Thanksgiving: More Encroachment from the "Divisive" Right
Politics
| November 28, 2008
| Tim
I keep hearing how "the right" is divisive. Is that true? What does "divisive" mean?
Let's say a group of kids are on a playground, playing tag and generally behaving well and having fun. Suddenly, two of them say everyone needs to stop playing tag, and play follow the leader -- with them as leaders. A few go along. Others want to keep playing tag.
Who is "divisive" in that story? The vast majority of kids who continued to do an activity which was once utterly uncontroversial and united them, or those who demanded the others change and attempted to try to control everyone?
For decades, Claremont kindergartners have celebrated Thanksgiving by dressing up as pilgrims and Native Americans and sharing a feast. But on Tuesday, when the youngsters meet for their turkey and songs, they won't be wearing their hand-made bonnets, headdresses and fringed vests.
Parents in this quiet university town are sharply divided over what these construction-paper symbols represent: A simple child's depiction of the traditional (if not wholly accurate) tale of two factions setting aside their differences to give thanks over a shared meal? Or a cartoonish stereotype that would never be allowed of other racial, ethnic or religious groups?
Note: "Parents" are sharply divided. Plural. Please continue to read and count the number of "parents" which are now protesting this. My running total is one. See if you can come up with a different sum.
"It's demeaning," Michelle Raheja, the mother of a kindergartner at Condit Elementary School, wrote to her daughter's teacher. "I'm sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis), or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nation's history."
Wow. Didn't know that Native Americans were morally equivalent to "slaves" -- I thought they were free peoples who sometimes welcomed, and sometimes opposed the new European arrivals. But I guess I didn't learn US history nearly as well as Ms. Raheja!
Ms. Raheja is Senica -- does that explain her freak-out at the depiction of European colonists and Native American getting along for a while? No, the dominant characteristic here is not her genetics or heritage, but her political orientation.
Raheja, an English professor at UC Riverside who specializes in Native American literature, said she met with teachers and administrators in hopes that the district could hold a public forum to discuss alternatives that celebrate thankfulness without "dehumanizing" her daughter's ancestry.
"There is nothing to be served by dressing up as a racist stereotype," she said.
You mean the traditional image that Europeans wore stupid-looking hats, huge-buckled shoes, and embraced agricultural collectivism, leading to their own near-starvation? I find that demeaning and embarrassing too, but history is history, and what are you going to do about it? It gave the Native Americans a chance to show they were smarter and charitable, and I don't think we should start suppressing that rather un-anglocentric historical fact simply because one person might be offended.
Among the costume supporters, there is a vein of suspicion that casts Raheja and others opposed to the costumes as agenda-driven elitists.
A university professor an "agenda-drive elitist"? What a bizarre charge! That's crazy-talk! Just because she seems to be able to single-handedly overturn decades of tradition is no reason to think she has more social clout than her many opponents.
The debate is far from over. Some parents plan to send their children to school in costume Tuesday -- doubting that administrators will force them to take them off. The following day, some plan to keep their children home, costing the district attendance funds to punish them for modifying the event.
I would have respected Ms Raheja more if she had simply kept her own daughter home on that horribly offensive day -- or asked she not participate. This is precisely what her opponents are doing: they're either keeping their kids home, or asking them not to go along with the program. But her natural reflex is to need to control others -- to make sure nobody is doing something she considers offensive.
"The debate is far from over"? Indeed. And if Ms Raheja doesn't get her way, she will try again there, or someone else will, elsewhere. And if she does prevail now, she or another like-minded peer will again raise a new set of demands, centered on yet another area which had never previously been considered controversial.
But doesn't the right also attempt to control other people? For example, what about that case that Ryan just mentioned, where a woman in Texas had a woman arrested for holding private parties where marital aids were sold?
I agree that the insult 'divisive' should be reserved for those people who deliberately create conflict when a more conciliatory, equally effective approach is not available. I imagine the word is probably often abused as a political invective since politics tends to be an inherently "divisive" way of solving problems, with some exceptions. (Anti-shoplifting laws are better less 'divisive' than fights in the street, for instance.)
Regarding the specifics of this issue; I'm still trying to figure out just what happened.
Condit Elementary School parent Michelle Raheja said she was not prepared for the backlash she got from helping to write an e-mail to a kindergarten teacher at the elementary school.
...
"It was a private message to one kindergarten teacher," Raheja said. "She did not ask me if she could circulate it to others or circulate it to the principal. I don't think she was ill-intentioned...
