly overweight men try to squeeze into Union or Confederate uniforms for Civil War reenactments. Almost like it’s a great big game.

Human history is always about contradictions, because it’s all about us. Why can’t we get used to that, live with them, and more importantly, learn from them, instead of fussing quite so much over symbolism? A black-and-white world is a lot easier to understand and navigate. But it’s just not the world we live in.

Compassion and Caution

ISIS must be pretty proud of itself. An attack perpetrated by only a few people with relatively low-tech weapons on a Friday night in Paris, and the rest of us are quaking in our boots. And now, what to do with Syrian refugees? Let them in, and there might be bad guys among them. Gasp!

First, let’s be realistic about a couple of things. We don’t let very much into this country without checking it first. Food items might have Old World pests in them. Toys may be toxic. Exotic pets may be cute, but they could multiply and kill off our native species. Imports carry a risk. What about human beings? Remember all the jumping up and down we did because somebody carrying Ebola landed in a couple of our cities?

Yes, all that give-me-your-tired-and-your-poor stuff sounds great, but we have always been a little picky about who we let in. Those arriving at Ellis Island, right under Liberty’s torch in the early 20^th century, were checked for disease, and that was just the beginning.

So what to do with the Syrians? A majority of governors don’t want them until they’re checked out – and a majority of Americans agree. President Obama chastised critics as being afraid of “widows and orphans,” while many of the Syrians showing up in Europe now are young, single males. Having a concern about terrorists being among them doesn’t automatically make us inhumane. But we do have to figure out a way to humanely process those who would come here.

Three or four years ago, I remember watching CNN night after night and seeing how the Assad regime turned a mechanized army on its own people. I still remember the brave reporters – mostly women – who risked their lives covering it. What was our response? We shook our heads and said, isn’t that a shame.

The Middle East refugee crisis didn’t start in 2015. It’s been going on for years. The U.N. and other agencies have been talking about it a long time. The Western world didn’t wake up to it until people started getting on boats and heading for Europe. There could have been some kind of a system in place in the EU for vetting them. Too late now.

But what do we do here? As I’ve said, we have it easy; we have two oceans to protect us, so we have a little more time to figure out a response. I just can’t believe we can’t throw together some databases (seems like we have lots of those) to check these people against in a reasonable amount of time. Does it really have to take 18 months plus to admit one of these refugees? Ebola was by no means new, and was ignored by Big Pharma for a long time – but a few researchers got their acts together and came up with a vaccine in a hurry when it was needed.

Can we keep out everyone who would do us harm? No, but we can keep out some. The fact is, however, that those who would do us harm are likely already here – and some may not even be Muslim! (Gasp again). The New Normal isn’t pretty. But we can’t pretend we didn’t have a role in creating the Middle Eastern mess, through a mistaken war and simple neglect.

Blame is about history; responsibility is about the present. I don’t know what the solutions to the current problem are, but I do know we’re pretty good at finding them when we have to.

Taking It to Isis

I really hesitate to reveal myself as a hawk, but beaks and talons are kind of difficult to hide. There are just a few common arguments I’m having trouble with as we consider what to do about ISIS.

“We (the U.S.) can’t be the policemen of the world.” No, we can’t. It certainly isn’t our job to deal with every group of bad guys by ourselves. But often we have to take a leadership role and exercise moral authority. We have to demonstrate what effective policing is, bring “recruits” along, and teach them how to do it with us. Messages have to be sent about terrorism not being tolerated. And no, it isn’t fair! We may not be able to deal with every situation equally. But we have to start somewhere.

“They hate us because we’re over there.” No, they hate us because we EXIST. Those who embrace this twisted version of Islam won’t be satisfied with a caliphate confined to Iraq and Syria. They want an end to decadence, and that is what we are about in their book. We don’t have to allow this barbarous philosophy, religion, or whatever it is, to have its own country.

