BlogHer - The New Political Speech Standard: If we wouldn't let our kids say it, then it has no place in political discourse - Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to walk my talk

Kim Pearson — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:58:54 -0600

I understand your response to be satirical, am I right? I am assuming that you are being satirical because, as a health care professional, I know that you would not presume to psychoanalyze someone based on their writings. And if you are being satirical, could you help me understand the claim of value on which your satire is based? Because if you are not being satirical, you seem to be making an argument that does not respond to Jill's point -- but she can respond to that for yourself.

All of that aside, I think you raise an important issue about the core values that we use to teach and reinforce standards of appopriate behavior. Many people agree with the point that you seem to be making about the impact of Court decisions with regard to school prayer. If that's the conversation you wanted to start, I think it's well worth having. It would be ashamed if the conversation got lost in the snark.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Interesting thoughts

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:29:31 -0600

Thanks for reading and commenting, Barbara.

A few thoughts on your thoughts:

I read what you wrote to be written in a way in which you yourself are trying to be careful! That is kind but here at BlogHer, there certainly would be no problem and in fact I have an expectation that you would just say, "Jill it sounds like you are not past these experiences yet, are you?" But I understand that this is a one-dimensional medium still and so it's not easy for strangers to feign familiarity when really we don't know one another.

You wrote, "Ten-screen-inches in a post on this-experience-marked-me does not convince that the author is past those experiences." I hope I am never past this experience - it is what keeps me in check. I think about it from time to time when I'm worked up over someone or something and I recall that experience. I've never really thought about it as something to get past but rather something that was very formative for me.

Are you suggesting that that might be a problem for an adult?

You wrote, "Seems the blogosphere has become a comfortable couch for many to work-out Freudian-style their childhood issues." I'm curious to know if you think that's a good or bad thing, Barbara. Has it worked that way for you, too?

You wrote:

"The children in our public schools can no longer be taught appropriate
social behaviors with reference to biblical principles. This is
because a few individuals stated that being atheistic, their children
were hurt by prayer and the mention of God in school. I remember well
when this happened because I was a child and the few individuals lived
in my town. Removing God from the schools hurt my feelings. I don’t
think I’m over it yet."

Now this is definitely not my recollection. I started Kindergarten in 1967 and I don't ever remember our public schools teaching "appropriate social behaviors with reference to biblical principles." As a Jew, I'm quite happy that that was the case. Where were you in school that you recall public schools using biblical references? I really thought God was never in the public schools - when was it exactly that you are remembering God being removed?

Last thing, you wrote:

At least free speech is still available in all
media. What if free speech is restricted by hurt feelings? I don’t
know if I could find enough others to agree with me here, so someone
would have to restrict the other comments to be equal in number to the
comments that reinforce emoting in cyberspace. Someone would have to
subjectively decide which comments were pro and which where con, and
fairly post equal numbers of comments. Thank goodness that form of
fairness-restriction is not in place online.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to here. I know that Sarah Palin said last week that she thinks that the media might be inpinging on her free speech rights because the media criticizes her. Of course, the right to free speech has to do with us being free from the government impinging on our speech - private parties can pretty much restrict your speech at will.

The blogs that I frequent and the one I write definitely has the subjective element re: what's the limit - that's how you get to know whether you trust it or not, whether you like the tone or not.

So I think I'm not understanding what it is you're saying in this last paragraph - if you come back to this thread, I'd be interesting in a bit more explanation.

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment - I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on these questions.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Thanks, :)

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:18:08 -0600

I know you are right- I remember how I felt when Gore lost, in particular. Devastating - totally sucked the wind out.

So I should say - I worry about arrogance too. All sides need to be focused on the future - a GOOD future, the best future.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

That is really something re: the word "sarcasm"

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:12:00 -0600

Wow, I never knew that. It's almost kind of creepy - just how cruel it is, yes? I don't use sarcasm too much in my writing because I'm afraid of people not "getting it" - I tend to be pretty straight-forward and the times I've tried sarcasm, I've gotten people all mixed up!

I think people are so frustrated, feeling like what they think or do doesn't matter - I know I've really come to appreciate the advice about fighting speech with more speech (though hopefully good speech!) but it can be EXHAUSTING. Still, we have to trust it - what alternatives are there, right?

Just a quick example - somewhere in Ohio, some kids were stealing McCain signs and a man about 50 shot one of the teens who was in a car! I mean, why didn't he just get the license plate number?

