I am something of a believer in the best of people. I believe that NFL made an honest mistake in their original PF topic, and that the substituted topic (which I am no fan of) is an honest attempt to move on. I have no reason to believe otherwise, and plenty of reason to believe so. God knows, I've said a lot of things against the NFL over the years, primarily because the organization by its structure does things that do not help my particular region. Is this problematic? Yes. Is it evil? Of course not. The NFL is an organization that is good and honorable by definition: they believe in forensics as a dynamic educational tool, and do their best to promote it. I too believe that forensics is a dynamic educational tool, and I too do my best to promote it. We don't agree sometimes? We don't agree. One of us is evil or even wrong when we don't agree? Hardly. We all understand the nature of debate too well to believe that one side must always be right. We'd never come up with a topic if that were the case.
Some questions arise. Should the NFL change an announced topic? As a rule, no. But if the topic inadvertently gives offense to the children we are attempting to educate? Of course. It did, and they changed it. What about the topics I just happen not to like? Well, anyone who listens to TVFT knows that my friends often think that those topics are the best ones. In my entire debate career I have never once written to NFL about a topic. This time I did. I would imagine that I never will again. I am pleased with the organization's swift response. It does not indicate shallowness on their part, or some inherent flaws with PF (which may or may not be inherently flawed; I don't know, because I don't know that much about it). It indicates realization that it was a good idea to change this topic. They did. 'Nuff said.
So, what about the topic itself? Why all the complaints? Well, I could post a long exegesis of the subject area proving its meretricious nature, but The New Yorker has done so already: look at recent back issues to find the (lead) article I'm referring to from about a month ago. I'd do it myself, but I throw the magazine away after I read it. Big mistake this time. In any case, I find the subject beyond loathing. Let me just say that I support the fact that a target of 9/11, the Pentagon, continues to offer Muslim prayer services on its premises. I may be wrong but I've always understood that the United States offered everyone freedom of religion. In my studies I have never come across a limitation of freedom of religion putting it at least X number of yards away from where it bothers somebody. Of course, that's not the real issue of the so-called controversy. The real issue is racism, with a liberal dose of stupidity. Disagree with me? I'm fine with that. I'm not here to argue this. Don't bother to try. This is my blog, not yours. I get to say what I want.
Anyhow, I had the great experience yesterday of helping run the Metro-Hudson League Workshop. It was our second year. Really big turnout. I forced The People's Champion to, with no planning, go into a session and teach forty new kids all about LD. I came in near the end: he did a great job. I was not surprised by his accomplishment. I was, however, mighty proud. I spelled him at some point, and took the kids through the next module on five big ideas of LD, including morality and justice. Let me tell you. It is extremely enjoyable to try to get a group of forty students to tell you what the source of their morality is. Where do you get your beliefs about what is right and wrong, I kept asking them. It took the longest time before anyone suggested it might be what they had been taught. I went on to explain how most people derive their beliefs about right and wrong from their religion.
This was, of course, the group from Al Noor, the Muslim school. All the girls covered except for their faces. All of them having a ball learning about debate and Enlightenment philosophy. And, yes, this late PF topic, if they were interested in forensics and rolled that way, would have asked them to conflate themselves with the attackers on 9/11. You could not make me do that at gunpoint. That isn't what the topic would have done? Get real. There's absolutely no other reason to claim the cultural center shouldn't be there.
Political discourse in this country today has sunk to its absolute lowest. Lots of people want nothing better than to tell me how to live my life, and will do anything they can to put themselves in a position to do so. There is no intelligent discussion of policies and proposals. Why don't we want government health care? Because Obama is a foreigner without a birth certificate. We say we don't want gay marriage because it destroys the institution of marriage, but what we really mean is that we hate gay people. We don't want a cultural center near where a horrible thing once happened because we don't care that the reason we were attacked is because we believe in the rights of all, because we believe in the rights of all cultures to exist wherever they want to exist, and this belief in freedom was found to be repellent to a dangerous, ignorant few. We were attacked because we believe in the rights of all, by people who hate us for that. At the point where we say, okay, screw the rights of all people, they won't have to hate us anymore...
By definition, the NFL exists to provide real discourse. They are the antidote to the false discourse in our country today. So are all of us who actively promote debate and discussion and the free flow of ideas. Let's stick to our guns. Which means let's feel free to make mistakes and learn from them, and then to shut up and move on. That's what I'll be doing.
1 comment:
well said.
Post a Comment