What would you think about me if I invited O. J. over to my house for dinner? Would you think, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I’m a wife-beater?
If you peeked in my window and saw Louis Farrakhan sitting at the breakfast table, would you get on the phone to your neighbors and start planning a demonstration to denounce me?
What if Pamela Anderson of Baywatch was hanging around my backyard deck? How about Jesse Helms?
Fairly or unfairly, most of us are willing – almost eager, really – to judge the rest of us by the company we appear to keep. And most of us are willing to render that verdict based not upon personal observation or experience, but upon what we’ve been told by the latest expert on TV (or from down the street).
I suspect that if Louis Farrakhan stopped by my house, quite a few of you would consider me a signed, sealed and delivered racist. After all, I’d be hanging out with someone whose media image makes him appear to be exactly that.
Yet most of you have never met or spoken with me, just as I’ve never met or spoken with Louis Farrakhan.
To be honest, it’s a pretty safe bet none of these people are planning any trips to my house this month. But if they did happen to show up, I hope that I wouldn’t close the door on them, no matter what anyone else would think.
I’m just curious enough that if Louis Farrakhan stopped by, I’d sit down and talk with him, if only to satisfy myself that my media-inspired impressions of him are correct.
Just listening to him doesn’t make me anti-Semitic, does it?
If we’re willing to instantly judge others on the basis of media-inspired “evidence,” rather than by taking an opportunity to get our “evidence” straight from the horse’s mouth, we’re in deep trouble in this country.
I don’t think I’d like Louis Farrakhan much, but I hope you wouldn’t think any less of me for taking the time to speak with and listen to him.
In fact, I hope you’d join me.
I don’t think speaking with Pamela Anderson would be very intellectually stimulating, but who knows? I’ve been wrong before.
Ignoring or denouncing those who appear to be idiotic people with opposing viewpoints seems to be the politically correct thing to do these days.
What’s to investigate, I suppose. The media has pretty much sliced and diced these guys already, so why bother to see if they really are Neanderthals.
All of us have the opportunity to meet all kinds of people everyday. Some of the people I’ve met don’t do much for me. I’m sure I don’t do much for some of them, either.
I don’t agree with what everyone tells me; heck, I don’t always agree with what all of our columnists write in our newspaper.
But by and large, I let them write what they want because all of our columnists have a viewpoint, and I think that most people with a viewpoint deserve to be heard. At least for awhile.
It’s thought-provoking to hear from someone who doesn’t think exactly like me. Differing viewpoints make me think a little bit, maybe re-evaluate my beliefs from a different perspective.
I can’t learn anything from people who think exactly like I do – as fellow travelers, we already know and believe the same thing.
This doesn’t mean we have to agree with what everyone says. In fact, we don’t have to agree with what anyone says.
But I think we owe it to ourselves, and to our community, and to our country, to spend a little more time determining for ourselves what we think of our neighbors and their sometimes-different viewpoints rather than allowing someone on network television or at big daily newspaper do our thinking for us.
I don’t know if O.J. is guilty or not. But if I’m ever accused of murder, I sure wouldn’t want O.J. reading stories about me in the newspapers, watching special reports about me on TV, and then getting together with his media-hound friends to decide whether I should spend the rest of my life in prison.
I don’t think O.J. knows enough about me to render beyond a reasonable doubt a verdict on my life.
I’m sure he feels the same way about me.
Thanks for Helping Us Win
At the recent Independent Free Papers of America national convention in St. Louis, more than 300 newspapers from throughout the United States made more than 800 entries in a contest that was judged in 27 categories.
The Advocate sent in two entries, and both scored big.
Columnist Bill Keffer won third place in the “Original Writing – Editorial” category for his July column “Here’s A Scholarly Lesson About Freedom Of Speech.”
And the Advocate won third place nationally in the Overall Excellence category – the group’s top award for newspapers.
Couple with being named Best Community Newspaper by the Texas Community Newspaper Association earlier this year, we’ve had a great run these past few months.
Congratulations to Bill and to us.
Thanks for all of your support.