Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid's, recently exposed gaff--so called--raises some interesting and troubling questions. If we are not already, we are perilously close to the place where there are significant categories of information that simply can't be talked about--kind of an updated version of not discussing politics or religion in polite company. I wonder, though, what if the taboo subject is precisely what needs to be discussed--like going to your physician with a huge tumor, and being told that any discussion of cancer is unacceptable?
And, to the extent that the Senator's comments do enter the public conversation, the talking heads, and sound-biters tend not to discuss whether his words were wrong, right, innocent, dumb, or taken-out-of-context. The comments that hit the news today, are compared to comments of years ago. If the reaction was negative back then, words judged to be similar must be condemned today. If former verbal-sinners were defended, then current offenders must be protected as well. It's a sickly brand of consistency. For a moment suspend judgment. In theory, is it possible that the old reactions were wrong? Am I just a Pollyanna to think that maybe we have learned something over the past decade.
But, ten years ago when I dealt with this I might have said something different, so that would make me wrong today.
In case you miss my point, what we should ask is what is right and true right now.
It's STTA.
No comments:
Post a Comment