Quiet, Please

I wrote just a few weeks ago about how I've fallen off on my blog writing. I started out last fall completely gung-ho, wanting to share my thoughts and ideas with the world, to encourage conversation on meaningful topics, and to occasionally offer a humorous glance at the truly absurd and those overly serious-types that need a little tweak now and then.

But since the new year started, which happened on or about January 1st, I've really struggled with my motivation to write. And I couldn't pinpoint why.

However, in the solitude of the car over the past couple days, I think I've come to terms with why I don't want to engage on any topics: there's just too much noise.

You see, the nature of the world today is such that people more than ever seem to think they're entitled to hammer others with their opinions, convinced that only their opinions are the right ones. And more often than not, people are so zealously sharing their convictions, their rhetoric ends up coming out in derisive, divisive, hateful sound bites, either vocally or in print. The worst part about it is that it's usually loud, both in actual decibel level and in hyperbolic excess, so much so that they can't hear or understand anyone else's position over the noise, especially when done from behind the anonymity of the internet.

What's even more criminal is that when people get to that point, they don't want to see if there's some middle ground out there, because the position--or the person--they're arguing against must be completely idiotic for having that opposite opinion.

Don't believe me? Check any online edition of any newspaper that offers a reader comment section. Then, find a story about politics, either local or national. Then, scroll down and read the comments from readers. There are usually a couple thoughtful remarks, but a lot of the time, it ends up degenerating into truly mean-spirited partisanship. If you really don't believe me, I point you to an online story in today's Bloomington (Illinois) Pantagraph, about the new federal tobacco tax that is going to be taking effect.

You'll have to trust me when I say this particular set of comments is actually pretty civil, based on what usually gets said. I've perused some other papers' websites and this kind of "discourse" is pretty much par for the course.

Turn on FOX News, or FOX Nation, or whatever they're calling themselves this week. Turn on MSNBC. Turn on Nancy Grace. Turn on Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann. Read Ann Coulter. Turn on any program that features any of the spin doctors talking about any issue. They're all convinced that they're right and that not only is the rest of the world wrong, but that everyone else int he world are complete idiots. Granted, they (usually) don't come right out and say it, but the implication is there. They so tightly and blindly hang onto old ideologies that they can't see anything but the glow of their own auras in front of them. (I hold up Karl Rove as an example, who was smugly asking the other night what would be wrong with GM or AIG failing. I thought to myself, "Self, I wonder what he would be thinking if he were suddenly out of work, and found out that his 401(k) had been raided, and that the CEO of the company he just got laid off from got a $20 million golden parachute. I wonder if he'd be abstaining from collecting unemployment on principle. I wonder if he'd be standing there during the foreclosure proceedings on his house, thinking, 'Gosh, the system works. I deserve this for not saving more and investing better, for not getting a better degree, getting into a more secure job in a more secure field.'" He just doesn't consider the possibility that there might be a reason for a different opinion, other than idiocy.)

The last straw came as I was driving around for work the other day, some people on the radio on some talk show were expressing outrage over some topic. And it happened that I agreed with them, but, suddenly, I just couldn't take it anymore. I couldn't take the polarization. I couldn't take the divisiveness. I couldn't take that there was merely a decent prospect and not a 100% chance of returning back to a dull roar, let alone a normal conversation. I wanted quiet and I wanted peace. I wanted--I want--everyone to stop screaming at each other. And, to put on my Veruca Salt tights, I want it now.

(You might say, no, idiot, you're overreacting. People aren't screaming at each other, they're just having a vigorous, yet civil exchange of ideas. I would disagree. I've been involved in vigorous, yet civil exchanges of ideas [right, Mikey?], and the garbage that takes place in the aforementioned forums is not in the same area code as civil.)

So instead of just railing about something without offering an alternative, as so many bloggers/posters/politicians like to do, I propose the following:

I think everybody should listen to more classical music.

