What if..?

It's become the thing to do. You have someone who has a strong opinion on a particular issue, or strong belief, and the fun thing to do is ask "What if..?"

It happened in 1988 when Bernard Shaw asked Michael Dukakis to consider a hypothetical question in which his wife were raped and murdered, and then explain if he would still be against the death penalty. Ronald Regan famously responded to a hypothetical about Lebanon by saying "You're asking a hypothetical question, and I've found out that I never get in trouble if I don't answer one of those."

Honestly... Even looking like this, he makes Barack Obama's ability to communicate look like grunting and pointing at paintings on a cave wall.

The hypothetical question has been used for years. The intent is to find a way to ask a question and maybe get someone to say something that puts a lie to something they may have said. Typically it's asked of criminals or politicians (what's the difference right? rimshot) to put them into a conversational corner.

The most recent example, that makes me even think about this, was an interview with Rick Santorum conducted by Piers Morgan. Morgan asked Santorum, long known for his pro-life/anti-abortion views the following: "You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped... And was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father?"

Really? A similar nonsensica-- hypothetical question was put to then-vice-president Dan Quayle by Morgan's predecessor, Larry King.

What is it about having some sort of standard that "journalists" (on either side) don't like? In recent history, hypotheticals such as this have been tossed around, mostly by liberals seeking to trap conservatives in some sort of hypocrisy (not to say that the opposite doesn't happen, but when was the last time an interviewer asked Hilary Clinton if she would go with Chelsea to the abortion clinic if she were seeking an abortion?).

The favorite issues are those involving anti-abortion or pro-death penalty stances. As shown above, such issues are being "personalized" when addressed to political candidates, to basically put them on the spot. If Dukakis stood by his expressed opposition to the death penalty, he would be seen as cold, and unfeeling where an attack on his wife were concerned. If he said as he did, he would be called a hypocrite for being willing to make an exception for HIS situation, but not anyone else's.

Classic "Far Side". And quite apt.

All too often, it seems that hypotheticals only find lease where something is a deeply held belief. Santorum has frequently said his position on anti-abortion issues. And the lead in to the quote from Piers Morgan above was, in part, "Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong..."

Maybe some questions should be asked of some liberal beliefs. If you are a liberal, open-minded person reading this, please answer the following hypothetical: How would you react if your son came to you and said, "Mom? And Mom? I have put some thought into it, and I don't think I can support the idea of legalized gay marriage. I don't think our family is legitimate, because I lack a solid father figure in the home. And I'm planning on voting Republican in the next election. And I've decided I'm going to start listening to Rush Limbaugh."

But I digress. Solid beliefs are solid for a person for a reason. If they speak of them often enough, it can be reasonably inferred that they really believe in those things.

For Santorum, the point of his anti-abortion stance has been made time and again. It should be clear to a chimpanzee, let alone an interviewer on CNN, that Santorum holds this belief. Yet Morgan insisted on asking, as though he couldn't fathom a person holding a belief he did not share.

Santorum missed a bet. He should have used the opportunity to pull a Gingrich, and launch his own assault on an unaccountable media.

The rest of the interview should have looked something like this:

MORGAN: Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong, in the sense that -- I know that you believe, even in cases of rape and incest -- and you've got two daughters. You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped.

SANTORUM: Yes.

MORGAN: And was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father?

SANTORUM: How dare you?

MORGAN: I'm sorry?

SANTORUM: How dare you? You sit there, and ask a stupid question like that. First, let me say that you do not know my daughter.

MORGAN: I'm sorry, but you did agree that I could ask any quest--

SANTORUM: Just shut it for a second! My daughter would never "beg" for anything from me. I am her father, yes, but she has much more pride than to beg. That part of it is offensive to her, to me, and to anyone who has ever raised a daughter to be able to think for themselves.

MORGAN: Yes, well, that wasn't really the poin--

SANTORUM: I'm not done. You asked a question, and now you are going to sit there while I respond to it in the manner it deserves. Second, my daughter holds life in as high a regard as I do, so the very idea that someone would suggest that she would seek an abortion is absurd. Yes, I really do believe what I believe. I'm sorry you don't have that kind of conviction in anything you believe, but some of us do. Let me tell you something you smug, self-righteous bastard...

