ThomStratton.com

This song has been over-done, to say the least. But this arrangement by Salt Lake Pops gives it new life:

Murad Mardilos Wartanian is the mayor of a town in Armenia so small Google Maps doesn’t know it exists. Most of us will never hear of Wartanian or anyone else in his town of 115 families. But to the 86+ families they took in from war-torn Iraq they are the world.

I like to think I’d do the same, but…would I?

It’s both a compliment and deeply troubling that some Americans are asking,”Why do we need free speech?” We’ve enjoyed free speech for so long, it seems, that we don’t easily see the more dangerous implications hiding behind “by removing free speech we can do away with the minor annoyances of dealing with contrary ideas.” But it’s deeply troubling that we also seem to be incapable of looking at history or beyond our borders to see what the curtailing of free speech becomes. It’s deeply troubling in that most of the advocates for curtailing it in America have themselves benefitted from it enormously in recent years. They seem to be completely ignorant to the fact that no one clamped down on their freedom of speech when they started agitating for many of the changes that are coming to fruition today. In many ways it’s the equivalent of, “thanks for not stomping on me when you had the chance, sucker. *STOMP!!!!*”

What is truly ironic, however, is that one area where free speech is under attack is in what used to be monuments to the free exchange of knowledge and ideas. Whereas colleges and universities once launched anti-authoritarian movements, they’re now the primary vehicles of authoritarianism. Today’s college students need to be protected from any ideas that might cause them discomfort. Imagine that. How much discomfort did the various campus movements of the 1960’s cause students? What would have happened if campuses decided back then that questioning the government and cultural traditions had to come with trigger warnings and only take place in approved campus locations–if at all? What if the Young Republicans had been able to mount campaigns to ban liberal speakers from campuses under the banner of protecting students from hateful, angry speech?

The world would look very different today. There’s no denying that. So it’s ironic that colleges, bastions of liberalism, have embraced the hard-right conservatism they supposedly used to oppose. They are the ones who are afraid of change.

But you don’t have to take my word for it:

When I went to college I was exposed to some ideas that were not entirely comfortable. On occasions my beliefs were verbally mocked by other students. I not only survived, I think I grew a little. Certainly my horizons broadened. I may not have chosen to be exposed to those contrary ideas, but hiding from them wouldn’t have helped me in the slightest.

Also for your consideration: Univ. of WI Releases List of Microaggressions; Saying “Everyone can Succeed” now racist.

The world would be a much better place if we could just get that other guy to change his mind!

That’s the heart of most of the conflict I see out there. We complain, we insult, we attack, we guilt, and point out all the falacies and illogic in their arguments, but doggone it, they just don’t change! What is wrong with these people?! Why can’t they just do what they oughta?

The real question, however, is probably why can’t we do what we oughta?

Suppose I don’t like hockey.* Perhaps I even have a negative impression of the game and, by association, anyone who would like to watch it. I may have also had some bad experiences with half-drunk hockey fans who harrassed me and my family one time when we had to get past them on the street. And then I encounter two different representatives.

Fred is a guy I work with. He thinks I’m hyper-critical about hockey, and perhaps even a little dumb for disliking it. He regularly finds opportunities to harrass me about it in the hallways, sometimes even in department meetings. If ever I mess up on an assignment he teases, “Hey, a hockey fan would never make that mistake!” And ever since he found I don’t like hockey it seems he’s hanging up some new bit of hockey memorabilia in his cubicle every day and insisting I check it out when I walk past.

And then there’s Tim. He’s always willing to answer questions, and sometimes pitches in to help if I’m getting behind on stuff. He’s always quick with a smile and a “good morning”, and we often have good conversations about our families. If I mess up on something he sticks up for me in meetings, and is willing to help to set things right. He found out we both like baseball, and we regularly discuss great games we saw recently.

One day the office runs a promotion in which the top people are given two tickets to a hockey game. I don’t enter, of course. But it turns out that both Fred and Tim win and get tickets.

Fred stops by my cubicle first. “Hey, loser!” he says, “I got some free tickets! How about you and me go so I can show you what you’ve been missing? Come on, don’t be a lame-o loser, let’s do it!”

