James Leroy Wilson's one-man magazine.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Rebel Without Some Causes

It's easy to feel like a jerk or worse on Facebook. I've changed the names of the invitees, and also the exact name of the Causes, but this is how it goes:

"Jane Smith invited you to support the cause Real Men Don't Hit Women."

"Mary Johnson has invited you to support the cause End Child Porn."

My responses? Ignore, and Ignore.

The worst part is, I don't ignore every cause or group. I know some people do as a matter of policy, but I don't. Yet, I "Ignored" perhaps the two causes that every decent person should agree with, right?

But as to the child porn thing, it seems to me that child porn as an issue is focused primarily in getting the government to monitor people's websurfing habits and forcing every business with wi-fi to keep records of everyone who ever used the Internet on their property. Eradicating child porn is the excuse, but Big Brother is the goal.

It's why I'd never join an "End Meth Addiction" cause even though it would be great if all meth addicts kicked the habit. I see that "cause" and I jump to the conclusion that it's about escalating the War on Drugs, something I definitely do not endorse.

As to the violence against women cause, I clicked to find out more. I saw that the beneficiary of donations was actually a gay rights group committed to sensitivity training in the workplace. I'm not necessarily against that, but a) it didn't seem directly related to the Cause, and b) I couldn't tell looking at things briefly whether this group had a political agenda of imposing "civil rights" by attacking property rights and freedom of association. It does seem to me that this is what most "civil rights" groups are actually committed to. I don't have time to research everything in detail, so I decided to Ignore this cause.

I was also recently invited to join a group or Cause to support the Massachusetts cop who arrested Henry Louis Gates. I wasn't there and didn't pay much attention to the story. But even if I thought the cop correctly followed protocol, which many insist he did, I'd still be reluctant to defend the police in any instance. As Will Grigg and others note, police assert too much power and have been given too much authority these days. To "support" this cop would likely mischarcterize my general views regarding the state of law enforcement in America, which is decidedly negative.

This is also why I don't join groups or causes that "support the troops." Such organizations, at some point in their literature, suggest that the troops are protecting us or defending freedom. I believe, however, that instead they were deceived by politicians and are going through hell for no reason except to protect the interests of politicians. I only join "Support the Troops - Bring them home!" type causes.

1 comment:

  1. CorkyAgain4:46 PM CDT

    The problem with "Support the Troops - Bring Them Home!" is that too many of them, once they get back home, join the local police force and bring the mindset they learned in Iraq with them.

    So I'm torn. On the one hand, if they stay over there, they're not going to be hassling me here. But on the other hand, I can't feel good about them hassling Iraqis either. (Or the Pashtuns, or whoever else is on the enemies list today...)