Yesterday: Join the discussion: Is a stonewalling 1SI being disingenuous?
It will disappoint some of you to learn that, slightly paraphrasing General U.S. Grant, “I propose to fight it out along this line if it takes all winter,” so in today’s installment of li’l ol’ NAC versus the establishment leviathan of greenfield development, the one that still can’t manage a coherent response to the pertinent issues we’re raising – the one that can barely muster a response of any sort – the conversation turns back to One Southern Indiana's flirty winks and provocative nudges with ROCK (Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana), a lobby group that is wielding a bulky anti-pornography shield as means of obscuring a number of more controversial platform planks (anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage) that involve matters that fall far outside of 1SI’s purported developmental realm.
Wow; that was one hellacious paragraph. But first, here’s a recent posting by a blogger completely unaffiliated with NAC who also can see the fundamental contradiction of ROCK.
Exactly What Battle? (from the John Manzo blog).
It would, on some level, be nice to be able to stand with this group. I do not believe that they are truly wrong about the issues of pornography and the difficulties the sex industry bring to any region. It is a legitimate issue on so many levels.
The problem is that as I watched their video I did not get the impression that ROCK is a group that's main interest is in dealing with the local sex industry. The very name of the organization, Reclaim our Culture Kentuckiana, hearkens to something more. A lot more.
They decry a moral decline in a culture and claim this as a fact. I hear this a great deal and it's usually from people who haven't studied ethics.
Subsequently, over at the NA Health blog, I tried to start a conversation with my friend and physician Dr. Dan, a supporter of ROCK who also appears in the group's hot video.
---
The New Albanian said:
Dan, do you think that 1SI should support a radical right wing organization like ROCK? You've been suspiciously silent on this issue, and I'm in desperate need of material.
---
Healthblogger said:
First off, how do you conclude they are a "radical right wing organization"?
Does just having Christian values label them in your mind?
Where is the tolerance?
Is this not bigotry on your part?
Their goal is better communities and families. That seems to be an admirable goal.
---
The New Albanian said:
What do anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research and anti-gay marriage planks have to do with economic development?
Does not ROCK have all three as part of the agenda? A cursory examination of the web site certainly seems to suggest so.
Must we then sign on to these in order to have (ahem) "good" jobs?
---
Healthblogger said:
So you always agree with 100% of every organization's viewpoints that you support.
If this is true, then I doubt you are supporting many organizations.
1SI did support ROCK in their stance against pornography because it has significant implications on economic development.
I do not recall 1SI outwardly supporting the other items.
If there is another organization standing up against pornography, I am sure they would consider standing behind them as well, as it does effect the growth of the economy.
---
The New Albanian said:
"Does just having Christian values label them in your mind?"
I didn't mention the word Christian. You did. Apart from that, you'll recall that my question was this:
"What do anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research and anti-gay marriage planks have to do with economic development?"
Don't forget that I watched the film on ROCK's website and turned past page one. I'm suggesting that (a) ROCK's ultimate ambitions aren't confined to the "bad porno" template, and (b) 1SI's endorsement of the marquee came sans consideration of the whole ROCK picture.
1SI seeks de facto establishment as the region's economic development authority. I fail to see how this enshrinement includes the authority to determine the "proper" cultural and religious viewpoints.
---
It strikes me that one argument in all this is that has passed largely unexamined, and that’s the view that pornography plays a quantifiably negative role in a region’s economic development efforts. More than one source has intimated privately to me that 1SI possesses sufficient evidence to back its assertion that pornography is an economic development issue, and certainly we’re all eyes.
I’ve made it a point to assure 1SI’s Michael Dalby in e-mail messages that NAC will happily publish such materials if they’re made available, and I’m hoping that these are based on credible research, and not merely the anonymous complaints of real estate agents unable to sell otherwise valuable plots of Veterans Parkway land with the misfortune to be adjacent to the adult bookstore formerly known as Theatair-X.
The fact remains that ROCK is seeking to embrace far more than the purging of a local adult entertainment business that’s been turning profits for something close to four decades, and to be honest, that’s what worries me the most about 1SI’s thoughtless plunge into bed with yet another in a series of groups that specialize in offering us slippery slopes as the solution to largely imaginary problems. As I’ve previously written:
When religious groups take the field over matters like this, check the locks on the public library. Literature and other manifestations of free thought are sure to be next, and accordingly, what part of economic development does censorship enhance ... unless, of course, one lives in China … or Zimbabwe.
The community deserves immediate clarification from 1SI.
Why isn’t it forthcoming?
And, under these uncommunicative circumstances, why should the city of New Albany contribute a red cent to 1SI’s coffers?
Egads -- now we're in bed with Councilman Cappuccino.