Raheja said Wednesday that the e-mail was "never meant for public distribution."
link
I don't know if Ms. Raheja is honestly representing her position, but she seems to have asserted that she was trying to foster dialoge, to urge a public review the situation which she felt was terribly wrong. (I don't agree with her view.)
Also:
Another group of protesters, many younger and of American Indian descent, carried signs that said "Racism," "No Thanks No Giving," "Respect" and "Don't Celebrate Genocide."
...
Raheja said she and about 15 to 20 parents in the school helped write the private e-mail message about their concerns with the dress in the Thanksgiving feast to a Condit elementary teacher. She said the e-mail was redistributed without her knowledge.
source
Mit! Haven't seen you post here previously! ;-) Welcome! You raise a fair question. I can think of several different areas worth nothing in response.
ONE: Frequency.
Let's just concede the Texas case for the moment, for the sake of argument. If so, I'd ask you to count the frequency of each such incidents and compare them.
For example, as a (rather unimpressive example of a) Christian, there are things *I* don't like about the typical public school's observation of Thanksgiving too. For example, I think the schools should be required to reveal, in the name of minimally adequate historical education, that the Pilgrims were giving thanks to God. I'd also prefer that the contents of Abraham Lincoln's proclamation, which founded the holiday be revealed to students.
... these great things... are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.
As an additional idea, why not invite the students who feel likewise to spend a few moments giving thanks to God, or engaged in whatever other quiet observation is dictated by their individual consciences? The purpose here would not be to force any particular religion on students, but to help them learn more about the origins of the holiday, and our nation's religious heritage in general, and to give room for each student's private spiritual expression and growth.
Now, given that schools are somehow teaching the "history" of Thanksgiving generally (I would expect) with zero reference to God, couldn't a legitimate case be raised that the schools should be at least forced to teach their students about the most basic motivations and facts surrounding this particular holiday?
And yet which Christian has done this? Which Christian has brought such a case, or otherwise agitated for such? The case I lay out is a lot stronger in comparison (it is, after all, historically true, and utter crucial to understanding why the holiday exists, from a historical point of view) -- but where are those pursuing it?
TWO: Legality.
The Texas case involves illegal behavior, this does not. A few people were offended about the parties, and asked authorities to enforce the laws already on the books, which they did.
Although this situation also involves coercion, I believe it comes from an inherently LESS coercive impulse than the desire for new restriction. There are many people who would probably not agitate for a restriction, or some particular law, who would nonetheless ask for enforcement of it should it already exist.
For example, I'm opposed to restrictions on what can be said from the pulpit. BUT, given that such restrictions already exist, I can sympathize more with someone who would want to see them enforced. Likewise, I wish we were back in the days when porn couldn't be obtained so easily (you could get it if you ordered it, but it didn't come up each time you mistyped a URL), but I find I'm not especially enthusiastic for starting a campaign to move back to that point. (Though I haven't deeply analyzed why I feel this way, I admit.)
THREE: Community standards.
The two situations are opposites, in a sense: In one, you had a long-standing tradition observed by all, and someone tried to change everyone's behavior. In another, you had a new element coming in, presumably among a smaller subset, and some wanted to see the change stop.
By analogy, in the first situation, it's as if a new person moved into the neighborhood and demanded all the existing houses be remodeled. In the other case, a small number of long-existing neighbors attempt to stop a new structure from being built.
Again, both involve coercion, but one comes from an almost passive desire that one's world not change, and the other comes from an active desire to reshape someone else's world.
Likewise, focusing more on the community standards aspect, if I were selling ham sandwiches on a Chicago street corner, someone asking me to stop would be viewed as fairly strongly coercive. Yet if I moved my cart in front of a Mosque, one could more understand the exact same request.
FOUR: Number of complainants.
In the above article, we only hear about one person bothered. In the Texas story, it seems there were a number of complainants. This is even more different if we consider that there was only ONE person known to be protesting a very public event, yet an allegedly private and invitation-only event, somehow was both known by and was in some way bothering quite a number of outsiders.
When an allegedly "private" affair is generating multiple complaints, it's an indication it's not quite a private as one might think, and something else is clearly going on. (Perhaps this was a pyramid scheme, like Quixtar, where the sales person was annoying everyone they met with their new "business"?)
Perhaps this is partially a repeat of the above, but if you annoy six people at a party, and get thrown out, it seems a lot less unjust than if just one somehow is able to get you tossed out.
At any rate, Mit, I fully admit there is coercion in both cases -- the above arguments aren't meant to deny that, only to put it in perspective, and explain why I think, say, enforcing existing community standards and existing laws is not nearly as coercive as trying to control others who have been honoring a completely legal and honorable tradition.
