It was
during the two month lull between football and baseball season that I
encountered political talk radio, and I was enamored. Rush Limbaugh held my
attention for a few years, I’m almost embarrassed to admit now, on account of
his aggressive and demeaning tones he often takes. [I would like to clarify
that the tones ultimately became the source of my embarrassment, they were not
the means by which I became enamored.] I vastly agree with his positions, but I
turned the corner on my appetite for the way his positions were presented.
After the
November 2012 Presidential Election, finding myself boasting of a bottomless
sinkhole of disappointment, I traded in my drive time listening with Mr.
Limbaugh for a new road companion, Dennis Prager, an AM radio talk host. My
interest in aggressive and angry tones expired that dark night watching the
election results stream in. I wanted out of the angst market and Prager offered
constructive conversation for the disappointment I was experiencing. I offer
this prelude because, while I would like to claim the following pieces of
wisdom as my own, it important to source the wisdom as pieces gleaned from The
Dennis Prager Show.
· Treat people equally, not the
same.
We hear
much talk in today’s politics and culture about fairness and equality, but
there is typically a vacancy where qualifications should follow. People should
be treated equally based on their equal standing, but not equally just because
it would be polite or kind.
Example: A mom and dad should be shown
equal degrees of respect. But let’s be honest, a mom and dad cannot be treated
the same as if they are interchangeable. Each fulfills different parenting
needs to their kids. Sure, there is much overlap in what they provide, but to say
that they are the same is to purposely ignore the fact that a significantly disproportionate
number of young troubled males were raised in single parent households.
· Results are more important than
intentions.
It is
necessary to discriminate between good and bad results, not good and bad intentions.
Rarely will a person or organization consciously set out to do wrong or harmful
deeds. But if good intentions yield bad results, the source of those intentions
need be held accountable.
Example: Consider charitable organizations.
Virtually every non-profit organization seeks to do good deeds. But when making
a donation you may prefer an organization with a greater degree of efficiency.
Would you prefer to donate to a charitable organization where a higher
percentage of the donation actually affects good results? Or would you prefer
to give to an organization with a better Mission statement while it consumes a
higher percentage in administration costs?
The same
could be said when voting or making governmental policy. Look beyond the
intentions and vacant calls for fairness and equality. What will be the
consequences? Is the topic in question better for the country? Or is it simply
better for a group of citizens at a cost to everyone else?
· Let your brain decide, not your
heart.
Feelings and
emotions render the heart the decision maker while rendering the brain a
non-factor. Where reason and a logical train of thought are absent, feelings
will be the decision maker. The great thinkers throughout history used their
brains to argue and decide between right and wrong. They were not emotion-based
waifs, the proverbial impulse buyers at the check out counter loading up on
gossip magazines, beverages, and snappily packaged snacks as if loading up for
a road trip.
· Standards supersede compassion.
Standards
(read, the law) do not have a sliding
scale of right and wrong depending upon the reasons why the law was broken. An
action is either right or wrong, the sliding scale applies only as it pertains
to the level of punishment. Ill-placed compassion, on the other hand, would
indicate that a sliding scale of right and wrong is applicable, provided the
reason for wrong doing was deemed good enough.
Example: A person that vandalizes private
or public property has done wrong. If, however, they do it as a declaration of
war against ‘The 1%’ they are defended by too many public officials as having
an important opinion that is worthy of being heard and respected. By the
standards I wield, my compassion goes out to the law-abiding citizen whose
property was damaged, not the self-styled victim striking out in ignorance.
When
making decisions, whether they are to affect a small number of people or the
country as a whole, it is necessary to consider what the consequences will be
on society. Decisions need be made in favor of an improved whole, not an
improved set of individuals.
Thanks
for hearing me out.
-klem
Posts