“If we attack them in Syria and Iraq, they will just go somewhere else.” The terrorists are all over the place, brainwashed by whom they’ve been listening to or what they read on the Internet. But this snake has a head in a particular place. And not cutting it off will just allow those establishing themselves in other locations to feel that much more secure.

“What about Russia and Iran?” What about them? Will battling ISIS mean we might shoot down a Russian plane accidentally, or vice-versa? Has any war not had “friendly fire” incidents? You may even question the use of the word “friendly” here.

“The real solution is education, assimilation, and negotiation.” ISIS isn’t interested in any of that, and right now, we don’t have the time for it. That’s for later.

“If we strike them, they will come after us.” Is this really a reason for inaction? They will come after us anyway. And BTW, they don’t need WMD to do it – they are scaring us just fine with low-level, conventional weapons.

“We will have to become a police state to protect ourselves.” Truth be told, we have been reasonably good at thwarting plots without paranoid security measures. But will sleeper cells and others succeed occasionally? Yes, that is the new reality. We have a false sense of safety given to us by two oceans. Israel is surrounded by several potentially hostile states, and yet has always managed to defend itself.

“If we get involved over there, it will never end.” That’s partly because of the WAY we get involved. We fight wars without declaring them and without well-defined missions, and don’t allocate the resources to get the job done. I said the other day that our Middle East policy has been like starting a fire, letting it grow to a thousand acres, and then throwing a couple glasses of water on it and wondering why it doesn’t go out. No, a fire has to be drowned or smothered. ISIS numbers only about 30,000 at the most. Doable, IMHO.

The second part is that we might have to be there for a while, even after we “win.” After World War II, the Allies occupied Germany and Japan, and basically stayed there until we could help those countries get back on their feet. That takes a lot longer than our short attention spans and impatience permit these days, and it’s a messy process.

“We can’t afford it; it’s not our problem, let all the factions there blow each other up!”  Can we really believe we didn’t have a role in creating the present situation? And what happens if they all do blow themselves up? Then what?

We are usually late to these “parties,” but at some point we have to knock on the door.

Answer the Question!

So now the tables are turned, it’s open season on the media types running Presidential debates. When I was in the media, I sat on panels and frequently moderated these kinds of things myself. With all due respect to Dr. Carson, it’s not brain surgery.

The first, and simplest thing, is making candidates stick to the time limits. Now there’s discussion about buzzers, gongs, etc., to signal time is up. My favorite low-tech solution is a gavel. Everyone knows what that means, and repeated whacking when someone doesn’t shut up makes the speaker look bad.

The second important principle is forcing candidates to answer the questions -- which means interrupting the speaker if they evade or try to bring up a new topic. And if it means repeatedly asking the question to get an actual answer, it must be done. The panelist must be a bulldog.

If one candidate mentions another in a negative light, certainly the “victim” should be given the opportunity to respond – but it’s nobody else’s business.

Do media people ask stupid questions sometimes? To quote Sarah P., you betcha. Questions that goad one candidate into attacking another, for instance, should be absolutely off limits. Maybe this is a point where you need an impartial moderator who can knock a bad question down.

But are candidates’ past lives and statements fair game?  Absolutely! If there’s a “gotcha,” well, the audience needs to know two things – not just the quality of the explanation by the candidate, but also how the candidate reacts to the question. Calm? Defensive? Truthful? Evasive? We are electing human beings with personal qualities, which are sometimes more important than whether we agree with them on particular issues.

This is the big one, and it’s our job as audience members, not the media folks’. A candidate may be entertaining up there on the debate stage. But we have to mentally put that individual in front of the podium during a White House news conference, perhaps after an emergency. As President, every word that comes out of his or her mouth will be dissected and interpreted, and could have major national or international impact. Which of the people we are looking at now would we feel comfortable seeing in that situation?

The quality of these debates, or forums or whatever name we give them, may vary depending on the format or the questioners. But we learn something new every time. Even a little sunshine goes a long way,