And again, even without all that, I'd still suggest a numerical imbalance in the incidents of such. Thanks for asking!
--
Ryan! Thanks for the other links!
I agree that the insult 'divisive' should be reserved for those people who deliberately create conflict...
I think the whole insult itself should be dropped. Who even cares if someone or something is "divisive"? The word itself presumes that we're all supposed to agree about everything, and that debate or division is unhealthy rather than healthy.
(Science, for example, should be "divisive". I can imagine nothing more unhelpful than a group of scientists who feel the to never upset us, or each other, by proposing radically new theories.)
It seems there's a vast difference between the report I read, and her account in your comment (first link missing). "It was a private message to one kindergarten teacher..." versus:
Raheja, an English professor at UC Riverside who specializes in Native American literature, said she met with teachers and administrators in hopes that the district could hold a public forum to discuss alternatives...
If I had to guess, I'd say she was spinning, since both quotes are attributed to her, but we should probably leave room for the remote-seeming possibility that one of the articles is entirely wrong.
Another group of protesters, many younger and of American Indian descent, carried signs that said "Racism," "No Thanks No Giving," "Respect" and "Don't Celebrate Genocide."
Since when was Thanksgiving genocide? I rather thought it was the model for how the rest of European/Indian relations should have gone.
Raheja said she and about 15 to 20 parents in the school helped write the private e-mail message about their concerns with the dress in the Thanksgiving feast to a Condit elementary teacher. She said the e-mail was redistributed without her knowledge.
If so, then I should perhaps rescind my contention that only ONE parent was bothered. But I wonder if these protesters were parents, and who the 15 to 20 parents she says she represents are. If she can identify herself, why can't they?
Also, it's a bit odd to claim you've worked with twenty parents to write a single e-mail, then assert, oddly, that you never expected it to "become public". Huh? Would also she invite 20 people who were NOT her closest friends to her house for a party, tell them something controversial, and then honestly expect it to remain a secret? I'm not sure whether to think that's incredibly dumb, incredibly dishonest, or both (because if it's dishonest, it's still seems a very stupid lie).
And what does it mean to work on creating a "private message to one kindergarten teacher" along with twenty other parents? What bizarre kind of "private message" is that? What if you received a "private message" from twenty people in your neighborhood? How "private" would you think that was?
And just how many parents were there in this particular teacher's kindergarten class? If twenty of them agreed with Raheja, what, did five or six remain? Or was she working with parents in other classes, or perhaps even in other grades? And then sending a letter to a teacher who wasn't actually teaching those others parents' kids? Her account doesn't seem to make sense.
I dunno, Ryan, I'm trying to be fair here, and I can honestly understand her personally feeling discomfort (I wish her no ill, and respect her desire to raise her daughter as she wishes -- but wish she would let others enjoy the event) but something smells mighty fishy.
Disclaimer: When I was a kid, they made me dress up in stupid colonial costumes for the bicentennial. On one hand, I hated the clothes. On the other hand, I learned a lot (including that I'm grateful for modern clothes) and did have a lot of fun, before it was all over.
(And what if the kids had dressed up in period costumes, but left the Native Americans entirely out of it? I can easily imagine the cries of unfairness in that alternative version also...)
Since when was Thanksgiving genocide? I rather thought it was the model for how the rest of European/Indian relations should have gone.
As I said, I don't agree with her view. I'm just trying to figure out what happened.
And just how many parents were there in this particular teacher's kindergarten class?
Class? This event involved two whole schools. (Condit and Mountainview) I vaugely recall that ~160 students participated. Schools took turns dressing up as the indians or the pilgrims and going to the other school.
Last week, rumors began to circulate on both campuses that the district was planning to cancel the event, and infuriated parents argued over the matter at a heated school board meeting Thursday. District Supt. David Cash announced at the end of the meeting that the two schools had tentatively decided to hold the event without the costumes, and sent a memo to parents Friday confirming the decision.
source
LA Times reported nearly two dozen protesters, but parents interviewed by KFI radio’s Jodi Becker said the number was closer to twelve.
source
A local blog that seems to be covering the event.
There are over 80 kindergarten parents that are extremely upset by this and many other parents who have had their kids celebrate this event in the past. The decision by the Superintendent effects over 160 kids between the 2 schools.
source
Tim: Since when was Thanksgiving genocide?
Ryan: As I said, I don't agree with her view...
I was responding to the quoted section just above that statement, the signs the protesters carried, not anything you wrote.
As I said, I'm also trying to figure out what happened. I think we're both having trouble because her varying accounts and assertions seem to conflict with each other.