In fact, I instituted that rule in my house a few weeks ago when my kids had been on a streak of being truly awful for an unusually long period of time. No Hannah Montana, no High School Musical, no Jonas Brothers, not even Delilah on Magic 100.7 when they go to bed at night. In the car, whenever we're all together, during dinner, only classical music is allowed. The television is also off limits, at least for the kids, unless special permission has been granted. I'm trying to promote an atmosphere that's more harmonious, one that's calmer, more polite, more civil, more peaceful. One that's less Blagojevich. In other words, can't we all just get along?

I think the wonder that is classical music can help effect that change not only in my own home and my own attitude, but in this 24/7 battle for ideological supremacy.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't know what this ultimately means for my blogging. None of the discussion here has been the slightest bit contentious--every comment, every respondent, has been thoughtful, insightful, intelligent and respectful of others' opinions. If the whole world would function like that, I think I'd remain more engaged. I think most people would become more engaged. But to be constantly bombarded with the implication that you're an idiot not only by experts, but by John Q. Anonymous as well, has to be extremely daunting. I don't want to disengage completely; I just want people to be engaged more civilly--and to quote, ugh, Michael Jackson--I'm starting with the man in the mirror.

Maybe more Mozart and less Limbaugh* could start that. Who's with me?

* I use "Limbaugh" only for its alliterative value--I could just as easily have said "Olbermann" here. They are both complete blowholes--read nothing into the fact I picked the conservative one.

Fire that [expletive]er. [expletive] 'em.

As I sit here and ponder the events of the past couple days regarding Rodney R. Blagojevich, soon-to-be-former-Governor of the State of Illinois, [henceforth to be known as “Blago” because a) ‘Blagojevich’ is too long and difficult of a letter combination to repeatedly type whilst on narcotics and b) I sure as hell ain’t calling him ‘Governor’ no more], a strange parallel keeps leaping to mind. Do you remember the scene in the movie “Animal House” when Otter stands up before the Interfraternity Council hearing to defend the Deltas against Niedermayer and Marmalard and Dean Wormer? (“I’m pre law.” “I thought you were pre med.” “What’s the difference?”)

Otter stands up and says something to the effect that you can’t blame a whole fraternity for a few bad apples, for if you do, isn’t it an indictment of the entire fraternity system, and if you indict the entire fraternity system, mustn’t you indict the university as a whole, and therefore the entire American way of life? (That’s when the Deltas walk out humming the Star Spangled Banner, in case your memory hasn’t been jogged yet.)

Here’s why I think of that silly scene, besides the fact that Blago’s defense during his upcoming impeachment hearings (he surely won’t resign--see below) will be only slightly more ridiculous than Otter’s: for as reprehensible as Blago is, he’s not the only one to blame. We need to blame the history of politics in Illinois (and Chicago specifically). We need to indict the historically acknowledged and approved pay-to-play system that put him there. We need to point the finger at the people who ultimately put him in the Governor’s mansion (if he actually lived there, that is).

We need to point the finger at you and me.

Even if you voted for Roland Burris, Jim Ryan, Judy Baar Topinka or Rich Whitney in 2002 or 2006, it’s just as much your fault as if you punched your pay stub, er, ballot, for Blago himself. You see, simply by casting a vote in an election for a statewide office in Illinois, you’re guilty.*

You’re guilty because by voting for one of those candidates, you weren’t working against all of them, even by choosing the lesser of two evils. Unless you ran for office yourself, you’re guilty. Unless you encouraged, financially backed, knocked on doors or handed out bumper stickers for somebody not affiliated with a political party in the State of Illinois, you’re guilty. Simply by allowing people the likes of Blago, Topinka, George Ryan, Dan Walker, Otto Kerner, Orville Hodge, William Lorimer, Len Small, Dan Rostenkowski, Ed Vrdolyak and scores of other Chicago aldermen to even get on a ballot, makes us all guilty by association.

