Guardians of Morality?

There is quite a big to-do in the news about the members of the cast in the reality show about a family that lives in the woods.  The head of the family is reported (I haven’t watched any of this first hand, so I can only state what I have read in the papers, that I have heard that these things were said) to have read from the Bible certain passages about homosexuality and then apparently added some of his own comments.

As one would guess, the world is in an uproar and this is now ‘front page’ news.  The fellow in question has been at least temporarily kicked off the show by the network that owns and airs the show, but the tempest continues.  And everyone has chosen at this point to come out and either defend or attack him.

A fellow who is a political commentator and former advisor to President Bush made the observation that the fellow in question had the right to say what he wanted – the 1^st Amendment protecting his speech, and the TV station had the right to fire (actually suspend) him, it being their TV station.

But, the firestorm of outrage continues as the ‘pure of heart,’ in self-righteous indignation demand that ‘something be done.’

First, the guy quoted from the Bible – then added his own comments.  I think most folks pretty much agree with the Bible, perhaps not in every single detail or in the understanding of each passage, but they do pretty much hold to what the Bible says.  So are the voices of outrage angry at the Bible?  I’m curious.  If so, they should explain themselves; I suspect most Americans would find that ‘enlightening.’

Second, his own comments were a bit strident, and he has, I understand, offered some sort of apology.  Whenever someone on the far left says something harsh, simple and not necessarily heart-felt apologies seem to do the trick.  Not so in this case.

Third, is there a very real effort to control speech in this country, of regulating everything that comes from those who do not dwell at one particular end of the political spectrum?  Absolutely. But, we knew that already.

But what I find interesting is this: in all of its high dudgeon over his hate speech or whatever they are calling it, the station in question is going to run a whole weekend of the reruns, there being millions of followers of the show who want to watch it, and therefore money to be made.

I am sure, given the amount of publicity that has been generated in virtually every newspaper, TV news show, internet sites and presumably all those social media sites that many of the fame hungry work so hard, that there will be record audiences and everyone is going to make some more money off this.

So, what might we conclude from this?  That to many of the political and moneyed elite the money is much more important than, well, anything and everything else.  Everybody is willing to stand on principal – as long as it doesn’t affect the profit margin.

A number of years ago William F. Buckley asked a fellow from one of the cable networks whether there was any moral or ethical limit to what he would broadcast; the fellow tried to dodge the question, responding more or less that audiences had a ‘right’ to watch whatever they want and who was he to ‘censor’ what they watched.  Buckley then asked, ‘if that is the case, would you broadcast some sort of ‘fight to the death’ or a snuff film?’  The response was ‘those events would be illegal.’  To which Buckley suggested that they could as easily air from a ship at sea, or Antarctica or from some war-torn country where there was no rule of law.  No answer was given.

Buckley’s point was – and is – obvious.  And it is probably more germane today then ever, where we have more bizarre and immoral behavior on television then ever.  This isn’t because there is any more disgusting behavior today then there was in the past.  A quick review of history finds it full of lust, murder, hate, greed and all the seven deadly sins – in abundance.

I am pretty much a libertarian myself, and I have a great deal of trouble with government – particularly the federal government – censoring in any way what is printed, aired, etc.  But I do believe in self-censoring; there are some things that shouldn’t be said, or filmed, or aired.  And while I am not advocating for censors, I am advocating that people should draw meaningful conclusions about people from their behavior.

There are two points that make today’s ‘entertainment industry’ a bit different from what we have seen in the past; one is the willingness, the eagerness with which the modern TV / Cable systems seek to air anything and everything, irrespective of what it may show, well beyond the pale of anything that was being aired just 10 or 15 years ago, all the while wrapping themselves up in the 1^st Amendment. And the second point is their holier than thou attitude, castigating someone for his ‘outrageous’ beliefs while routinely demonstrating that they have none.

So, go ahead and make your noise, condemn people for their beliefs, and then make sure you make your money off it.  But don’t expect me to respect your opinions, your perspectives on life or morals, or for that matter, respect you. 

Pearl Harbor - 72

72 years ago... A million stories of courage.  Here's one I know (my friend J.R. prodded me into sharing a story - thanks.  I've added a few comments for clarification):

Late 1980s, I was out at Monterey, CA. at the Naval Postgraduate School, I had just graduated, and packed out my apartment, etc., and I swung by the small exchange to get a haircut.