LA Times reported nearly two dozen protesters, but parents interviewed by KFI radio’s Jodi Becker said the number was closer to twelve...
If true, I can't say I'd be surprised. (And I also wouldn't be surprised if most of them weren't parents.)
yet an allegedly private and invitation-only event, somehow was both known by and was in some way bothering quite a number of outsiders.
Ever live in a small town or community, Tim?
Besides, that seems a dangerous standard for what constitutes a private business; it must be unknown and not offend anyone. If the assertion is that a woman was forcing her sales pitch on others, why did someone need to pose as an interested customer to get evidence against her.
Perhaps this was a pyramid scheme, like Quixtar, where the sales person was annoying everyone they met with their new "business"?)
Perhaps eHarmony's founder was actually dragging gays into the streets and beating them with a stick and that's why there's so much dislike of the company on the web! Yes! What's that? Evidence? Well, if the company isn't liked, there must have been a reason, right? Which is, of course, defacto evidence against the company.
You seem to be the only person to suggest that this woman was operating a pyramid scheme, that I can see, Tim. Is there some specific company you know about that I don't?
I'm a parent of a kindergartner in the above mentioned school's debate over Thanksgiving dress up. It's easy to believe what you read in the newspapers and try to make sense of it all without actually being there or having seen the letter. As a parent who has a copy of the letter Ms. Raheja wrote I can tell you the letter is addressed to: "Condit Parents, Teachers and Staff" recount it the way she wants, she wrote this letter, all references are to "I" rather than "We" which anyone with common sense would not interpret as a letter from a group of parents, her salutation on the letter is also from "Michelle H. Raheja (child's name)'s Mom."
The 15 -20 people she states in her follow up interview with Wes Woods of the Daily Bulletin are not even recognized by David Cash in his public article he made for the Saturday Issue of the Claremont Courier http://www.claremont-courier.com/pages/opinion112908.1.html where he states "The email was written by one parent but represented the views of 4 other families."
The school district meeting that took place two Thursday's ago had Michelle Raheja in attendance, along with 4 other individuals who spoke on behalf of removing costumes from the event. Wes Woods would know, he sat next to her during the entire meeting. Those parents were Jennifer Tilton, '"Its always a good thing to think about, critically, how we teach kids, even from very young ages, the message we want them to learn, and the respect for the diversity of the American experiences," said Jennifer Tilton, an assistant professor of race and ethnic studies at the University of Redlands and a Claremont parent who opposes the costumes.",
Diane Linden, historian, "The Thanksgiving story has been disproved as a myth," parent Diana Linden told the Claremont Unified school board on Thursday night" she was also a temporary Assistant Professor at Pitzer College and an activist http://events.unitedforpeace.org/5yearstoomany/events/show/4294,
A gentleman who I don't want to state the name due to accuracy who spoke with a tie to the Riverside Community College and a gentleman from a local Claremont Church who was actually at the board meeting to discuss another matter but turned around and stated "Yes, Thanksgiving is a myth." Of course now Raheja states"it was the reactionary parents who brought this to the school board." funny how these matters get re-written in the face of opposition.
Voice of the parent? Or voice of agenda driven individuals?
In addition, Ms. Raheja's claims that a parent dressed in native american costume did a war dance around her child and was told to "go to hell" .. this didn't happen. Michelle was busy with reporters stating how things had gone horribly wrong and that she was receiving hate mails and threats and not in the feast with her child. But, you can see that for yourself in the news coverage. Don't you think if this had transpired the news reporters would have jumped on it and she would have mentioned it to them while mentioning all the hate email that she had received from the blogosphere (no one I know has ever contacted Michelle herself, only the school district. She has a right to her opinion no matter how out in left feild it is, it is the district we had the issue with.) Kindergarten parents were in the feast with their children celebrating the feast and the chance at fellowship while supportive parents who's children had already went through the feast years prior were the parents out in front of the school, emotional exchange of words? Yes, what else do you do when protestors hold handmade cardboard signs shaped as arrows pointing to your children and school with words such as "RACIST" and "BIGOTRY?"
The back peddling continues...
The internet is a wonderful tool of information. One need only look for the information these individuals have put out there themselves to draw a broader picture.
Sorry for the messy posting but the links just don't want to cooperate :)
Thanks CP. This is helpful.
Claremont Parent!
Thank you VERY much for making your side of the story known to us! From what you've said, it sounds very much (consistent with previously-noted discrepancies between other accounts) like there's quite a lot of spin going on.
In addition, Ms. Raheja's claims that a parent dressed in native american costume did a war dance around her child and was told to "go to hell" .. this didn't happen.