Now that's pornographic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Would 1SI publicly announce support of a campaign against pornography by the KKK?
Admittedly, a somewhat extreme example but probably not so extreme to a gay citizen.
First off your comment "1SI seeks de facto establishment as the region's economic development authority. I fail to see how this enshrinement includes the authority to determine the "proper" cultural and religious viewpoints."
Your oppositional stance is in essence a de facto statement as to your beliefs on what you think the “proper” cultural and religious viewpoints should be.
You may speak for a group of individuals and you have every right to do so, but you have no more authority to determine the viewpoints than anyone else or any other organization.
ROCK, myself, 1SI has every right to utilize our influence to make changes we deem appropriate.
You have every right to disagree but you are no more righteous or correct and it continues to show your opposition to some traditional family values.
I believe there is a moral decline in society and I will continue to support organizations that uphold my beliefs.
Gay citizens? Why would an economic development group be concerned about their approximately $700 billion in buying power?
Surely identifying the region as discriminatory wouldn't hurt our economy would it?
I mean, it's not like they and their families and friends and other people of conscience would avoid spending or investing money here because a group that claims to speak for us has decided to support homophobia, would they?
Just because gays and lesbians have always played a major role in the type of arts and historic preservation efforts we need for revitalization to work is no reason to consider their feelings is it?
Boy, I sure am glad no gay people live in my neighborhood, renovating historic homes and stuff. Otherwise, I might be worried.
And I have every right to ask, and to continue asking, what the following ...
Anti-abortion
Anti-stem cell research
Anti gay marriage
... have to do with economic development.
And, as a member of an organization (Develop New Albany) that is a member of 1SI, I have a right to ask that question.
Dan, why is 1SI stonewalling?
You may speak for a group of individuals and you have every right to do so, but you have no more authority to determine the viewpoints than anyone else or any other organization.
1SI is in the same boat.
According to their own reporting, they made initial contact with 130 businesses to get an idea of their members' needs.
According to 2005 census numbers, that's about 3% of the businesses in Clark and Floyd Counties. How does that translate into their self-attributed "authority" to present themselves to state government and others as the singular "one voice" of the area?
You all are unbelievable.
Where is the discrimination against gays?
Standing up against the known ill-effects of pornography is completely different than discriminating against homosexuals.
Once again, when and where has 1SI ever made a statement about Anti-abortion
Anti-stem cell research or Anti gay marriage.
Standing up against pornography is not in any way making a statement about these other issues.
What other organization has taken any sort of lead and has any clout to help represent our interests to State Government.
I don’t see any of you making efforts to represent any majority of businesses in our area.
I do see you willing to criticize anyone else who takes their time, talent and knowledge to try and make changes that may benefit our community and especially when their viewpoints differ from yours on “moral” issues.
Seems self-serving doesn’t it?
Barring a clarification from the suddenly (and curiously) reticent 1SI, I'm not sure what to think about its support or non-support of the remainder of ROCK's platform.
That's the whole point of asking. You're the only one currently attempting to answer, and while that's admirable, you're not the horse's mouth.
I also notice that you've not denied that ROCK actually has a platform that veers somewhat far form the front-page anti-porno campaign.
As for the charge that "I don’t see any of you making efforts to represent any majority of businesses in our area," that's not only a cheap shot; it's also untrue. I'm on the board of Develop New Albany, and have been participating in a number of efforts to help local business.
I'm trying to promote a dialogue. 1SI apparently isn't interested in such a dialogue. Why is that?
Many liberals in the US have attempted to conceptualize pornography involving adults as speech and protected in the name of freedom of speech.
Only the more extreme forms of adult pornography are defined as obscene and illegal.
If pornography is seen as a form of speech, then would it not qualify as hate speech?
Is it not an equally valid argument that pornography openly demonstrates sexist hate speech, sexist advertisements, literature, cartoons, pictures, and statements?
People who would find it acceptable to legislate against racist hate speech should be equally accepting of legislation against sexist and homophobic hate speech we see used in pornography.
Significant inconsistencies in the ways that racist hate speech and sexist hate speech are handled would be more obvious if the same laws applied to both.
Pornography largely targets women as sex objects to be demeaned and defiled for men's sexual
gratification.
In a paper written by Dworkin & MacKinnon in 1985, many feminists in the US argue that the content of pornography and its harmful effects are discriminatory towards women.
There is a long respected tradition of legislating against discrimination on the basis of race and sex and if pornography is conceptualized as a form of sex discrimination, anti-sex discrimination laws would necessarily have to include this material.
In the US, pornography in the workplace is now considered to be responsible for creating a hostile work environment for women and pornography in this context has been defined as a form of sexual harassment and made illegal.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent every year by businesses to monitor and curtail the pornography on the internet in the workplace. It has cost many people their jobs and has destroyed families and careers.