So - emotions are high, but really - do we even help our cause if we lose it?

So I think we have to think about that too.

NOT EASY. :) I know. But for me - I think that's why I write about! It's like, the more I write about it and read that other people fight the same struggle, the more it actually keeps me calm I think - you know what I mean?

Thanks for the kind words and sharing your thoughts on the subject too.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

You are definitely welcome here!

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:01:15 -0600

Tab - I can't say for sure but I would think being a man on BlogHer is kind of like being the only guy taking dance lessons or being in drama club - look at all the women around you! Ok - that was all I could come up with on short notice but yes - I think the number is about 10% of BlogHers are men (CEs correct me if I'm off!).

I want to re-write what you asked:

...i just want to know from you honestly when the environment around
you is hostile can someone be cool & be successful or you run away
or you face it tactfully.

While the verdict is clear to everyone how one needs to behave but
the struggle to make yourself better everyday is a lifetime quest. The
first journey is self awareness i guess & then how you react to
what happens to you. I am very confident society will evolve gradually
for the better everywhere.

Isn't this THE struggle? I know what you mean. For me, and I only speak for myself so maybe others can chime in too, I do try (emphasis on try) to imagine how it would make me feel and that usually stems the tide. Also, I imagine that I don't want some bad juju going on indefinitely.

But, I'll give a concrete example: I'm going through tough times right now sorting out why I've gotten into some bad patterns of how I engage with people close to me and am realizing that other people who are close to me are in part responsible for that - not on purpose so to speak, but by my having been around them so much. But my realizing that connection is impacting how I behave iwth the people who are kind of responsible, and they notice that and they want to know what's going on! And that involves telling them some kind of hurtful things. And that's been really hard - how do you feel loyalty for people, not want to hurt them but then feel that you need to let them know what is going on because it's so clearly impacting you?

Sorry if that's kind of obtuse but I guess I'm just saying that I think we struggle with these kinds of things - how to put up with the environment as you say - all the time. I don't think there's any one answer - we just have to trust each other that we want the best for one another - when we see that that is not the case, I think that's when it really gets ugly.

Thanks for reading and commenting and do come back. :)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

I feel all that

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:48:04 -0600

Nordette,

Thank you for this incredibly thoughtful comment. I completely feel what you're saying.

As I was reading, I started to wonder: where do we find the guidance about how to be critical - and I don't mean critical as in nasty, I mean - to be constructive, to assist, help, not be silent, but speak out in a way that leads to something better?

I confess, there may be such guidelines in Jewish learnings, but isn't it funny that I can't think of ever hearing them? What about in other faiths? Anyone know? Or has God alway been more worried that we would savage each other? Kind of interesting to me! I have to think about that.

And of course, I want to add - I'm not some incredibly religious person - I don't even know that I believe in God. And so I definitely believe that people who do not affiliate with a religion have their moral code that they follow that also seeks to hurt the fewest, help the most - something along those lines. I admit my only vague knowledge of atheism but I have never been someone who, for example, would think that an atheist can't be a president (you know how that question comes up sometimes in polls about faith and politics?).

I brought up the loshon hora thing in the main post because it's something I know and find useful. But I just wanted to clarify that I don't think that only people who affiliate with a religion have such strictures.

Nordette I also echo what you say about healing after this election but I'll confess - I fear for people hardening further. I feel that, hold those stones, Sarah Palin's rhetoric just embraced so much ugliness and meanness and bullying - and people who were drawn to it like bees to honey really scare me. Now, I know some people feel that way about how people flocked to Obama and all that. But to me, that seemed to be something driven by far more positive emotions. That's my persespective, obviously.

I suppose it really doesn't matter who started it or said what, but only that for the good of the country and ourselves, we move forward. Big sigh - I hope and pray.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

I blame the media

Therextras — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:19:46 -0600

for promoting hurt feelings – repeated reporting all those mean things said by Vice President Cheney and others. Untold numbers of persons were hurt by the repetitive reporting of mean words. The more people who heard them, the more people hurt. Mean media.

Call it a right-of-passage, but children will comment to each other what they observe without the restraint of adult oversight. Most children learn the boundaries of polite commentary as they mature, become adults, just as the author did. An adult pointed-out the bad behavior and punished it.