I wasn't there, but it sounded pretty strange to me. I mean, seriously, what would the logistics be? It seems the hypothetical parent would have had to have bought or rented a stereotypical (Sioux-style) headdress, moccasins, pants, put on the make-up, etc, and then... go through the trouble of learning a "war dance" (I wouldn't even know where to start), track her down, and then... danced around her for a while? In public?
And she wouldn't have pressed charges or even named the individual???
Weird.
Yes, what else do you do when protestors hold handmade cardboard signs shaped as arrows pointing to your children and school with words such as "RACIST" and "BIGOTRY?"
CP, my heart goes out to you. It's so sad to see something this innocuous turned into a traumatic event for children and parents, apparently in the name of political activism.
Again, thank you so much for coming here and speaking to us.
Greetings again Ryan! Regarding the Texas case:
Ever live in a small town or community, Tim?
Yes, for much of my youth, the nearest town has a population of around 700. (Though I admit the experience is probably a bit different as a kid.) In contrast, Burleson, Texas had a population of more than 30,000 -- hardly a "small town" by my reckoning. It's also a suburb of Fort Worth (population of 600,000+) so that further dispels that impression.
Besides, that seems a dangerous standard for what constitutes a private business; it must be unknown and not offend anyone.
You seem to have misread my comment. I didn't anything about what did or didn't "constitute a private business". Nor did I say this wasn't coercive. I simply pointed a number of what I feel are significant differences between the two situations, which argue about the degree of "coercion", and unusualness, involved in each.
If I recall, it was you who had said that this was all happening in private. I simply pointed out that if multiple people were lodging complaints, it could be more likened to a public kind of advertisement. I think that's a reasonable response, no?
If the assertion is that a woman was forcing her sales pitch on others, why did someone need to pose as an interested customer to get evidence against her.
In the following comment, I'm addressing the logic, that is the form of argument being used above. I'm not, here, trying to make any larger point than that. (Just so you don't read extra things into what I'm saying....)
Have you ever had friends who got involved in an MLM? Some of them pester the heck out of everyone they meet. It doesn't follow, however, that they're going to necessarily go to the home of a cop who's versed in the law in question, knock on his door, and offer him sex products -- or vitamins, or whatever else they might be selling.
Again, think of the case of someone selling a scam to old folks over the phone. How would the cops catch the person in the act? Wait by a particular phone and hope it will eventually ring? Wouldn't they have to do something active to get their decoy involved? So does that prove the phone scam artist wasn't approaching many others?
Finally, consider prostitution. Is it always sold "privately"? Wouldn't you agree that hookers often work the streets, right in public? If so, then by your logic, a cop wouldn't have to act like an "interested customer" in order to get the hooker to quote him a price, would he?
Yet they do, don't they?
Ryan, forget how you feel about the case: the form of this particular argument strikes me as deeply illogical, and contrary to what little I know about law enforcement. As always, correct me if I'm wrong here.
Perhaps I'm misreading you, but you sound rather upset here. You've offered two (it seems to me) very bad arguments in a row, and that's unlike you.
(BTW, there's nothing wrong with being upset, IMO, and I'm not mocking you. I consider you a friend, though we've never met. I just appreciate being told such things, kindly and honestly, and try to do that to others too. And if you want to say more directly what's bugging you here, you're more than welcomed to. And apologies if I've misread the tone of your responses.)
Tim: Perhaps this was a pyramid scheme, like Quixtar...
Ryan: Perhaps eHarmony's founder was actually dragging gays into the streets and beating them with a stick...
You're seriously going to suggest those are similarly likely arguments? Ryan, "Passion Parties", best as I can tell, IS an MLM. (Compensation plan overview here, $100-$450 start-up fee (with big commissions (40%) on that), yet tiny (3%) commissions on products sold. Lots of levels to rise up. Do the math.)
Which means that not only was the woman most likely trying to invite nearly everyone she'd ever brush up against, but she was probably also using a rather heavy-handed pitch to encourage them up to imitate everything she was doing, and do the same with every contact they knew.
(Again, this goes to the argument that this was a "private" affair, mostly among interested people. Since you've asked me if I know about small communities, I'll ask you again: Have you had a friend get deeply involved an MLM? I'd had several go off the deep end. That's why I have that little "Quixtar" topic over there. MLMs are a lot more invasive and aggressive than any standard business selling the same thing.)
So do you have any similar evidence regarding your assertion about Neil Clark Warren? Or a bit more, considering the rather more scurrilous nature of such?
You seem to be the only person to suggest that this woman was operating a pyramid scheme...