MORGAN: Mr. Santorum, I hardly think--

SANTORUM: Damn right you hardly think! You asked me to appear on this circus you call a show because I am a presidential candidate, not so that you could use me to get your face on the front page for asking me "edgy" questions.

You're hoping that I'd either say that I hold to my belief, and counsel her to not have an abortion, so you can point to how horrible a person, let alone a father I am, making my own daughter have to live with the constant reminder of an attack on her, or you were hoping to have the ability to have a gotcha moment, and say that my deeply held beliefs aren't so deeply held if I'd make an exception for my daughter? Bad news, I'm not giving you the satisfaction.

You want to ask crap like that, go work for Star Magazine. When you decide to ask questions that actually matter, rather than entrapping questions along the lines of "Do you still beat your wife", call my campaign manager, and maybe we'll do you the honor of showing up! (removes microphone. walks off set)

MORGAN: And we'll take a short break, your watching CNN. At least we don't suck as bad as MSNBC.

Unfortunately, Mr. Santorum is too nice a guy to have a moment like that. The truth is, too many candidates are too nice to do something like that. They don't want to be seen as a "diva"

Sure, Chris Brown is a jerk. But he might have had a point in his chair tossing. And Hugh Grant responding to a camera with take-out? Priceless...

Maybe the media needs to be reminded once in a while that they can be unbelievable a-holes too. Purposely pissing people off by asking really stupid questions should have consequences. I really don't care if it is a hotheaded celebrity, a political figure, or even some guy just trying to walk to his car. The media does NOT have the "right" to get into your face with cameras, tape recorders, or screaming questions, no matter who you are.

Maybe Gingrich, Santorum, Obama, and even Nancy Pelosi should take a page from the book of guys like Chris Brown, Sean Penn, or Hugh Grant, and flip out once in a while on some media figure who deserves it.

The media is NOT all powerful. They NEED to be reminded that they should respect boundaries. And one of those boundaries should be not trying to trap people, politicians especially, with stupid hypothetical questions.

If a "private citizen" were to get in some random stranger's face, they could reasonably expect that the person involved would react, possibly violently, especially if they are being asked stupid questions about something that has an infinitesimal chance of happening (abortions due to rape account for less than 1% of abortions in the US), if for no other reason than violating that person's "personal space".

Just because the media is the media doesn't exempt them from paying attention to such a societal norm a personal space, and just because you are interviewing a person doesn't mean that you are excused from asking questions that are stupid. If a person reacts with aggression or irritation, it is something you, as a person asking a stupid question (more often than not designed to agitate), should be reasonably prepared to deal with.

Rather than boo-hoo if someone does react this way, maybe the media should stop trying to BE the news by asking hypotheticals and "revealing" hypocrisy, or "exposing" heartlessness, and just stick to REPORTING the news.

I don't need to see an interview on live TV. I especially don't need to see one when the whole purpose is to have a "gotcha" moment, and get the interviewer as much after-action airtime as the interviewee. If the media cannot learn this simple lesson in respect, to not use an interview as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement, maybe it's time to put the idea of interviewing back to where it belongs. On daytime "chat shows" and the pages of magazines.

What if we could make such a world happen? That's one hypothetical question I love thinking about, because the answer would be we would be living in a world in which the media remembers what it is SUPPOSED to do.

*sigh* Oh, the world we live in...

Okay, Let me just start by saying: What the Hell?

I had someone with whom I went to school take issue over the fact that I only responded to her facebook posts about the president, as though I simply searched my friend's facebook walls looking for pro-Obama stuff about which to offer a countering opinion. Her other posts frequently had to do with her kids (who I would likely never meet), where she was getting coffee of cupcakes for the day in Washington DC (200 miles away from me), or trying to organize a girl's night out.

Maybe it's just me, but would you comment about things which are of no interest to you? I didn't comment on most of her other postings because they are just not things that I care about.