During that right-of-passage, each child learns to respond to the comments of others, critical or praise. The response of each child is individual but there are similar responses among groups of children. Some children internalize what they are told; some shrug it off. Of those who internally affirm what they hear, they also will decide if their self-perception is positive or negative. Sensitive and proud of it! Or, sensitive and avoidant of situations that continue to reinforce sensitivity (among many possible responses).

Someone who writes in detail about childhood experiences might not have completed their passage to acceptance of what other children said to them. Ten-screen-inches in a post on this-experience-marked-me does not convince that the author is past those experiences.

Parents are the primary teachers for responsible social behavior. However, once a person is an adult, we are responsible for the consequences of our own behavior. Seems the blogosphere has become a comfortable couch for many to work-out Freudian-style their childhood issues.

The children in our public schools can no longer be taught appropriate social behaviors with reference to biblical principles. This is because a few individuals stated that being atheistic, their children were hurt by prayer and the mention of God in school. I remember well when this happened because I was a child and the few individuals lived in my town. Removing God from the schools hurt my feelings. I don’t think I’m over it yet.

At least free speech is still available in all media. What if free speech is restricted by hurt feelings? I don’t know if I could find enough others to agree with me here, so someone would have to restrict the other comments to be equal in number to the comments that reinforce emoting in cyberspace. Someone would have to subjectively decide which comments were pro and which where con, and fairly post equal numbers of comments. Thank goodness that form of fairness-restriction is not in place online.

Barbara H. Boucher, PT, PhD, OT TherExtras

YOU GO GIRL!

Cynthia Samuels — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 06:28:37 -0600

No surprise that you're exhibiting wisdom and a great gift for story telling. And you timing is impeccable. There are going to be desperately heart-broken people on one side or the other on Wednesday and we will need to summon all the good behavior - all the civility - that we have in our hearts. Your reminder is well-timed indeed my girl.

Cynthia Samuels, Partner
Cobblestone Associates, LLP
Blog and Media Strategies and Content Development Online and on Television

Don’t
Gel Too Soon

Good points, Nordette

9to5to9 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 02:23:16 -0600

I developed a lashing tongue of my own in the name of self-protection and got pretty good at shutting down people who belittled me, but as I matured spiritually and emotionally (still working on that), I understood that even in defending ourselves against another person's ugly words we must be careful to not be equally ugly or uglier.

Been guilty of that myself until one of my sisters pointed out that etymology "sarcasm" includes words that mean "to tear the flesh." Yep. That was what I was doing all those years. I didn't mean to tear -- most of the time -- but I often didn't think before I spoke. I think I'm doing much better now, but still a work in progress. Moderating that nasty forum certainly helped.

And kperfetto, I saw exactly what you're talking about happen on that board, too, when someone wrote something that was twisted in the hit of one of the usual intramural hissing matches. Unfortunately, it usually was the person who had no ill intent who wound up apologizing and either backing off commenting or leaving feeling wronged. And that's unfortunate.

Thanks for your kind words, Jill. And thanks for starting the discussion. I've been thinking about this a lot in the past month and wondering how we as a nation recover from all the bile and hostility and poo flinging that's gone on during this election.

Debra Legg
9to5to9

Hi - I bow to you

tab69 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:02:16 -0600

I actually liked your post a lot. I read this three time just to get this into my head straight. You really have a gift to communicate quite well.I was doing a google search on all favourable & unfavourable feedback of the candidates & landed to the website which was more accidental than deliberate. Since i am a male i do not know if i am allowed to leave a comment here or join this site. But since this was written quite well & am one of the vistim of the economic recession i have taken a break from the finance world so i can just relax & read the blogs of different people.

I have been working most of the times at very competative position & while my actions are well intentioned you still can't help sometimes when you do crack down when the surroundings you work have poor hygiene standards in terms of politics & lack of ethics in people's actions. When you are a victim of some one's abuse i have tried to keep a cool poise. It takes time to take grudges away from someone it is a battle which you do everyday, sometimes you win sometimes you lose. When i reflect was i better than yesterday today as long as i get that equation correctly i know i am doing allright.

While i support a different party which is the republican primarily for a policy i believe will benefit this country viz capitalism than any other consideration. I am not defending the actions of the political leaders i just want to know from you honestly when the environment around you is hostile can someone be cool & be successful or you run away or you face it tactfully.