Ryan, I'm the only person I know of suggesting a LOT of things. (Indeed, I suspect that's part of the reason you continue to visit my podunk little blog. ;-)) I wish that fact automatically meant I was highly likely to be wrong about them all.
Err, um, my girlfriend's workplace had this stuff going on it in (about the same time, come to think of it) -- I didn't ask for names, but would guess it's the exact same company. So I know a little bit about it, and its dynamics, okay? But a number of the arguments I gave held true either way.
You've raised an interesting question though, because although I started out quite willing to say it was a silly law (did you not even notice that I simply stipulated it could be counted as a wrong?), the fact that your particular arguments pushed me to realize it was, in fact, adds another dimension.
As has been said elsewhere on this blog, MLMs claim to be technically legal -- by FTC rules they're okay if they raise 90+% of their cash by selling product, and less than 10% by selling the selling. But very few actually do this: most sell the idea of getting rich quick by selling the idea of getting rich (or merely richer) quick. Thus, I have very little sympathy for them (as you might easily deduce given my other writings) and would, frankly, more than happy to see them thwarted by a technicality.
Especially if it was an obnoxious MLM or IBO, one who had generated a number of complaints to the authorities, lodged by uninterested parties. And yes, that hold true even if they're selling sex toys. I must admit I'm not too heartbroken about the way Al Capone was taken in either.
(And please note, what she was doing was illegal. A real sex shop would have been more careful about following local laws. And I would be on their side, had they been wrongly harassed. And I'd probably guess Fort Worth and surrounds have quite a number of sex shops and clubs -- probably some even in Burleson -- so it's probably nothing like the situation you seem to be painting.)
That said, I still think the rule about having to advertise said toys as "novelty items" IS a bit silly. But, in light of the fact this was an MLM, it now looks a bit as if it worked out like the infamous Van Halen "M&Ms clause", where the band tossed in a completely silly rule as a test. If they discovered that a particular venue ignored that condition, the band knew right away they probably were breaking a number of others as well. Note: I'm not saying that was necessarily the intention behind the law -- though it may have been part of the thinking, given some of the promises made for various "martial aids" and "male enhancement" products. More likely, I suspect they simply wanted to keep pornographic products from being widely and explicitly advertised.
Next: if this was an aggressive MLM, it throws a rather different light on those complaining and their motives. MLMs are often, in my experience, a lot like religious cults in terms of their social dynamics. (I've seen whole churches have to deal with them on a community-wide scale. They're that invasive, and they do cause a lot of division -- even when they're only selling juice or vitamins.)
Aren't "religious cults" basically legal? Of course they are. There's nothing illegal at all about shaving your head, moving into a commune, and writing software day and night for a guy who claims the aliens are coming soon to liberate you. But, nonetheless, friends and relatives want to get their loved ones "out" of the group.
The same would not apply if the person just, say, became Buddhist or Lutheran.
So if this WAS an aggressive MLM (and all the signs I can see seem to indicate that), then at least some of the complaints may not even have even been motivated by the "sexual" nature of the products being sold. As I've said, I've seen Quixtar divide churches and families, and that group even claims to be "Christian." (Though of course it's also possible the "sexual" aspect, in this case, might have added to that baseline.)
Finally, I'd also point out this incident happened four years ago. That's having to go back quite a way, IMO. (Whereas I could probably turn my blog into nothing but such stories from the left, if I wanted to.) And, again, consider the arguments I've given above as to why this situation was far LESS coercive than, say, the eHarmony situation.
Best to you!
Selective enforcement of laws to a particular end also seems precarious to me. I can see how that could be a legitimate benefit from such laws, even if not intended. Some days you might be able to nail an obnoxious MLM. Sometimes you might get a company edging it's rivals out of a government contract because they can dig more dirt on their opponent or Clinton's political opponents being audited.
You have good instincts, Tim. Sometimes better than my own. Your assertion seemed like a bit of a leap. And if the topic comes up in conversation in the future I can't just say "Hey, this guy Tim said it and he has a blog." I feel that I have to discount such unsupported assertions, so I may as well do it vocally to see if you actually do have support for them.
I simply pointed out that if multiple people were lodging complaints, it could be more likened to a public kind of advertisement. I think that's a reasonable response, no?
I remember one apartment that I had in a mid-sized community of homes. The drapes that were up when I bought the apartment were thin so I put a blanket up behind them. According to the homeowners association, a person couldn't use blankets as
curtains and there were, supposedly, a number of complaints about my setup (even though it was technically legit according to the bylaws. I had real curtains, the same ones that had been there for years before me, apparently.) I successfully argued my case before the association since it was all up to code but ended up buying a curtain backing just to keep the peace. People were complaining about a blanket behind my drapes. It seems like some small communities (not nessicarly small towns) tend to act this way in regards to matters I'd consider private. I've had other friends run into seemingly picayune details of such associations.