I’m not talking about denying them their rights as Americans to run for office. I’m talking about our obligation as Americans to see through their self-serving bullshit.

My daddy taught me two things growing up: you never get something for nothing, and if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. It seems that if the electorate in Illinois had a good dose of that common sense, we wouldn’t be in this mess today. Yet we still insist on voting for these people, whose egos are so bafflingly grand, whose lines of bullshit are so thick, I’m stumped as to how we were hornswaggled into not thinking this is too good to be true.

I’m not saying there aren’t good, qualified people in statewide elected office right now. There are probably a couple. But there is no one I trust, that’s for damn sure. I don’t think there’s a one of them that wouldn’t sell out a colleague or piss on a campaign promise if it wouldn’t get them more power or money from whatever the source, however ethically icky it might be. Maybe all politicians are like that. I hope not, but I’ve lived in Illinois all my life, grew up watching Fahey Flynn talk about the Council Wars in Chicago. My parents grew up in Fast Eddie’s famed 10th Ward on the Southeast Side of Chicago, for heaven’s sake. So, in my world, words like "honorable” and “decent” and “trust” don’t often appear anywhere close to the word “politician” in the same document.

My worry is that there’s no solution. I mean, we can hope this sudden light that been shone on Illinois’s kitchen and exposed all the Blagockroaches that have been scurrying about unabated for a hundred years now so that we can spray them with a giant can of Honest and figuratively kill them all. But how likely is that? Do we really trust other perhaps-not-quite-so-crooked-yet-still-crooked politicians to fix the mess that Blago, Ryan, et al. have gotten us into? (See above paragraph about trust.)

The quickest and simplest solution from where I’m sitting is to just break up the state. Split it in two. Chicago and the collar counties should be its own state (“Bladolyakowski”) and the rest of us could retain the name of Illinois. If you’re in that area and are offended by that, I’m sorry, but that’s where the bulk of the money, power and influence (and therefore corruption) resides. Border it off and let them grift it out to the death. If you live there and don't want to watch it implode from the front row, feel free to move to Illinois. But let the other 95 counties start over. Or, anything above I-80 could be its own state. You could keep the name Illinois, and we could be Southern Illinois, because, after all, everybody north of I-80 thinks anything south of that distinguished road is hick country anyway.

I think we should secede and establish the true Land of Lincoln and name it after him. After all, U.S. Attorney Pat Fitzgerald rightly said that what Blago has done would make Lincoln roll over in his grave. But I’ll go him one further: had Lincoln known what was going to happen in this place he once made hallow, he would have handed Booth the pistol himself.

The worst part of all of this is symbolized in a couple lines from this Associated Press report from December 10: “Ensconced in his downtown office, Blagojevich gave no sign he was contemplating resigning, and dispatched his spokeswoman, Kelley Quinn, to say it was ‘business as usual’ in his 16th-floor suite, situated a few blocks from Obama's transition headquarters.”

Business as usual. I don't know about you, but that scares the shit out of me. And nothing says more than that about Blago or the citizens of the State of Illinois who haven't yet stormed his office demanding his resignation.


*For the record, I didn’t vote for Blago in 2006. I voted for Green Party candidate Rich Whitney over him and Judy Baar Topinka, whom, I’m convinced would have been just as, if not more, corrupt than Blago-—not that that excuses him--I’m just sayin’. But I did vote for him the first time in 2002 when he ran against Jim Ryan. Sorry Abdul.

Re: Blago

I've been in my semi-drug induced state the past two days watching all this nonsense with Blago. (I refuse to call him by his title anymore, by the way). I was mortified that in the midst of the biggest story of the year (yes, bigger than the election and the bailouts) that because of my operation, I'd only be able to type one-handed, and therefore not be able to do the subject justice.

Good news: I can type with two hands. I hope to post later tonight, in case anyone was eagerly anticipating my thoughts.