When did it become fashionable to be stupid? Or rather, when did it become acceptable, or profitable, expected, or newsworthy? Because these days, I feel overwhelmed by stupidity: stupid behavior, stupid decisions, and then stupid excuses. Maybe it’s the 24/7 news cycle or a case of over-active PR machinery. There’s too much stuff going on that masquerades as news. But some days, it’s just WTF times 2 — or maybe times 200.
Stupid has several connotations; it’s a hurtful word, which is why I hate using it. But these are mean-spirited times, my friends, and that occasionally calls for mean-spirited words. As I apply it, stupid refers to (but is not limited to): willful ignorance, determined obstinance, self-serving incompetence, deliberate misrepresentation, purposeful insensitivity, or wholesale rudeness. It’s the impulse to act like a jerk and I promise you, I’m not exempt. And let me make this perfectly clear: this epidemic is not restricted to one particular party, gender, religious group, or age bracket.
You want examples?
- A recent series of polls shows near unanimity among scientists when it comes to belief in evolution by natural selection. Only a third of the American public accepts natural selection. Of the majority who don’t, 28% also insist that scientists themselves are divided on the subject (if this is confusing, read the beginning of the paragraph again. Meanwhile, more than 70% have great respect for and trust in science, although only one in four know what “scientific theory” means. [source: Pew Research Center]
- Andrew Young, John Edwards’ one-time assistant, claims he went along with Edwards’ fantabulous story of paternity in order to protect Elizabeth Edwards. This may explain why he seeks to sell the purported sex tapes of Edwards and his mistress.
- Mark McGwire gets ready to teach the next generation of St. Louis Cardinals after sort of, kind of coming “clean” about past steroid use. St. Louis fans are expected to give him the baseball equivalent of a Hail Mary pass either for the steroid use or for lying for ten years; it’s not clear.
- Members of a Baptist church whisked into Port Au Prince, picking up children, forgoing paperwork or background checks that might have established whether the children were, in fact, orphans or whether they had any family members looking for them.
Notice I’ve included no examples that deal directly with politics, and I’ve kept hands off the media for now, although I have piles of bones to pick, starting with the sensationalism that passes for analysis and ending with the substitution of close-ended talking points for serious debate.
The first example could be an instance of misunderstanding or misinformation; the last could be excused as well-intentioned, albeit foolish. For that matter, the dalliances of public figures could be seen as nothing more than a series of character flaws — and don’t we all have them? No one is intending any harm; no one is setting out to hurt anyone. They’re just not thinking.
Unacceptable.
An acquaintance of mine, an educator, wrote a timely op-ed in the New York Times about changes in measuring the success or failure of how we educate our children. At twelve years of age, children, should be able to “read a chapter book, write a story and a compelling essay; know how to add, subtract, divide and multiply numbers… use evidence to support an opinion…and engage in an exchange of ideas.” But schools don’t teach that way; they teach to the test, which is to say, they encourage children to memorize, rather than to put experiences together in new ways.
Are these children who will grow up to be curious about other points of view, new ideas, change? I’d say no. In fact, political pundits have been saying Americans don’t like change. Since when? Ten years? Twenty? I always thought I lived in a society that was not only capable of change but also open to it. Clearly I’ve been fooling myself.
We are in the middle of a crisis in this country. Absolutely, it is economic: we are on track to be carrying a huge deficit on our collective backs. We may find it hard, even impossible, to retain our sole superpower status. Deficits restrict programming because they restrict available funding. The country that put a man on the moon might be grounding its space program.
If we can’t spend large, does that mean we have to think small or not at all? Are we supposed to accept only those changes forced upon us by economic necessity and push away anything else as too threatening to consider? What about a change in the way we teach? Or the way we communicate? How about a meaningful difference in our determinations about what we think the government owes us — or what we owe our government? What about a change in the way we earn and invest, spend or save? Or think.
I’m sick of celebrating stupidity, even if it’s supposedly so we can all feel better about ourselves. I’m tired of the stupid amount of time and energy devoted to being contrary, rude, divisive, or dismissive. Something’s got to change; we have a chance not only to be part of the change but to insist on it, or let another opportunity slip away.
We cannot be that stupid.
ls are overwhelmed, the serious would-be professionals are fighting for space and the amateurs/inmates sometimes seem to have overtaken the blogosphere. In a medium that favors speed over accuracy and hyperbole over reflection, it’s harder than ever to use the media in making a point, let alone press an agenda. 
oof Senate. But he’s going to have to put more heart into it. He’s going to have to get tough (or appear to get tough); and he’s going to have to develop a much more personal and persuasive message, one that can change the impression too many Americans have that he’s not paying attention to how much they’re hurting.