So I don't think that people's ire, by itself, is a persuasive argument that something is problematic.
Finally, consider prostitution. Is it always sold "privately"?
When I've worked near areas where prostitutes trolled for customers, all a person had to do was walk by a certain area and you'd get propositioned (not that I wanted this). I went to New Orleans for a friend's bachelor party. If the cops wanted to simply charge one of those girls for 'obscenity' then rather than prostitution they wouldn't have to pretend to be interested. Similarly, if someone is running some kind of scam, it's the scam that's illegal and the private or public nature of it should be a non-issue. You don't have to pretend to be interested in something if it's public.
Have you had a friend get deeply involved an MLM?
Admittedly, no. And I've only been propositioned by them a handful of times. I think one friend went with Avon or something for a little while, but it never became an issue in our friendship.
Finally, I'd also point out this incident happened four years ago.
Well, the criteria was 'in our lifetimes.' It was the first I'd found. I was trying to avoid getting into a discussion of "what was Left and what was Right." But I'll agree that the far left tends to be more coercive and the American people seem to be fairly centrist to moderate right.
Likewise, I wish we were back in the days when porn couldn't be obtained so easily (you could get it if you ordered it, but it didn't come up each time you mistyped a URL), but I find I'm not especially enthusiastic for starting a campaign to move back to that point. (Though I haven't deeply analyzed why I feel this way, I admit.)
It would be incredibly intrusive, and there are products in existence which can supposedly provide this function if you really wanted it? Also, the international nature of the internet would make enforcement difficult?
Best to you, Tim
Selective enforcement of laws to a particular end also seems precarious to me...
But I don't believe I have -- and at least anywhere above I can think of -- advocated selective enforcement. To the contrary, I view laws and situations which almost-necessarily turn almost everyone into "criminals" as deeply immoral.* For example, I think we need to increase most the current unnaturally-low speed limits for precisely that reason -- one either creates a hazard by driving under 55, or one commits a crime. The police well know what the (secret) "real" speed limit is, but won't tell the public. But I suspect the incentive is that it allows arbitrary pullovers.
Van Halen didn't selectively enforce the M&M clause -- they always checked, often first. I mentioned Al Capone because it's an example of being arrested for a different charge than the main ones -- not because I favor selective application of tax laws. (And if I did, I would want Congress -- the ones who pass said laws -- to be audited first!) And in this case, I can understand the view that the law is somewhat silly, but, as I said, I think the regular sex shops in the area have enough business sense to put the right labels over their products.
Further, I suspect the answer to some of the situations might more vigorous enforcement, not less. People sometimes don't know onerous a law can be until it's actually enforced. If people had to actually live under the effects of all the laws they want, I suspect they'd lose their love of regulating everything.
(* This is a line of thought which I think I've always had at a gut level, but which was given more form by reflecting on Jesus's accusation that the religious rulers piled law upon law onto the people -- and "didn't lift a finger" to help them. If they had merely hundreds of difficult-to-follow laws, and he argued that was immoral, I try to envision the almost-nuclear reaction the current situation would surely warrant. So I think it's actually objectively immoral to create such situations.)
You have good instincts, Tim. Sometimes better than my own. Your assertion seemed like a bit of a leap.
You pushed me into it, Ryan. ;-) There was just something fishy about allegedly "private" functions which were generating multiple apparently-independent complaints. Honestly, I didn't actually know it was an MLM when I made that argument, just that someone was probably doing something equally obnoxious, and was only trying to use my experience with friends in an MLM as an example of how something allegedly "private" could be very externally disruptive. But, heh, it turned out that it quacked like a duck because it was one.
I was also reminded of another recent flap, about some community where people were having "swingers" parties in normal houses -- and the neighbors were all hacked off because of (proximate reasons follow) the noise, the people streaming through their neighborhoods all night long, and that parking was completely taken for blocks and around, week after week. The community and swingers were in conflict, and the reporting focused on the "sex"/"freedom" aspect, though, quite frankly, it was really the nuisance which first bugged the neighbors.