Pornography can also be considered a form of violence against women and while there is a great deal of non-violent pornography, it is well documented that porn promotes violence.
In addition, the manufacture of porn itself requires the degradation of women.
Most rational people in the US see porn as serving men's interest and view women in a subordinate position.
There is research from Zillman in 1989 that shows looking at pornography makes men more trivializing of rape, more victim blaming, and more callous towards women.
In addition, male viewers are more likely to act aggressively towards women after viewing pornography.
I think all of these things have a negative economic impact in our community and negatively affects our families.
I am glad we have groups willing to stand up against pornography.
As a response to your cheap shot comment, I admire your for your efforts.
I also would support you in some of your endeavors with economic development, promotion of restaraunts, the YMCA, etc, but most everyone knows we differ tremendously on many other aspects of family, community, morals and ethics.
Supporting one aspect does not necessarily mean you support everything.
Making that assumption is not a logical leap.
"I think all of these things have a negative economic impact in our community and negatively affects our families."
You are entitled to harbor this belief. We might choose to negage in a great debate, exchanging citations from your studies and others that contradict the findings of your studies. Perhaps another time, for as you recall, the current toic isn't "Porno: Pro or Con."
It is: "What do anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research and anti-gay marriage planks have to do with economic development?"
Until Michael Dalby, Kerry Stemler or the 1SI board elect to honor both of us with a dialogue, all is effectively moot.
The fact that they won't honor us thusly is fast becoming the issue.
I was going to do a little blah, blah, blah, about 1si and ROCK, but the more I read about ROCK the more I realized that they're really not worth the pixels that display their website.
The last time I read about a christian group battling pornography, their president was arrested in the worst part of louisville with a prostitute!
The sex industry is the size of knat's butt in this area. The "FBI agent" on ROCK's video is either a liar, or hasn't been to many places around this great country of ours!
If ROCK wants to "educate" people, let them stand from the pulpit of any church they want and "educate" all who want to listen. I have yet to hear of a sermon from any church that tackles the issues of pornography.
I think the leader's of ROCK need to actually open up those books called BIBLES and read them. It's just another religious group that I can't seem to find scripture that supports what they're doing. Maybe their "WWJD" bracelets stand for "We Want Jelly Donuts".
NAC,
If you want to stick with your topic then show us where 1SI ever stated that "anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research and anti-gay marriage planks have anything to do with economic development?
You are the one that has lumped the pornography stance in with these other categories and only beccause of your disdain for 1SI supporting what you consider a Christian group (ROCK)
Actually, HB, it's ROCK that lumped them together. You should know that, considering that you appear in ROCK's anti-pornography video, mentioning several other issues but not pornography.
1SI Chair Kerry Stemler endorsed ROCK's work, specifically saying their approach was appropriate.
From the video and their web site, it's clear that ROCK's approach is, as mentioned, to lump pornography together with other "Christian" issues, all as part of a larger scheme to insert their religious values into secular society.
Bluegill, you are correct that ROCK is interested in all of these areas. But the point remains and where you continually fail to acknowledge is that 1SI has never commented for or against these other issues. It is you all who are linking them and attacking 1SI.
1SI did support ROCK's stance against Pornography and I am proud of them for doing so.
As the senior editor noted, HB, this particular issue could be cleared up with a straight forward answer from 1SI.
Unfortunately, Mr. Dalby has thus far chosen a disingenuous song and dance number that's becoming all to familiar. The rest have chosen silence. And it's that general modus operandi that leads to other problems, which are most of what I've written about.
Again, if we can't get straight forward answers about this and other topics from 1SI, why would we choose to fund them with our tax dollars or allow them to claim to speak for us?
You can certainly speak your mind when using your own dollar. 1SI takes tax dollars, you are ignoring that.
Thanks for the lesson on pornography. Nice waste of time(diversion) since no one here has argued that point. That is not the debate here. It is the mention of support for a specific group that has many other agendas, some of which are quite controversial. Hence, the reason for my post at the top(which is mostly obscured on my screen).
And it was a cheap shot at Roger and Jeff. You know that they are on local economic development boards. In case you "forgot" what you wrote,
"I don’t see any of you making efforts to represent any majority of businesses in our area."
You couldn't even say, "Sorry, I forgot about your involvement". No, you had to go into all the philosophical differences, etc. To steal another of your words from above, unbelievable.
I have also asked for anyone who attended the political show at the Grand, exactly what did they learn that will economically benefit our community. No answer to that either.
In case anyone forgot, 1SI admits to paying out approximately $50,000. It was promoted as an economic learning event.
I certainly do not want to diminish the efforts Develop New Albany, but it is focused on a small part of the multi county efforts of 1SI.