While the verdict is clear to everyone how one needs to behave but the struggle to make yourself better everyday is a lifetime quest. The first journey is self awareness i guess & then how you react to what happens to you. I am very confident society will evolve gradually for the better everywhere.

I'm sorry if YOU feel I said something to hurt your feelings.

Nordette — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:42:18 -0600

Let's see, I was too sensitive, wore my feelings on my sleeve, and needed to memorize "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" ... I got the "you're too sensive" talks too, Jill. Needed them often as the "fat" kid, someone who many people, even teachers, felt it was okay to tease. I learned to suck it up but I still observed how people tried to invalidate what I and others felt, especially with the following fake apology, "I'm sorry that you feel I said something to hurt your feelings." What?!!!

I developed a lashing tongue of my own in the name of self-protection and got pretty good at shutting down people who belittled me, but as I matured spiritually and emotionally (still working on that), I understood that even in defending ourselves against another person's ugly words we must be careful to not be equally ugly or uglier. Bitter words contaminate the soul, and it takes a true master of faith to speak truth with love.

As a Christian, I studied some of the same verses you list in your post. And so I have been especially dismayed by the people who identify themselves as Christian but use some of the meanest language against people they oppose politically and otherwise. I don't mean a word like "socialist" and "Muslim." There's nothing evil about being either and so the words alone are not negative. What I mean is that some people declaring themselves to be Christian and to speak in the name of God willingly apply these words to political leaders in order to stir up their followers and fellow Christians when the labels are, first, not true and, second, infer that the candidates they oppose are as evil as the anti-Christ. Some say Obama is the anti-Christ. These people engage in lying gossip and speak as fact what is actually opinion and even their conclusions seem to based, frequently, on someone else's false words.

I think what bothers me as much is that if other people point out the errors of hateful speech from the religious community, that community accuses the critic of being negative or persecuting "God's people." This tendency to use religion to tell other people to shut up when commenting on mean speech within religious communities seems hypocritical to me. The "do not judge lest ye be judge" verse is a favorite of manipulators. However the verse is not saying we can't tell right from wrong, or in the case of speaking, not determine mean speech from well-reasoned, compassionate speech. If that were the case then we should all stitch our lips shut and no teacher could admonish a student, no parent a child, no friend could encourage a friend to do the right thing when she sees her friends has gone astray with nasty words. That verse is more about condemning others to hell as though we know the mind of God and can read other people's hearts. It's about judging people and engaging in psychic stoning not identifying hostile words and actions.

When we criticize another's behavior, we must be very careful in the words we choose so that we do not incite hatred and violence, do not provoke others to intense anger that may lead to harmful deeds. I'm not trying to get into preaching here, just sharing what I was taught and learned on my own spiritual journey. If I wanted to start a hot debate I'd go into Peter's admonition that Christians should not be busybodies or meddlers in the affairs of non-Christians or how Paul was a Roman citizen but did not tell Christians to take over Rome, which could kind of make you wonder why so many Christians today want to rule the nation and force all Americans to live by "Christian" morals, but that's another topic (going off on my pet peeve.) Let's stick to how we all can use words with more wisdom.

From what I've studied and observed, it seems we should all be careful about what we say and some of us should also be careful about how we read what we write ourselves and what's written by others. After Nov. 4, we're all long overdue for introspection, and for the sake of healing, I have two other Bible verses, "Don't let the sun go down on your anger," also "Be angry and sin not."

In my faith, God understands that we get angry but how watches how we handle that anger. I'm guessing gossip, lying, and hurtful words is not not the way to go. I've tried to teach my children to be careful about what they say and to teach that what they say directs what they'll do in many instances.

As this election season closes, we'll all need to heal because so many of us have been set on edge by the nastiness of the race. Many of us must meditate on the virtues of forgiveness and letting go of hurts and anger.

Thank you for this thoughtful post, Jill. It's a complex subject so your length was warranted. Sorry for my own long-windedness. I do not claim to be a wonderful example of a Christian, but a person who knows when her behind's in the fire for her own words.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site. Try these links, McCain Funny on SNL and Canadian comics prank Palin.

Universal expectation belief

Jill Miller Zimon — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:12:10 -0600

Great addition to this thread, Marisa - thank you very much. (No I didn't cover those traditions in the post.)