CS Lewis once mocked those who said that sex should be treated like every other impulse. He pointed out that they really meant that sex should be treated like no other natural impulse has ever been treated. In a spate of humorous comparisons between food and sex, he mused aloud about the idea of a group of slavering men gathering around a table to see a bit of steak revealed, slowly, a little bit at a time. Or the idea that a man might betray both his best friend and wife for a particularly good kind of cuisine -- and be lauded, in certain circles, for having done so. (I sometimes suspect he was thinking of Bertrand Russell.)
So (a) if a guy had a normal racous party every Friday and Saturday, with loud music and nearly a hundred revelers, it'd be okay to shut him down or have the police show up -- but if it's an orgy? Well, then it's a civil liberties issue! :-) (b) And if they nailed some MLM IBO for breaking laws applied to other similar businesses, well, that's not news, unless she's selling sex toys -- then it's a national flap! (c) When Jim McGreevey was caught cheating on his wife he was vigorously defended by many. Yet if he'd only slept around with women, he'd have been a cad these days. But luckily for him, he was an equal-opportunity letch! ;-)
What was that someone once said? Let them do whatever they want in private, as long as it doesn't scare the kids and horses? Something like that, friend. :-)
(BTW: I think the law is a bit silly. But the answer is to change it, if the majority wants that.)
And if the topic comes up in conversation in the future I can't just say "Hey, this guy Tim said it and he has a blog."
Oh, no, I completely understand! Unless you've known me (or someone else) a while, it makes no sense to say "trust me."** (And times come for that, but this isn't one of them yet.) As you say, I'm just an anonymous name on a blog, and why shouldn't I have to demonstrate what I say?
(** Our culture is so big, we no longer have the idea of a "good name" (an assumed initial positive reputation) to defend, so much trust today must be earned.)
Well, the criteria was 'in our lifetimes.'
Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out that such stories didn't come along every week. The argument went to frequency, not whether it was fair to bring it up. Entirely fair.
One might counter: "Tip of the iceberg!" Indeed. But that argument can the be applied the other way too.
I remember one apartment that I had in a mid-sized community of homes. The drapes that were up when I bought the apartment were thin so I put a blanket up behind them. According to the homeowners association...
Oh! HOAs! Heh, yes, well if you think people are prudish about sex, it ain't nothing compared with the noise people make about property values! HOAs are some of the most coercive and politically-volatile bodies in existence. (I know this from my many years of experience watching home-flipping shows! (Well, and other things too, but that's the funnier answer.))
It would be incredibly intrusive, and there are products in existence which can supposedly provide this function if you really wanted it?
It would be nice if the ISP could provide such filtering to the entire connection. I'm thinking of families who don't want their kids getting shocking answers to innocent searches (I'm thinking of a friend of mine whose daughter just had that happen), and men and women who are struggling with what they feel to be addictions. But filtering is pretty easy to defeat today.
Again, in the (now) "old days" (1980s!) pretty much any adult could get Playboy or Penthouse -- at least by mail, and often at a local gas station. Now it is, analogously, as if you had junk mail and TV ads showing up, back then, containing naked people doing interesting things. Back then, the default was opt-out. Now the default is opt-in, and my suggestion above implies that you'd have to pay extra money (and install cumbersome software on each computer) to opt out.
There's no easy answer, I suspect. I don't want to prevent consenting adults from seeing their beloved PR0N, but likewise I wish it weren't so invasive. Alas, I live in Rome now, not the 1980s. :-)
It seems like every time you turn around, another activist is throwing a hissy fit in an attempt to control his or her surroundings - and it's always, always "for the children". This Thanksgiving story makes me wonder once again how long it's going to be before American parents take back their school system and start calling the shots again.
This Thanksgiving story makes me wonder once again how long it's going to be before American parents take back their school system and start calling the shots again.
Sadly, Linda, a lot of good people have been cowed into submission -- and probably will be for the foreseeable future. Many have given up on trying to change the school system (even Bush, for example, never tried to push for vouchers -- even when he had a Republican Congress to work with!) and simply are putting their kids into private schools, or home-schooling them.
But of course, that won't last forever: People like Ms Raheja aren't happy with "live and let live" -- they have to micromanage others -- so in California, for example, there have been a lot of efforts to prevent or gain control of of home schooling curricula.
And as long as something close to the majority of the people continue to allow judges to call the shots, and as long as a smaller (but still significant) number share their prejudices, that's the way it's gonna go. And, sadly, I believe that is the way it's gonna go.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Our New *Moral* Robot Overlords? |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Clash of the Political and the Religious »
|
But doesn't the right also attempt to control other people? For example, what about that case that Ryan just mentioned, where a woman in Texas had a woman arrested for holding private parties where marital aids were sold?
Posted by: Mit (Snoitavresbo Modnar) on November 28, 2008 12:08 PM