I am sure that everything the Board of Develop New Albany decides is open to community concensus and nothing is ever done when there are vocal community members who disagree with any decision.
As far as what was learned at the President's visit, maybe they learned that continued support of the republican party and the direction it is taking the country is the correct path to follow.
Just a thought!
HB wrote: "As far as what was learned at the President's visit, maybe they learned that continued support of the republican party and the direction it is taking the country is the correct path to follow."
10,000 words later, and we finally get to the root of HB's issue.
Barf, being against the porno industry is one thing, but when you drag in gay marriage as an "attack on marriage", that's just plain discriminatory and hateful, two things I have never been taught in church, and will never teach my children.
I would seriously reconsider supporting any group or establishment who supports that "cause", indirectly or not.
I appreciate this dialog, what strange bedfellows, eh?
Wow, I didn't look at this blog all day and I found I was quoted and, worse than that, missed a good discussion.
I'd like to shift this to a different angle.
First and foremost, I do believe that pornography and the sex industry in the region is a problem. I have read enough about abuses in that industry, connections with organized crime, sexual addition, human slavery, etc., that I find it to be a contemptible industry. Trying to make this a liberal or conservative issue is nonsensical and trite. Of all the social issues, this one has the ability to unite people in opposing it, or unite people in availing themselves to using the material.
Secondly, and I may be naive, but I do understand One Southern Indiana's approval of ROCK's efforts in removing pornography. 1SI is, most probably thinking economically and my experience is that often people see a 'church' group doing something and miss the fact that the 'church' group they are with has bigger agendas.
I did read the ROCK website and watched the video. My impression is that they are using the pornography issue to catapult themselves to a political agenda in the region. They make it appear that they are the leaders of morality in the region. 1SI, in everything I have read, does not have an agenda on stem cell research, gay marriage or gay rights, or abortion. ROCK, however, certainly does. Confronting the sex trade in this region, in my mind, does not need to have an agenda other than confronting the sex trade in the area.
The sex trade IS an issue. We saw this with the house on Main Street that served as a crack house with solicitation taking place. We have an Asian massage parlor on State Street. One needs only to read a bit on the AMP's to realize that these places are not for massages but are fronts for prostitution. These are not benefits to our community.
Here's my thought. I would love to be part of confronting this industry, which I do believe to be a problem. I won't, however, associate with a group such as ROCK. How do we, who do have serious concerns, confront this without being part of a group such as ROCK which has a far wider agenda?
I would be happy to host a meeting of such a group.
Correct, HB. And I would expect Roger or Jeff or someone in authority to answer my questions.
You wrote that some of us just didn't like the answers. Perhaps, you just don't like our questions. Just a thought.
This pornography issue is a sticky wicket, isn't it? i think adults, specifically male adults, would need some brain re-wiring of a Frankenstein variety to relieve the impulse toward viewing women as sex objects. Good luck anti-porno crusaders.
I've sat on my hands for days now trying to resist temptation, but I can stand it no longer.
First of all a few questions. Why does there have to be a "group" designation to make a point legitimate?
Can not numerous individuals make a statement for or against a given issue without having to be intimately affiliated with an entity?
Secondly, can anyone show me a "group" anywhere that is in agreement across the board on any issue?
There have been numerous statements made by members of DNA, ISI, and others about their "official position". Yet when those have been challenged by said groups own literature or other members, all we get is silence.
I have made many statements about many things to many people these past months but I've alwys made it clear that I was speaking for LLoyd. There may well have been times when I referenced to others that agreed on some level but my opinion was my opinion.
Roger, Bluegill, Randy, and others have done the same.
My point is that for X to say he/she speaks for the entire alphabet when A,B,& C have never heard of such is as dishonest and chicken@&*# as anonymity.
As to the moral issue. This is one of my personal pet peaves.
Morality starts and is primarily developed in the home. Churches can teach it but then they have to live it for their teachings to hold any sway.
Vice is one of those "nasties" throughout human history that has never been successfully legislated longterm. People will do what people will do, period.
Again, In my observstions, the closest we've ever come to success in deterrence battling sex, drugs, gambling, & the rest is good parenting, combined public pressure( and that only short term), and taxing the vice so high that most can't afford it.
Control is somewhat possible. Annihilation ain't gonna happen andI have two reasons for saying that.
Firstly we the public "ain't gonna stand still for the gov'mnt telling me what to do!"
Secondly, as often as not the loudest "group" voices behind deterrence are also the biggest roadblocks to it happening.
I wonder why that is?
John,
are you saying that since "Morality starts and is primarily developed in the home." that we are some how born with a sense of right and wrong without any foundation of knowledge?
Actually, that was Highwayman that wrote that. Not John.
oops! sorry john!
Post a Comment