It's so fascinating and frustrating that there does seem to be a consensus among traditions in a variety of settings that this is the threshold we should observe. I'd love to find out where it is that the tradition began to ignore the threshold for the sake of winning - or survival? I don't know much about that at all but I would like to. I'm really only guessing based on observation. I imagine our traditions to have exceptions - Judaism does - but to me? Politics just can't or shouldn't be one of them!

Thanks - glad you joined. :)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

More support

Risalysa — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:05:24 -0600

Hi,

Okay, so this post is so SPOT ON for my thinking. I've been lurking but this actually got me to create an account... because I want to add the Qur'anic and Hadith viewpoints on the subject. I find that there's generally a huge knowledge of Judaism and Christianity, and you linked to Hindu traditions, but not this. Forgive me if I missed it. We, too, have a strong prohibition against gossip but also backbiting, which is saying what you know your neighbor would not want you to say, in or out of their presence.

" And backbite not one another. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would hate it (so hate backbiting). And fear God. Verily, God is the one who forgives and accepts repentance, the Most Merciful."- that's verse 49:12 of the Qur'an.

There are many others; we also have a prophetic tradition that adds to this, the hadith goes: "Whoever believes in God and the Last day should speak good, or remain silent."

And you thought it began with Thumper and Bambi!

Regardless of the tradition, the point is a very valid one.

peace

Marisa

Very interesting!

Jill Miller Zimon — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:16:44 -0500

Thanks for reading that long-windedness of mine. :) And commenting.

I like your points too. I agree - hyperbole, rhetoric - they have a place - as do profanities uttered at precise times. I think it's when it gets to be THE dominant tone that it's most repulsive to me, but you are right - there can be value when done properly.

I think the key thing is that the attacks, such as they, always be to the policy or the action, not to the person per se, and that they be points that can be backed up or substantiated. Having gone to law school and competing in moot court competitions, it is a real art and a difficult one to learn at that, to be able to fight with words and win when you don't aim to hurt someone re: disable them so you can cruise to a win. Because essentially, I think that's what people who use really hurtful stuff (and I do include the constant push of Obama's a Muslim, he wasn't born in HI or the Palin pregnancy stuff re: it's not her child) are trying to do: they want to open a wound that will make you have to cover it and take your energy from something else. When the wound has nothing to do with policy but only the personal, it's just wrong, I think.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

I'm not one to swear...I mean...talk!

Gwynneth — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:07:20 -0500

Thanks for the thoughtful comments--and people say I'M longwinded! Heh-heh...Seriously, though I agree with most of what you said, and oppose bullying and teasing among children, both as a parent and former teacher, my standards for swearing are somewhat different.

I regularly season my speech with all kinds of things: euphemisms, metaphors, slang, Victorian and foreign expressions (I adore British gutterspeak, as well as upperclass phrases from novels!). And I swear...a LOT! I try to tone it down when my kid's friends are around, but they're almost all over 18 now, so I'm more relaxed. Also, their speech is far worse, and my son insists it's ubiquitous! I tell him to just mind the fecal & body "humor", and not to insult women, other racial groups or gay people and I'm fine with it.

One thing I learned about kids a LONG time ago is this:the more forbidden they think something is, the more they crave it, whether it's staying up late, guns...or swearing. No, I never gave my kid a gun, after he lost interest in his toy water pistol, so that was a relief as he would never have been allowed a REAL one! But we never had problems with bedtime after letting him stay up late a few times and feel lousy the next day! You must pick and choose your battles.

And since most adults are just large children, in my experience, it's the same thing. I DO draw the line at some of the things you mentioned, such as derrogatory words like "faggot" or saying F.U. in the Senate!They can swear all they want once they're not on my nickel.

Still...when the going gets tough and your opponent is lashing out, I don't blame the wronged party for hitting back (verbally) in kind. It's what I taught my kid to do--basically the wordy version of what my father taught me: "Never start a fight, but always be ready to finish one" (He meant actual fist-fights; I went to Catholic school and you could almost hear the nuns laying bets on schoolyard brawls!).

So, now that Obama has come out defending himself, I applaud him. He's so darned...elegant...and knowledgeable about it! He reminds me fondly of that debate between Bill Clinton and a very whiny George Bush.Bush had been insulting and slinging mud and questioning Bill's character. Finally, you could see Old Bubba had had enough! But he didn't swear, insult or yell (like McCain, that whiner!). He slowly turned on George like Atticus Finch during the trial and let him have it with both barrels: Iran-Contra, failed economics...and basically laid him out!

