We Are What We Consume

In the freewheeling '80s, the Moral Majority started taking the matter of sex and violence in TV shows and the movies more seriously. There was a lot of sarcasm on the left, with people comparing the denunciations of American culture by Christian Coalition types with the mullahs in Iran (the assumption being, if the Iranians criticize America and they're nuts, the Christians must be similarly off their rockers). "Change the channel!" was a popular retort. Others believe that individuals are inherently violent or not violent, and so the content of what's on TV wouldn't affect them one way or another--the violent were going to end up evil anyway.

As in my previous entry, I can't help but marvel at the selective outrage, as Hollyweird is willing to self-censor on issues like smoking. Bad guys are now seen as smoking, not good guys. Smoking is no longer sophisticated or cool, but bad for you, and so must be portrayed as evil (Arthur C. Clarke even suggested that film editors could make a great deal of money digitizing out scenes of smoking from old movies).

So imagine my lack of surprise when I see that the dirtbag who shot five people at my alma mater was tossed from the Army, in part because of his obsessive fandom of movie murderers. Imagine my further lack of surprise when I hear that former President Clinton suggested reinstituting the "Fairness Doctrine." So apparently, only SOME things in the media can influence children and must be removed--and those things would be anything that conservatives think or do.

Follow-Up: Bad Behavior, Embarrassing Pictures, and Job Security in Internet Age

Having vented previously on people's foolish behavior on the internet, I now must take a contrary stance. Why? Because, while the new reality of the world is that individuals can get fired for bad or embarrassing behavior they exhibit on the internet, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's good or right.

That Obama speech writer was tacky, but did his behavior rise to the level of a punishable offense? Did a hockey player deserve to be suspended from his job because of some sexist, crass remark about a former girlfriend? It depends on who you talk to.

When people talk about "political correctness," this is what they mean. There are just Some Things That Must Not Be Said. It is a manner of thinking and speaking that restrains anything that might be perceived as insulting to particular individuals or groups. Now am I endorsing full-out rudeness, crudity, or impolite behavior? No. However, I know that no one is capable of perfectly well-behaved, appropriate speech, partially because the rules keep changing, and partially just because people are people, and slips of the tongue are likely to happen. In short, we need to lighten up.

The end result of PC-speak is, as George Orwell notes in his description of Newspeak in 1984, to restrict the range of political speech and (by derivation) thought. If you can't say certain things--laughing at or judging particular behaviors--it becomes impossible to offer up alternative views. So today businesses will fire someone because of individual, personal crassness. What will be next? What happens when it's your turn to make a slip that shows up on the internet?

How do we fix this? I have no frickin' clue.

Bad Behavior, Embarrassing Pictures, and Job Security in Internet Age

It's amazing how many people have put themselves into hot water by posting or having things posted about their behavior on the Internet. Consider the following:

An Obama speechwriter is in trouble for joking around with a friend and pretending to grope the breast of a Hillary Clinton cutout.

In the sports world, a Calgary Flames hockey player is about to be suspended for comments he made regarding another player picking up his "sloppy seconds" (i.e. his ex-girlfriend).

But one need not look to the famous to see examples of people screwing up their lives because of some bad behavior appearing on the internet. Workers have been fired for postings made on Facebook. Criminals have been caught showing off or doing bizarre things and then bragging about it on the Internet.

What is it with people? Once upon a time, people had pictures taken at inopportune times, and they could burn the negatives and be done with it. No more. Now those pictures can be taken with a phone and emailed around the world before any explanation or apology can be issued. Even the burning-the-negatives-and-prints strategy is not a guarantee that personal foibles remain private. Digital scanners can commit those pictures to electronic format, and from there they end up who knows where.

Aside from the crudity and general stupidity of the actions, there's also this seemingly willful ignorance of how actions performed in the virtual world can affect the real world. The internet, with its limited, albeit worldwide opportunity for publicity, allows people to put their personalities "out there" for all to see. I've succumbed to this myself, via blogging and Facebook. But I also know that my coworkers and managers either read or see what I do. Thus my unwillingness to get extremely foul in my language or to post pictures from friends' bachelor parties. The electronic world has made everyone potential victims of tabloid journalism, and I don't think Gen Y has fully absorbed what that can mean for their futures.

The bottom line on all this is that, if you do something stupid and photographic evidence exists that you did said stupid thing--or you yourself have posted that evidence--you have to accept that there will be consequences. That Obama speech writer and hockey player are about to learn what those consequences are. With the internet and wireless and digital cameras everywhere, it is increasingly difficult to avoid any private sins from becoming very public. And that lack of privacy and public willingness to display (or unwillingness to hide) bad behavior can result in you losing your job. It might not sound fair, but it is very much the way of the world.

There was a phrase that was very popular in the '60s: "The personal is political." Well, welcome to the 21st century, where "The personal is professional." Meaning, if you exhibit some sort of negative personal behavior or attitude or belief, and it's on the internet, your professional future can be eroded very quickly if you embarrass your employer. Bosses can Google, too.

Brief Blurb on Bad Leadership and Snobbery

This line of thought was spurred by a comment from a friend, not due to anything that's happened to me recently. My friend explained that she was ignored by some high-ranking suits on an elevator and then given suspicious looks when she got off the elevator on the "executive suite" floor with them, as if they questioned her right to be there.

There are certain traits that have always bugged me about people in positions of authority or high social status/position, which is why I try not to emulate them or get into positions of authority (I’m as susceptible as anyone—lead me not into temptation). The things I don't like include:

• Being ignored as a person because I’m not of the right rank.
• Being treated as a lesser person because of my position.
• Being bullied or pushed around unnecessarily simply because someone in authority wants something.

I accept the concept of, and need for, rank in organizations. I even understand the need to expect higher levels of service based on higher prices. However, I’ve always distinguished between the position and the person. It’s the difference between respecting the office of the President, for instance, and not respecting that person's behavior. Or the difference between accepting that “Rank hath its privileges” but that “All men are created equal.” Rank and status are limited social features of a representative republic. We have aristocracies of merit, money, talent, privilege, political power, and aesthetic beauty, but the saner among us realize that those aristocracies are (or should be) limited in scope.

Unfortunately, some people just let the rank go to their head (or worse, let others' ranks go to their head), forgetting that, once off duty, these people have to put their pants on one leg at a time and that, oh yeah, they have to deal with people who don’t know or care what their special rank or power is. I'm not anti-aristocracy, anti-management, anti-leadership, anti-merit, or anti-rank; I'm simply anti-snob.