Now, that's not to say I 'm not going to comment on (or at least "like") a picture of a kid, but with more than 100 friends, occasionally something like that might slip through the cracks. Lord knows, I post enough things on my own wall that pass without comment. But I'm not about to call a friend out for not commenting on every little thing I post.

On the left, stuff I care about. On the right, stuff you post on facebook. Notice how they intersect? That's the stuff I comment about. It's like this for EVERY PERSON. Any questions?

I share links to news stories, links to this blog, pictures of my kids, pictures of my cats, random thoughts, or movie quotes. And I have many friends who don't comment on them. Hell, I have some friends who don't comment on anything but political posts. And I'm okay with that.

Maybe it's because I don't have the constant need for validation of everything I do. I work for a company the recycles used oil. I could go on and on about things that go on there (seriously, some days it's like a frickin' soap opera), but I know that most people won't care about such things. That is one of the biggest reasons I don't frequently gripe about work on my facebook wall. I don't want people thinking that I'm just interested in posting about my self-centered, vapid (if you don't know what it means, I suggest you look it up. It is a word that should be in greater use than it is, and is not nearly as insulting as people want to make it out to be) existence.

If I'm gonna post something on facebook, I'm gonna make sure it is at least marginally interesting to someone besides me, or at the very least allows for some commiseration.

When I know people posting the latest deals about a Mommy-and-Me inspired Living Social wannabee website that has a "deal" for a spa getaway for "only" $398, I sort of feel a little disconnected. In situations where people don't have the money to toss away "just because you deserve it", that $400 can buy a hundred gallons of home heating oil to keep a home and family warm for a couple of months.

Really, I know which one some people might LIKE, but I also know which one people who live in the REAL world end up having to choose.

And really, I think that's why there seems to be a disconnect. It's not a "1% versus the 99%" sort of thing. It's a real world versus "Stepford Wives" sort of thing. The site I described above is a deal site that is "for moms, by moms", and actually has that spa thing, described in the words used above. Because every mom has the ability to do things "just for them". Now, I know that most (if not all) moms would LIKE things like that, but for those who don't live as suburban trophy wives, in the present economy, that is just simply not practical. Yet sites such as the one I describe exist, as though the economy is a concern for someone else.

Which brings me back to my point. When you post about something on facebook, you are telling the world "This is something I care about. I want you to comment on it, and show me how much you care about it too". This is not a bad thing. It's social interaction in the digital age, and a new way to spread word of mouth.

But something that you need to remember, is that not everyone is going to give a rat's hind-quarters for everything you do. That is also social interaction. When I am sitting in the same room with friends (even with strangers), I tend to not pay attention to things that don't concern me. I pay attention to things people say in conversation with me, and offer little to no comment on topics that either do not apply to me, or I have no shared interest in. A couple of friends talking government employee shop, or women friends discussing Twilight rarely get commentary from me, as a couple of for instances (outside of maybe a comment about how vampires are not supposed to sparkle in the sunlight, and rather burst into painful flames).

I extend this into on-line social interactions as well. If anything I tend to go FURTHER, and stand silent on many topics for a lack of interest.

But if you post about something that I DO have an opinion about, I'm gonna comment. That's just how the world works. People speak about things that interest them. It's not up to you (or your friends) to comment on how it seems "disrespectful" that a person picks what to offer commentary on.

The end result of the interaction that started all this nonsense is that she threatened to "limit what I could see" on her wall, and her friends chiming in about how respect enters into things. If you think you have to "limit" a person's ability to interact with you, then maybe you are better off not having that person as a friend, even in the fast-and-loose way that facebook defines that word. I removed that person as a "friend", and may see some fallout from some mutual friends as a result.

But, like "real life" social interactions, people will decide what "side" to take. If I end up losing the ability to interact with some people as a result, I see that as more their thing than mine. I exited the scene in order to put a stop to the "drama" that shows up so frequently on-line.

I just wish that some people didn't treat facebook as some sort of psudo-psychotic extension of high school cliques.