It was beautiful, and probably won the election for him. Let's hope we can RE-LEARN the art of debate, with a little salt and pepper on the side!

The New Political Speech Standard: If we wouldn't let our kids say it, then it has no place in political discourse

Jill Miller Zimon — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:22:08 -0500

Grab some coffee or a big glass of wine or a liter of water. Because I have something to say and it's going to take a while.

As a child, I was often told that I was "too sensitive." I remember feeling, when people said that, that I didn't know what they meant. It wasn't that I didn't know the meaning of the word itself, but I didn't understand how it was being applied to me.

Often, that charge was said to me when I reacted outwardly to feelings of being hurt - that is, when I let my feelings show. I can see now, especially as a parent myself, that the speaker was probably trying to get me to shrug off something that had been said to me or done to me. They tried to get me to shrug it off, with the phrase, "You're just being too sensitive," as a way of telling me that I was someone who feels hurt too easily. And their saying that to me also required that they felt that whatever had been said or done didn't, in their estimation, merit hurt feelings. And that their estimation overrode my actual feelings of hurt.

Nowadays, you might think of this as something some people refer to as de-legitimizing someone's feelings or invalidating them.

So who is to judge whether any of us should feel hurt? Who defines the threshold for when any one of us feels hurt? And why must we believe or accept that someone other than us should and can define for us and the rest of the world that what has been said or done should or shouldn't give rise to us feeling hurt?

Now, the fact that I'm suggesting that you think about those questions might sound as though I'm arguing that there is no objective standard for whether or not some act, behavior or speech can be judged universally as hurtful, offensive, wrong, off-limits, plain old mean, or none of those things at all and, in fact, just something to be shrugged off.

But that is the furthest idea from what I'm intending to imply or have you infer. And so, what I am going to do is expose myself in order to demonstrate the following:

1. What I believe is already the standard that many of us very likely use for knowing when acts or words will be hurtful enough that we shouldn't use them.

2. Why it is that it matters that we evaluate the hurt potential in anything we say or do, and that the results of that evauluation has nothing to do with whether or not the one against whom the act or words are directed actually feels hurt.

3. This standard (for knowing when an act or our words are going to be so hurtful that we shouldn't use them) does not and should not change simply because political acts or speech are involved.

Between the ages of eight and sixteen, I attended three different overnight camps. For six of those summers, I was a camper at the same all-girls camp in the middle of Maine. Just to get this over with: it was the stuff of New York/Long Island/Westchester Jewish American Princess stereotypes.

Except, I was the one that didn't fit in - you know how "there's always one"? I was that one. I'd heard the too sensitive thing from my parents, my siblings, teachers, the parents of friends of mine. Now, counselors used it too and of course that didn't help my lack of being just like all the others. I even was the only one from: Connecticut! And not Long Guyland.

So, for the first three years, when I was between the ages of eight and eleven, although I may have wanted to conform, there wasn't all that much I could do about it. I'd ask my parents for certain things that the other girls had, but I knew my parents were non-conformists too and the answer was usually going to be no. (One example I recall is that my stationery was from CVS or the local drugstore while all the other kids seemed to have the Hallmark store stationer. A few of you may know exactly what I'm talking about: we traded stationery during rest hours, but no one ever wanted mine because it was considered too plain or just plain cheap).

Now, I'm not telling you this because I love these memories. I don't, and my parents know I don't, and we're past it all. The bottom line then was: I just wanted to be liked and accepted, and I wasn't.

Until my third year at this camp. That summer, I again, like my second summer, was placed in a bunk with all the "leftovers" - the girls no one else had listed as wanting to have as bunkmates. However, that year, I finally developed lasting friendships with four or five girls and for the next three summers, we were assigned to be together.

But during my fourth summer at this same camp, when I was 11 turning 12, something happened that changed me forever and is the basis for why I say that there are not two standards for the way we speak to or about other people, especially when that speech has to do with our positions as role models, to anyone.

I was out on the camp's lake with a few other girls during our watercraft lesson - a fancy word for boating. Our instructor was a college age woman who worked as a counselor and a boating teacher. There were maybe three or four of us in the boat. I remember being rowdy, laughing and pointing at each other. But this playfulness turned into mocking and eventually, we mocked Becky.

