To those of us who even fear being left behind as the world sleeps and we are in the "brain-race" head noise that keeps us from the peace that sleep may bring. Keats understood this...
To Sleep
O soft embalmer of the still midnight,
Shutting, with careful fingers and benign,
Our gloom-pleas'd eyes, embower'd from the light,
Enshaded in forgetfulness divine:
O soothest Sleep! if so it please thee, close
In midst of this thine hymn my willing eyes,
Or wait the "Amen," ere thy poppy throws
Around my bed its lulling charities.
Then save me, or the passed day will shine
Upon my pillow, breeding many woes,--
Save me from curious Conscience, that still lords
Its strength for darkness, burrowing like a mole;
Turn the key deftly in the oiled wards,
And seal the hushed Casket of my Soul.
-John Keats
29 November 2003
Democracy is not always pleasant
There have been times in our history when unrest pervaded the landscape. Dumping crates of tea into Boston Harbor would probably be seen as little more than vandalism in the scope of this nation’s history of discourse. But under the circumstances, it was a rather daring and defiant (and creative) way to make a point and get the attention of those imposing a burden in the form of taxes on a minority of the people who had no voice in their government’s decision making process.
The nation formed subsequent to that demonstration was one based on laws, ideas and principles. And one of the tenets built-in as a precept within the nation’s structure was the idea that in a democracy, discourse and debate are encouraged.
But now in the 21st Century, when most Americans are relatively comfortable, debate and discourse – or even the act of questioning the status quo – is often considered a potential source of “unpleasantness.” While we see a certain amount of this in the legislature and congress, forms of government closer to home have established this artificial wall over its decision making process.
Why are we afraid to speak our minds in fear of offending individuals with opposing ideas? And to the other side, one might ask, ‘Why are you offended when it is the right and obligation of people living in a democracy to enter into debate openly?”
In fact, it has become a popular technique of people who wish not to answer “uncomfortable” questions to make it known that any type of controversy would be unpleasant, and that being unpleasant (in this context) is wrong. This syndrome allows some factions to get away with avoiding the discussion of matters that can impact an entire constituency.
Their grand premise is that “It is better to be pleasant than it is to be correct.” This is a recipe that will yield the lowest common denominator as the result of every issue.
John F. Kennedy said, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
From national actions down to local events, the best decisions for the majority historically were hammered out of molten debate. And the rules for debate are what keep individuals civil, so that the discourse and arguments are over the matter at hand, instead of time wasted hurling ad hominem commentary back and forth.
Both sides of an issue should know that they have served their constituency well, no matter the outcome, if they have entered into debate casting aside fear of the vain notion that it is unpleasant to pursue what is right.
-copyright LS 2003
There have been times in our history when unrest pervaded the landscape. Dumping crates of tea into Boston Harbor would probably be seen as little more than vandalism in the scope of this nation’s history of discourse. But under the circumstances, it was a rather daring and defiant (and creative) way to make a point and get the attention of those imposing a burden in the form of taxes on a minority of the people who had no voice in their government’s decision making process.
The nation formed subsequent to that demonstration was one based on laws, ideas and principles. And one of the tenets built-in as a precept within the nation’s structure was the idea that in a democracy, discourse and debate are encouraged.
But now in the 21st Century, when most Americans are relatively comfortable, debate and discourse – or even the act of questioning the status quo – is often considered a potential source of “unpleasantness.” While we see a certain amount of this in the legislature and congress, forms of government closer to home have established this artificial wall over its decision making process.
Why are we afraid to speak our minds in fear of offending individuals with opposing ideas? And to the other side, one might ask, ‘Why are you offended when it is the right and obligation of people living in a democracy to enter into debate openly?”
In fact, it has become a popular technique of people who wish not to answer “uncomfortable” questions to make it known that any type of controversy would be unpleasant, and that being unpleasant (in this context) is wrong. This syndrome allows some factions to get away with avoiding the discussion of matters that can impact an entire constituency.
Their grand premise is that “It is better to be pleasant than it is to be correct.” This is a recipe that will yield the lowest common denominator as the result of every issue.
John F. Kennedy said, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
From national actions down to local events, the best decisions for the majority historically were hammered out of molten debate. And the rules for debate are what keep individuals civil, so that the discourse and arguments are over the matter at hand, instead of time wasted hurling ad hominem commentary back and forth.
Both sides of an issue should know that they have served their constituency well, no matter the outcome, if they have entered into debate casting aside fear of the vain notion that it is unpleasant to pursue what is right.
-copyright LS 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)