I republish this distorted, photo-shopped image recently widely circulated on Facebook as an example of dishonest and misleading propaganda designed to embarrass and discredit for the edification of an unspecting public. The truth is, the photo-op never happened and is completely manufactured as is the grossly-enlarged cheque. Actual facts of the Federal Governement payment to Omar Khadr aside, the point is that proponents of any cause should not have to stoop to this level in order to influence the gullible segment of the population. We so easily forget about ethics in today's society, especially on social media. I resist the temptation to point a finger at the naive and unsuspecting individuals who find it necessary, or impressive, to copy and share this type of garbage on their timelines...We'll go easy on them here FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.
Let's face it, there are obstinate people in our midst -- the haters of the world -- those who will go to any length to spew their venom and shockingly opinionated biases. While yet to be directed at me, I am nevertheless offended every time I see or hear the words "dumb", "stupid", "idiot", "f----ing bastard" directed at someone (private citizen or politician) with a differing view or persuasion on Facebook or Twitter. I cannot help but wonder what they say to their enemies when they talk like that to supposed "friends"?
It is all so distasteful and uncalled for, uncivilized, reflecting poorly. Sadly, and to make matters worse, the majority of these ill-advised individuals are otherwise decent, solid citizens. Go figure!!!
One of the issues bringing out the worst in a lot of people participating in protracted and controversial social media exchanges recently has been the concocted "immigrants vs. veterans" question. What comes to mind when you consider that phrase? Lately, it’s been like a war; rhetoric and spin pitting the two groups against one another within the mainstream social narrative more times than one can count. In the “sport” of support, the public has felt pressure to pick a side or a player, as though political talking points have become little more than fantasy football stats to be debated in a locker room.
The Journal of Politics and International Affairs in the U.S. pretty well nails it with the following statement: "This strategy of pitting two seemingly disparate demographics of the population only further polarizes any meaningful immigration or veterans affairs reform. Furthermore, illegal immigrants and veterans are not as mutually exclusive as politicized rhetoric makes it out to be."
As a general rule with very few exceptions, whenever you encounter someone arguing that “We [Canadians/Americans] shouldn’t be doing X to help those people over there until we fix Y over here for our own people,” then you have also just encountered someone who doesn’t really give two hoots about actually doing anything to fix Y over here.
We saw this rule demonstrated after the Boxing Day tsunami and the Haiti earthquake a few years ago. “Why should we be helping those people over there when we have homeless people who need help here at home?” asked tens of thousands of North Americans who had not previously, and did not subsequently, express any meaningful concern for North America’s homeless. “Why should we be helping Ebola victims in West Africa when we have people who need health care here in America?” asked the same people, before going back to denouncing the Affordable Care Act as socialist slavery.
The same thing happens every time tragedy strikes anywhere in the world and Americans and Canadians respond — whether through private charities or through governmental action. We hear this same protest and same feigned concern every time there’s a famine or a natural disaster or a wave of refugees displaced by war.
And 99.9 percent of the time these sudden, fervent expressions of concern for “people right here home” is completely and demonstrably insincere. It is almost always only said by people who have spent the rest of their miserable lives similarly protesting and opposing any effort to do anything good or fair or decent for those same “people right here at home.” Anything that supports agenda, no matter how outrageous and inflated, has gleefully become fair game.
Those with a genuine commitment to improving life for “people right here” never make this argument. You’ll never hear a political official arguing that we shouldn’t send relief to Pakistani earthquake victims because we should be spending that money to repair and rebuild our horrifically broken public defender system. You’ll never hear anyone opposing medical aid to eradicate malaria abroad because it is a distraction from the need for trust-busting banking reform here in our own country. And you’ll never hear opposition parties suggesting that resources spent resettling refugees should be redirected to transition us from fossil fuels to cleaner, renewable energy sources.
Decent people don’t play that game. People who genuinely care about one good thing do not treat every other good thing as competition that must be crushed and stopped. They do not argue that justice for X should come at the expense of injustice for Y.
Good people devoted to and focused on a single good cause come to see — precisely because of that devotion — the connections and intersections of that cause and of other good and worthy causes. They recognize the truth of Martin Luther King’s statement that “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.” And they recognize that the transformations they are seeking in systems and national character are congruent with the transformations that those other causes require.