Later in the day Tim stops by. “Hey, I won these tickets. Fred tells me you don’t like hockey, but I thought it might be fun to do something together. We can get dinner first at wherever you choose, and if you don’t like the game we can leave. What do you say? Please?”

Who is more likely to talk me into going to the game? Who is more likely to modify my opinion of hockey and hockey fans? Tim may never convince me to like hockey, but he may at least get me to modify my opinion of hockey fans, because he doesn’t fit the mold I imagine in my mind. Fred, however? I’d rather be pecked to death by hummingbirds than go to a game with him. And he’d never be able to change my opinion of hockey fans because he plays into the very stereotype I’ve built up in my head.

But if I were to ever go to a hockey game, it would be with Tim. If anyone could ever change my mind on hockey it would be him. Why? Because it’s clear to me his friendship is genuine. He isn’t bothered that I don’t like hockey. And he certainly doesn’t seem to base his behavior toward me on my enjoyment of hockey. I have the feeling if I were to go with him and then decide to leave he’d be okay with that. And knowing that, I’d probably be more willing to give it a try–for him.

Now, imagine if Fred could be more like Tim. Having two guys at work that I trust and respect want to take me to a game–heck, I’d probably go. Just knowing they like hockey would probably start to soften my resistance to it. It’s hard to say. But they, at the very least, wouldn’t keep adding to my list of reasons to dislike it.

Unfortunately the Tim method of persuasion is hard, and it takes time. Who wants to wait that long? This issue is just too important to wait any longer!

And therein lies the problem. You’ll never convince anyone your cause or issue is important until they believe that they are more important than your cause. I know someone who is currently struggling to get enough people lined up for two events he is putting together to advance a particular cause. His approach to get more people to come is to harangue them about how lazy and uncommitted they are and how they aren’t worthy of the cause. I really doubt this is going to yield the desired results. I wouldn’t be surprised if they get even less of a turnout to the next–and perhaps even this–set of events because people don’t want to be treated like that.

You’ve heard the expression “You’ll catch more flies with honey than vinegar”, I’m sure. The modern equivalent seems to be, “You may kill more flies with a flamethrower, but you won’t burn your house down in the process with honey.”

If you want to change someone you’ll get better results through love and respect than coersion, intimidation, bribery, or guilt.

Or put another way, live in such a way that your causes and ideas are made better by the association. It’s not quick, and it’s not easy, but it works.

* – I’ve got nothing against hockey. It’s just an example, as I’ve never been to a game.

Update: Along those lines, there’s this:

Who owns words? Does usage trump meaning? Are we justified in being offended by the use of a word that simply sounds like an offensive word, but is clearly not, given the context?

Jurassic World, the summer blockbuster eclipsing even Pixar openings, has run afoul of the word police. In the movie there is a species of dinosaur called a Pachycephalosaurus. I think you can see why people wouldn’t want to say the entire word, and shorten it to “Pachy”:

In the film, Lapkus says: ‘Another pachy roaming outside his zone, but he’s ready for relocation.’
She later says: ‘The pachy shawed off their implants when they butt heads.’
Jake Johnson, who plays Lowery, then responded saying: ‘He’s very stoned. So why don’t we show them a little sympathy.
‘You do understand these are actually animals.’

Evidently in the UK people are calling Pakistanis “Pakis” in a derogatory way, and assuming a movie about dinosaurs is somehow singling out and mocking Pakistanis.

The Pachycephalosaurus genus was established in 1943, according to Wikipedia. And apparently a great many people in the UK are ignorant of that fact. So when they hear the word “Pachy” in a movie about a dinosaur research park they automatically think people whose jobs are to keep track of dinosaurs, are talking about Pakistanis. Are they right to think so–and therefore be offended–or do we have the right to ridicule these people as Watching While Stupid? At what point does someone’s coining of a word obligate everyone else to discard their use of a homophonic but completely unrelated word? Are the writers of Jurassic World, who were likely all American and who probably have never heard the anti-Pakistani ephithet, responsible for what people in the UK thought they said, despite context clues to the contrary?