There was one barber working and he told me to come in and have a seat in one of the chairs, so I did.  There were two men in the shop with him: one getting his hair cut and one sitting in the barber chair next to him and they were talking about golf and their grand kids.  Both were probably in their late 70s.

The barber finished up and they paid and left.  Then the barber turns to me and says: 'See those two guys?  Both have Navy Crosses. (The Navy Cross is the second highest award for heroism in combat, immediately below the Medal of Honor.)  Both also survived Pearl Harbor.  The fellow whose hair I just cut was one of the engineers on OKLAHOMA.  When the ship was hit he was in the engine room and tried to control flooding, but they lost power and he couldn't do it and the ship started rolling."

USS OKLAHOMA, one the US battleships in Pearl Harbor, was in the process of having some work done and the access plates to the bilges had been removed; these are about 20 inch wide plates that are normally bolted in place and make certain spaces water tight. You can take them off in port, but once you do that there is no easy, fast way to close them up and make the ship water-tight.  Once the ship started taking on water any effort to control flooding, or try to settle the ship straight down onto the bottom became hopeless.  Additionally, any ship that has taken that much damage will normally lose power, not only making it impossible to operate pumps, but also plunging the interior of the ship into darkness.  The ship rolled over but hit bottom in the shallow water of the harbor and ended up on its side.

"He led a few men 'up' to the bottom but they got separated in the dark.  Eventually, he found himself alone in a space, in the dark, and the water was at the door to the space. He also found a large wrench.  In the dark he could feel a number of items bolted to the deck and bulkhead - now above him - and he unbolted them and let them fall, so he could have clear access to the deck/hull.  Then he began to beat on the hull at regular intervals.  Eventually, he received a tap back.  And then he waited.  He was one of the last guys cut out of the hull, on 9 December."

32 men were cut out of OKLAHOMA's hull between the end of the attack the morning of 7 December until the last few were rescued early in the morning of 09 December.  The man who led the effort to cut them out was a civilian shipyard worker, Julio DeCastro, 'Lead Caulker and Chipper' at the Navy Yard.  Beating on the hull from inside - from areas that were already under water - continued for several more days but they couldn't reach those guys.

And the other guy? I asked.

"He was the OOD (Officer Of the Deck – the man responsible to the captain at any given time, for the operation and safety of the ship) on ARIZONA on 6 December.  On the morning of the 6th his wife dropped him off at the small-boat landing to take the launch out to the ship, and as he was saying good-buy to his wife and 2 boys, RADM Kidd showed up.  

RADM Isaac Kidd was Commander BatDiv 1, Battleship Division 1, which consisted of the three battleships ARIZONA, NEVADA, and OKLAHOMA.  Battleships were known for their spit and polish and ARIZONA had a particular reputation as a ship that was always 'inspection ready.'  RADM Kidd died on ARIZONA on the 7th, and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.  In total, 15 men were awarded the Medal of Honor from action on 7 December, 10 of them posthumously.

"Kidd said hello, and said hello to the wife and kids, and one of the kids said something to the effect that 'we're going to spend the night on the ship with dad.'  So, Kidd says 'you should sleep with them in my in-port cabin and I will sleep in the at-sea cabin.' " 

In warships the captain has two cabins: an 'at-sea' cabin located near the bridge, so he can get some rest but be close at hand, and an ‘in-port’ cabin which is normally the nicest - and largest - cabin on the ship.  Except for ships that are designed to carry admirals.  In those cases, the admiral will also have an ‘in-port’ and an 'at sea' cabin.  And the admiral's in-port cabin can be counted on to be an exceptional space, as it was normally used not only for the admiral to live in, but also for the admiral to entertain official guests.  And the ARIZONA's was apparently a particular example of what the Navy can do when it wants to...

"So that night he picked the kids up, took them to the ship where they ate in the wardroom and slept in the Flag in-port cabin (the Admiral’s cabin – Admirals are referred to as ‘Flags’ because admirals traditionally fly a flag when on a ship that allows people to know there is in fact an admiral embarked), then in the morning he got the kids up early, turned over the watch early, and headed ashore to meet his wife for 0800 Catholic Mass at the base chapel.  And he was walking into church when the first round hit.  The two men went on to fight across the Pacific, and both retired as captains, and later retired in Carmel."