At some basic level, the kind of nation that is able to respond to earthquake victims abroad will be more like the kind of nation that is able to make positive changes “right here at home” to address our own needs and injustices. And at that same basic level, the kind of nation that turns its back on those earthquake victims, or those Ebola victims, or those refugees, will be the kind of nation that is less likely and less able to ever address the problems it has on the home front
So folks, don’t pretend you’re suddenly concerned about the common good right here at home and that’s why you oppose doing even something as depressingly minimal as sheltering 10,000 refugees. Don’t lie to me and don’t lie to yourself by suddenly pretending that you’re concerned about the welfare of homeless veterans.
That’s baloney and everybody knows it. The only people impressed by pretense and play-acting are the other pretentious fantasists on Facebook feeds who rush to “Like” blatant posturing because it allows them to join in the game and pretend that they’re also virtuous and heroic champions of homeless veterans, even though they didn’t give a damn about them last week and will go back to not giving a damn about them next week.
Pro-veteran proponents do themselves (and veterans) a disservice when they enter the "immigrants vs. veterans" frey. It should not be an "us vs. them" controversy, rather it should be a question of how we and our government treat each group fairly and compassionately, based on merit.
Furthermore, in this case, I do not think that we are comparing apples and apples and we should not get sucked in by those with biases who distort and take liberties with the truth just because they think that they can get away with the ruse. It makes me want to smack them, both literally and figuratively.
We saw this rule demonstrated after the Boxing Day tsunami and the Haiti earthquake a few years ago. “Why should we be helping those people over there when we have homeless people who need help here at home?” asked tens of thousands of North Americans who had not previously, and did not subsequently, express any meaningful concern for North America’s homeless. “Why should we be helping Ebola victims in West Africa when we have people who need health care here in America?” asked the same people, before going back to denouncing the Affordable Care Act as socialist slavery.
The same thing happens every time tragedy strikes anywhere in the world and Americans and Canadians respond — whether through private charities or through governmental action. We hear this same protest and same feigned concern every time there’s a famine or a natural disaster or a wave of refugees displaced by war.
And 99.9 percent of the time these sudden, fervent expressions of concern for “people right here home” is completely and demonstrably insincere. It is almost always only said by people who have spent the rest of their miserable lives similarly protesting and opposing any effort to do anything good or fair or decent for those same “people right here at home.” Anything that supports agenda, no matter how outrageous and inflated, has gleefully become fair game.
Those with a genuine commitment to improving life for “people right here” never make this argument. You’ll never hear a political official arguing that we shouldn’t send relief to Pakistani earthquake victims because we should be spending that money to repair and rebuild our horrifically broken public defender system. You’ll never hear anyone opposing medical aid to eradicate malaria abroad because it is a distraction from the need for trust-busting banking reform here in our own country. And you’ll never hear opposition parties suggesting that resources spent resettling refugees should be redirected to transition us from fossil fuels to cleaner, renewable energy sources.
Decent people don’t play that game. People who genuinely care about one good thing do not treat every other good thing as competition that must be crushed and stopped. They do not argue that justice for X should come at the expense of injustice for Y.
Good people devoted to and focused on a single good cause come to see — precisely because of that devotion — the connections and intersections of that cause and of other good and worthy causes. They recognize the truth of Martin Luther King’s statement that “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.” And they recognize that the transformations they are seeking in systems and national character are congruent with the transformations that those other causes require.
At some basic level, the kind of nation that is able to respond to earthquake victims abroad will be more like the kind of nation that is able to make positive changes “right here at home” to address our own needs and injustices. And at that same basic level, the kind of nation that turns its back on those earthquake victims, or those Ebola victims, or those refugees, will be the kind of nation that is less likely and less able to ever address the problems it has on the home front
So folks, don’t pretend you’re suddenly concerned about the common good right here at home and that’s why you oppose doing even something as depressingly minimal as sheltering 10,000 refugees. Don’t lie to me and don’t lie to yourself by suddenly pretending that you’re concerned about the welfare of homeless veterans.
That’s baloney and everybody knows it. The only people impressed by pretense and play-acting are the other pretentious fantasists on Facebook feeds who rush to “Like” blatant posturing because it allows them to join in the game and pretend that they’re also virtuous and heroic champions of homeless veterans, even though they didn’t give a damn about them last week and will go back to not giving a damn about them next week.
Pro-veteran proponents do themselves (and veterans) a disservice when they enter the "immigrants vs. veterans" frey. It should not be an "us vs. them" controversy, rather it should be a question of how we and our government treat each group fairly and compassionately, based on merit.
Furthermore, in this case, I do not think that we are comparing apples and apples and we should not get sucked in by those with biases who distort and take liberties with the truth just because they think that they can get away with the ruse. It makes me want to smack them, both literally and figuratively.
No comments:
Post a Comment