You see, Becky had a scar which, although we didn't know it at the time because we were in fact ignorant of why she had the scar, was the result of her having been born with a cleft lip and palate. She also had a slight lisp in her speech.

I don't recall precisely how we mocked her - what we said or did. I think it was general insubordination, we were refusing to settle down while we were laughing among ourselves and we talked back at her, including some kind of a name call related to the scar and/or lisp. I can remember thinking at that moment, "I can't believe we just did that," but it wasn't until a few hours later, when we were called down to the camp owner's cabin home that it became all too real.

First, they asked us if we knew why we were there. We were so embarassed, no one spoke, as I remember it. I think the owners did eventually tell us that it was because we had teased this counselor. We were told that we were on probation, that our parents had been called and that they were told that we would be sent home if we did any single other thing that broke the code of conduct expected of campers.

Now, I wasn't all that fond of these owners. They were kind of kookie to me. I do still remember their name but I'm going to leave that out, it's not relevant to the story, but if you've seen Dirty Dancing, think of the resort owner. They weren't quite like that but something in the same league.

But their intervention with us, with me, as a result of the teasing we'd done, I'd done, to this 18-22 year old counselor, has stayed with me my whole life. The owners told us that we had laughed at someone else's expense and that the laughter we had led to another person feeling hurt. I remember breaking down and crying in their cabin, to think of what I had made this woman feel. And the owners, parents themselves, seized on my shame by reminding me that just a year before, I'd been placed yet again in the "leftovers" bunk and that of all the kids who had been on that boat, I should have known better, having been the object of teasing for two summers in a row.

Talk about feeling low and small. And I was only 12 years old.

I can still remember how absolutely wretched as in feeling like a wretch I felt then and for a long, long time afterwards.

When I returned home after that summer, my family had moved to a new town and I was in a new school, junior high school. I was teased a lot and I had almost no friends, but I never teased back, I never bullied, I never made fun of anyone. I refused to hit back verbally or physically. I pulled my punches and my thoughts because of what had happened that summer - and because I had felt the hurt from being teased before. I knew. And I agreed that my creating something to laugh about was not worth the hurt that someone might feel, having known, myself, what that hurt could feel like.

This incident became the basis for my standard of judging whether something is okay to say about another person: if I would not want to hear my own children say it, then absolutely, no adult should be saying it either. That is, if I am teaching my children that you don't tease, mock or name-call other kids, then I want them to grow up and be adults who won't do any of that either.

Ironically, on Diane Rehm today, at about the 10:50am time, a caller called in and asked this very question: how is it that we can teach our kids about how they should behave but then, when people become adults, we let that all go (the context was politics).

Why does it matter, that we teach our kids and that likewise, we try to evaluate the hurt potential in
anything we say or do, and that we teach our kids that that evauluation has
nothing to do with whether or not the one against whom the act or words
are directed actually ends up feeling hurt?

It matters because 1) kids do need to learn that what they say or do reflects upon them - not on the sensitivity of the person against whom it's directed (think about Hit A Jew Day) and 2) because if we don't evaluate what we are saying about other people, with regard to how it might make them feel, we are demonstrating our own lack of humanity. And this year's presidential election is the best example around.

How can I make such a sweeping suggestion? For one reason, loshon hora, as explained by Can You Be A Part of My Life:

Loshon Hora (the evil tongue ... or slander) is considered among the
Jewish people as one of the worst sins imaginable ... one almost
tantamount to murder in that the good name, livelihood, reputation,
etc. can all be destroyed by a single word, look, expression.
Therefore, we have laws in great detail explaining all the
ramifications of slander ... all its appearances and some ways of
rectifying the results ... knowing that full restitution is not always
possible ... the results are then left between the perpetrator, the
victim, and G-d.

When I went through leadership training at my synagogue, one entire training session was spent on gossip and loshon hora. And even though, when I was growing up, I don't remember being told specifically about loshon hora, I knew of the concept. My favorite example of how this works in real life is the story of how, when I was deciding on a caterer for my son's bar mitzvah, I interviewed two kosher caterers. Cleveland just isn't that big and of course they know each other. So my final question to each of them, after I'd finished asking them everything else was, "What makes you better than the other one?"

And you know what? Even given the chance to say why they were better - I asked, what do you do that they don't do or what puts you ahead of them, they would never say a single bad word about the other. They would only say that they know there are many choices in town, they would repeat to me what made them unique and what they could to help me make a great occasion, and that was that.