Like it or not, the word “gay” no longer means “having or showing a merry, lively mood,” or “bright or showy”, despite that being the legitimate definition of the word for most of the span of the English language. I can no longer use that word in connection with anything else but homosexual individuals or behavior thanks to a few people who subverted a perfectly good word. But I can’t claim ignorant usage any more. The word change is just too prevalent. I’d come up with another way to say, “Oh, those flowers are so gay!”

When I lived in Australia and complained of having a “bloody nose” everyone, knowing I was an American, realized I was not cursing my own body part. (For the uninitiated, that would be the equivalent of saying, “I’ve got a damned nose!”, which would probably make them think, “Just figure that out there, mate?” Aussies instead say, “I have a blood nose”.) Americans, on the other hand, have little idea that when an Aussie declares he/she is p!ssed they mean they’re drunk, and might get offended, or at least surprised. (Actually, these days they’d probably not even blink, but might ask why they’re upset.)

But in both cases no offense was intended, and only the truly judgmental would continue to be offended once they understood the source of the miscommunication. So at what point are the writers of Jurassic World responsible for the offense taken by British viewers who ignored the context clues and insisted on assuming the characters were being racist? And since the heart of the miscommunication has undoubtedly been explained to them by now, are they still justified in being offended? And is it okay for us to mock their lack of scientific knowledge and unsophisticated world view?

Or are we entering an era of guilt by lack of due diligence? Is every screenwriter now required to research any possible direct or extrapolated/homophonic alternative meanings in any country the resulting movie might be released in? Do we seriously need to worry about people out there, when hearing that raptors are vicious predators (ie. short for velociraptors, another kind of dinosaur), thinking they’re referring to the Toronto Raptors (basketball team), the Ogden raptors (baseball team), eagles and like birds, or the F-22 Raptor (a military jet)? Do they seriously think Chris Pratt’s character is holding a basketball training camp out on some remote island in a movie about dinosaurs?

Perhaps so. Because even though the outrage in the UK over “pachy” started as a tongue-in-cheek joke, a lot of people have taken it seriously and are burning up social media over it.

I suppose I should be offended by their obvious insult to the human race. Since when did Americans have to educate the British on their own language?

I had never heard of this before. Giant electrical discharges in the upper atmosphere resembling glowing jellyfish? It’s a sci-fi/fantasy writer’s dream! And my local news station is the first to bring it to my attention:

I’ve heard the phrase “on the wrong side of history” a fair bit in the last several years. I know it’s meant to express vindication for an idea or movement that is coming into its own. Anyone opposing that idea/movement is on the wrong side of history. Time has proven that the right side has won out, etc.

But there’s another quote that is also relevent here: history is written by the victors.

So being on the wrong side of history doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with whether you were right or wrong, but rather whether your won or lost. It also, you would think, means that there is a clear winner and loser already.

In many of the cases it’s not so clear anyone has won or lost yet, let alone who was right and who was wrong. And as anyone who studies history can tell you, even when written by the victors it’s not always clear who really won or lost.

I remember back in the 80’s and 90’s when the Japanese were the global powerhouse. It seemed like their products were clobbering American-made everything, and their wealthy class were buying up everything in sight. I remember people on several occasions wondering, “hey, didn’t we win the war?” Well perhap the war wasn’t over after all, or perhaps in the long run our defeat of Japan and subsequent rebuilding efforts put us both on a win/win course. But even today we can’t really say who won. Our military defeated Japan back then, but since that time it’s not so simple to describe what happened between our countries.

I can’t help but think, therefore, that those throwing around accusations against others of being on the wrong side of history aren’t really thinking things all the way through. You may be winning at the moment, and you may be doing your darnedest to write the history books your way, but the jury of time is still out. History is not complete.

But one thing seems certain. If you’re able to declare you’re on the right side of history, that means you are the ones in power, holding the power, etc. That makes you the enemy against which you are fighting, not those on the “wrong side of history.” You’re the lack of change you want to see in the world. That means, for starters, that it’s your fault if things aren’t going the way you want. It also means, you break it, you’ve bought it. It’s hard to claim both victory and victimhood.