While I had considered not writing an editorial this week out of protest due to the criticism I received from male readers after last week’s romantic display of affection. My ego, however, was comforted with the idea this negative response from male readers was likely due to the positive response female readers were sharing with male readers.
I reminded one such critic that we can’t all be Blake Sheltons. Some of us are Dwight Yoakams and Lyle Lovetts, and we work with what we’ve got.
However, while I hope last week’s editorial, in some way, touched your heart, I equally hope what I write this week questions it. I know it has questioned mine.
For the past several weeks I have been watching a series of lectures on YouTube by Canadian clinical physiologist Jordan B. Peterson. The series is a fairly involved exploration into the social impact of the Bible, a breakdown of many of the stories, as well as how those stories are both reflective and relevant to how mankind functions in present-day times.
Admittedly the series is not for everyone, as the material is often complex, and while Peterson brilliantly articulates his ideas and concepts, he is also prone to momentary diversions to explore more circuitous routes when seeking the meaning within a message. I have taken a great deal from the lectures — much of which from moments of self-reflection in the days that followed — although I don’t write this editorial to promote Peterson... He’s pretty good at doing that himself.
Having just finished a lecture the prior night, I was making my 15-minute morning commute into the office earlier this week with a feeling of uplifted inspiration. I was reflecting upon myself through a lens of possibilities. 15 minutes of NPR changed all that.
This editorial is also no more a critique of National Public Radio than it is a promotion of Peterson, as I found the story NPR was covering to be unusually raw, as much of its programming takes a softer approach to its content delivery. This particular story — or possibly a section of a larger story — focused on American extremism. The story contained several interview clips from one — quite serious — self-proclaimed American extremist, and while I would fall short of the conviction needed to take the action prescribed, his reasoning was often sound logic based on pressures many are feeling and actions I fear too many can see the logic to embrace.
What I found most interesting is that within less than 12 hours I heard two intelligent and articulate speakers share similar perspectives about societal strife, each approaching solutions from opposite ends of the spectrum. It makes me wonder whether the impending conflict is less of a question of “if” and more, “to what extent.”
When discussing internal conflicts in our nation, it is easy to reflect on the words of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”
Fun Fact: The letter was written to William Smith in 1787, and those lines were not the only ones of value in Jefferson’s letter. While referring to a well-known act of rebellion in Massachusetts, one he said was motivated more by ignorance than wickedness, to which he also wrote: “The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.”
We have come a long way in the last 236 years since Jefferson penned that letter, and information — as well as misinformation — is more readily available than ever before. The question I ponder is which is more dangerous, the misinformation that others create or our willingness to believe it to avoid admitting the truth that we are carving a path toward an outcome that could soon be impossible to escape.