THEY WOULD NEVER SPEAK ABOUT THE OTHER PERSON. No matter that their small businesses depended on people like me. They just, would not, do it.

Judaism is not alone in admonishing its followers for being mean, talking down and putting down others for one's own benefit. Nordette shared with me this old press release from the United Methodist Church chastising the media for spreading rumors during Clinton's struggles. Then, from Christian Women Today, an article on gossip.

Another CE shared with me some quotes from the Christian Bible about speech. I have no ability to interpret them other than on their face, so I know perhaps they aren't what they appear to be, but overall, these quotes seem to imply the same thing as the rule about if it's not going to be okay for your child to say it, it sure isn't okay for anyone else, and maybe especially certain people:

Romans 1:29 – “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips.”

Matthew 7:1 – “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”

Matthew 7:12 – “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

Ephesians 4:29 – “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”

Finally, the same CE also shared this article about gossip and Hinduism. This notion I have of not being nice isn't out of thin air, or a too sensitive constitution of mine.

So, then, what about voters and the people who want our vote? Politics and politicians. Does any of this apply and should it?

I say yes, and yes. (Here's an article from a Reform Judaism publication from just two weeks ago about loshon hora in the elections this year.)

We've been on a slippery slope in public discourse for years. I'm not going to go into the causes of it - I don't actually know all the theories but I'm sure there are more than enough for several posts. But without even thinking, I can list off:

Dick Cheney dropping the f-bomb in a congressional hearing (he never apologizes)

Imus slurring an entire women's basketball team (he apologizes)

Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot (she calls it just a schoolyard taunt)

Randi Rhodes speaking unspeakable things about Hillary Clinton

An Ohioan hangs Obama in effigy (calls it political speech)

Why aren't any of these just ordinary bullying (Coulter) or just art (effigies) or just polemics (Rhodes), or just speech? Because, in my opinion: I wouldn't let my kid do it, and I wouldn't let them do it as an adult either.

I've even gone so far as to suggest that President George Bush's predilection for giving everyone who works with him nicknames is partially to blame. Some people actually, really, do not like to be called by nicknames. They like and want their own name to be used. What is wrong with wanting that? Why must someone else's desire to not call you by your given name and instead call you something cutesy or dude-like take precedence over what you want?

To me, that is insane and not too sensitive. Why? Because where in the world do we get that someone else should be able to control what I am called when I know and they know damn well what my name is and who I am.

When Sarah Palin calls Barack Obama a socialist with an intention to portray an image that she hopes voters will dislike, or John McCain calls him Barack the Wealth Spreader intending to get people to dislike Obama's policies, or any of the tens of names they've cooked up? It doesn't matter how many times they try to tell us that this is not negative campaigning. It's plain, cruel, mean-spirited, unnecessary and childish teasing and bullying - of us, the voters, not only if at all Barack Obama.

People have dismissed the use of such language in politics by saying that it is just that: just politics. And I call that out as lazy and evasive. Why should the desire to win a political race trump the way we are supposed to treat one another? Why should the desire to win a political race make it okay to be mean, to do what we teach our kids not to do? Why should the desire to win a political race make it okay to be a bully?

The answer is: it shouldn't - and it doesn't. The desire to win does not justify the pursuit of acts and words that we would never sanction our kids to do. And, ultimately, if you can't win without calling someone names, then you don't deserve to win in the first place.

Additional/related links:

To the stupid punks who stole my Obama sign at My Bit of Earth

Prop 8 and sign stealing by Penny for My Thoughts

With help from the media, language is used to defeat a nation by Susan Mullen at XM MLB Chat

UPDATE (11/8/08) From the Indy Star, we learn about the international Bullying Prevention Association:

More than 700 educators and law enforcement from 10 countries were in Indianapolis this week for the International Bullying Prevention Association's annual conference to share research and techniques aimed at ending the aggression.

"Bullying is usually what we call repeated acts or gestures that are used to make fun of, humiliate or intimidate another person," said Clarissa Snapp, director of the Indiana School Safety Specialist Academy and an organizer of the conference at the Sheraton Indianapolis Hotel and Suites at Keystone Crossing on the city's Far Northside.

While bullying can escalate into physical attack, Snapp said the most-used weapons are behaviors that are emotionally damaging, such as eye rolls, taunts or mocking gestures.

The whole article is worth the read.