Pete and Jim, 1995
Afghanistan is a war which we didn’t start but which we will end. We have twenty months (more or less) to do so. Before we end it, we will provide a surge to counter the insurgency. This will be done in full view of absolutely everybody. This is not done lightly but with the security of the United States in mind. We will secure key areas (not deeply rural areas because we can’t; no one can) against the Taliban as we train and grow the Afghan Army. Yes, we are forced to count on support from a deeply corrupt government, but we will hold that government accountable. We will not send them money directly but instead will fund local leaders, build up local miltia and convert former insurgents. We cannot send troops uninvited into Pakistan, where we know Al Qaeda is most active and where the nuclear arsenal is less than secure, but we will be close by. We will try to cut off any nascent partnership between the Taliban and Al Qaeda and prevent new alliances from growing. Most importantly, we will convince ordinary Afghans that we are there to help them take their country back and then move it forward. This is at the heart of any lasting success.
Army doctor at Fort Hood kills twelve
of all, these victories do not represent an indictment of Obama; rather, the Democratic candidates represented an indictment of incompetancy. Second, New Jersey is exceptional; that is, exceptionally corrupt. If the virus is spreading, however, I have to rethink this whole third party thing.
Jackson was, except probably a typically show-biz type — all swagger and gaga over the cash cow he produced. Still, he’s now eighty and he’s asking for approximately $180,000 a year, which is probably less than some of the Goldman-Sachs bonuses this year. Give it to him.
Brookes Shields (oh dear) and his apparent dislike of tennis (oh please). Mostly, it’s noticeable for pull quotes, serialization potential, and the overtly earthly presence of its “ghost” writer. It’s sure to be a best-seller.
My next door neighbor’s son Jason was crestfallen when he got the memo from school about this year’s pc Halloween celebration: no vampires, no zombies, no monsters, no devils; no swords or stakes or axes or ropes or hockey masks with breathing holes. Forget the fake blood or the green slime or the dripping claws or the sticky cobwebs or the black goo or dressing like his horror film namesake. “Positive images only,” said the school memo, with helpful suggestions like “Winnie the Poo, Cinderella, Tinkerbell, or Marley” (presumably before his death scene). To make things worse, no weapons of any kind, even for the heroes. I understand school is supposed to be a safe place, but what’s a nine year old boy to do? 
support went to a loose but ideologically conservative coalition of religious leaders and tribal leaders – the mujahideen. The Soviets then countered with an invasion to shore up their friends in the government, the United States began to arm the anti-communist factions (which also received aid from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) and a horrible civil was broke out in which between half a million and two million Afghan citizens were killed. You can check at any one of dozens of sites on Afghan recent history (even Wikipedia is more or less up to date) or you can watch the infinitely enjoyable 
The U.S. also sought to overthrow the Taliban government because they were presumably harboring Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members, although documents show that Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistics support as part of concerted action with India, Iran, and Russia – that would be our current adversary and our former one. The Taliban was ousted, the secular leader Hamid Karzai was made the 
transitional chairman of the newly installed government, then became president in 2004.
In My Opinion
January 11, 2010 by 1 Woman
Rich’s article was actually about the dangers posed by our under-regulated financial system, (he proposed a full body scan for banks). But his early comment got me thinking about what it means to express an opinion in the 21st-century and about the op-ed piece, a writing form I respect. Thanks to the Internet, we can reach a potential audience of hundreds or thousands or millions. We don’t need an editor or even a publisher. Ta-da! Suddenly, not only are we all not only experts, but also op-ed writers.
The idea behind editorial writing is to promote an opinion or perspective. A good editorial can be a punch to the gut or a gentle tap on the shoulder. It can be a call to arms or a keenly analytical observation. It can be passionate or humorous, a case presented or an alternative suggested. In all cases, however, the writing is about the audience, not the author.
That’s something a great many people fail to grasp. Not everything that occurs to us deserves to be expressed and not everything we feel like expressing rises to the level of op-ed material. I realize that most people who throw their comments onto AOL or HuffPo aren’t thinking along those lines. But I hate seeing the art of op-ed writing reduced to the level of rant; the style is fitfully amusing at best and painfully awful most of the time. What’s the point? If you’re simply venting, go punch a wall.
Posted in Culture, In The News, Media | Tagged blogging, bloviate, citizen journalist, comment, editorialize, opinion, report, self-publishing | 6 Comments »