MICHAEL DAVIS: That’s Just Wrong

Michael Davis

Master Of The Universe, Lord Of All Media, Most Interesting Black Man In the World, Sexiest Man on Earth, Mentor, Writer, Artist, Producer & Uppity.

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. Tony Isabella says:

    You do get a good rant on, my friend, but keep them coming. I enjoyed this column more than a monkey with a jar of mayo. See you in November.

  2. Elayne Riggs says:

    Wow, great column, Michael! One of your best, I think. Except for the bit about raw fish. Obviously you're factually incorrect. :)What bothers me even more than citizens expressing their opinions about restricting the rights of other citizens who aren't bothering them is PROFESSIONALS doing it. It's bad enough that there's some ordinary woman who wants to bad physical-intimacy drugs for other women, but when professional pharmacists refuse to dispense legal medicine for which women have a prescription on the basis of their (the pharmacists') personal opinions, then this country's really in trouble.

  3. Steve Atkins says:

    Opinions have a nasty habit of becoming facts and beliefs are so very potent. It is understandable that many feel it necessary to watch what one says. Focused opinion (as in the case of the "intimacy woman", as you have dubbed her) can have either good or bad consequences. For example, I submit the laws and opinions that brought us the Prohibition Era. Some people thought it was wrong to drink. So they marched and nagged and other such things and it became against the law.People who like to drink were not to be denied and those who saw opportunity were not to be disappointed. Soon a multi-million dollar business was in full swing, and brought with it prosperity and wealth (as well as bloodshed and turmoil, as with any illegal venture). People still got drunk. Men made money. Some got rich, others got shot in the street (or the barbershop…or the garage..or…well, you get the idea). It was a lot of hassle for so little result. People continued to do as they saw fit, regardless of what a few "moral" crusaders thought and did.In the case of Bill Clinton, his affairs were clearly a personal matter between him and his family. The opposing party decided to make a public spectacle out of it, even to the point of impeaching him.Passions can cause a person's beliefs and world views to become reality.On a different, but connected note…The thing that is interesting to me is that every issue has two sides, just like a coin. The same kind of tactics used in getting the Prohibition laws made were similar, if not the same as, the tactics used to get Women's Voting Rights, Civil Rights, etc. To address the question you posed with another question…By what right did the Civil Rights workers in the 1950s and 1960s have to come to a completely different region, one they didn't even live in, and dictate to shopkeepers and cafe owners who they were going to let and where they were going to sit?Is this "intimacy woman" any more out of line for what she is doing than the women who marched, lobbied, and protested to get a vote? There is no difference in method and strength of belief. The only thing that is left is one's own opinion as to whether or not one agrees with the sentiment.Is slavery wrong? To the master, not at all. To the slave, of course it is! The opinion of the master was the fact of life, until the opinion of the slave became the law of the land.I have heard many people refer to "basic right and wrong." But, I find these concepts to be bizarre.For example, the taking of another human being's life is wrong……unless they are too sick and death would better…or the "State" has condemned them die for crimes they have committed…or their commanding officer orders them to do so….or their religious leader orders them to do so….or little voices in their head tell them to do so…or it's the only way to fully demonstrate that one is "Pro-Life" (I'm STILL having trouble wrapping my brain around that one!).The only thing that really sets apart "Right" and "Wrong" are whether or not you agree. No one is right. No one is wrong. It just depends on which side of the coin you are on.As with the "narrow-minded" debater of religion you encountered, most people hear what they wish to hear, see what they wish to see, and know what they are most comfortable knowing. Just like with the coin, the view is one side or the other. Heads or tails. Also, just like the flipping of the coin, the view is that someone must win (be "right") and someone must lose (be "wrong").We, as a still-developing race, are losing a lot in that sort of either-or mentality…..but that's just my opinion.

    • Elayne Riggs says:

      "Is this 'intimacy woman' any more out of line for what she is doing than the women who marched, lobbied, and protested to get a vote?"Yes.This has been simple answers to silly questions.

      • Steve Atkins says:

        She is no more or less out of line, Elayne.You view her as more out of line because you do not agree with her. You have decided what side of the coin you are on and are passing judgement on her reasons for her actions.I am viewing this for simply the actions taken. She is passionate and is very adamant about what she believes in. No different than the women who went through so much to be treated equally in this country.NOTE: I am talking a general similarity in actions and tactics here, NOT specifics of the cause.Although I do not agree with her REASONS, I won't go so far as to say that she has no right to do what she is doing.There were those who believed that the Civil Rights people had no right to do what they were doing. There were similar people who believed the same about any and all causes, be them social, religious, or political.I'm not opposing you or disagreeing with you in any fashion, Elayne. What I AM doing is expressing a few observations, which are without any feeling one way or another about either side of the argument.It is my belief that when one is too caught up deciding which side one is on, there is a tendency to forget about what the heart of the matter is.Being a Republican or a Democrat isn't going to repair the damage caused by war, natural disasters, etc. But, people get so lost in the arguments that they forget to solve the problems.Still, I will not say they have no right to make such arguments. It is a matter of choice. What one chooses to do, what one chooses to listen to, what one chooses to ignore, etc.I chose to post these questions. You chose to refer to them as "silly" and give what you call a "simple" answer.I don't think there are "simple" answers if one is to be truly open-minded about any issue. One's own opinions, politics, religion, social beliefs, etc. will surface. Nowadays, it seems that these surfacing feelings and viewpoints are more often than not combative and polarizing. What I am trying to do in life is to see beyond my own little view of the world and see where others are coming from.It make me sad and weary, because on the message boards where I once had wonderful exchanges of ideas and spirited discussions, I now find arguments, flame wars, and out and out hostility between this faction and that faction. It reminds me of when everyone used to choose sides before a kickball game.

        • Elayne Riggs says:

          "You view her as more out of line because you do not agree with her."So nice that you have a summer home in my head! You are, however, mistaken.I view her as more out of line because she's trying to restrict others' rights, not increase them. If you cannot tell the difference, there's probably no way to explain it easily to you.Flame wars abound in just about every place on the 'net. They often have little to do with political disagreements.

          • Steve Atkins says:

            A summer home in your head? That explains all these tasteful drapes and all this cheesecake comic book art with lines drawn through them! ;)Seriously, though… Do you agree with her trying to restrict others' rights? Since you have been clearly against her in your statements regarding her actions, I will assume the answer is no, you do not agree with her. How, then, am I mistaken?Since whatever someone does (usually because they beieve they have the right to do so) restricts someone's rights in some fashion, I would hardly consider her unique or feel any need to single her out. Case in point, the current legal discussions in Atlanta, GA. regarding the "pantsline" issue. The proposed law (which could be an actual law by now…I've not heard anything more on this item past its announcement) would make it illegal for anyone to wear their baggy pants in such a way that allows their underwear to show. In other words, "pull up your pants or go to jail." Opposition to this have stated that such a law would restrict others' rights to "freely express themsleves as individuals" (That's a direct quote from the news story that ran on my local news network). Since there are many who agree with the proponents of this law (including Michael Davis, as he mentioned in the above column), it is not the majority viewpoint that these people's rights are being restricted or infringed in any way.Me? I happen to agree with the sentiment that one should keeps one's underwear UNDER one's pants, hence the name of the garment. But, as I said, I try to keep an open mind and see things from both sides of the argument before I make up my mind. However, this is not to be confused with an inability to tell the difference between the two sides. "Flame wars abound in just about every place on the 'net. They often have little to do with political disagreements." They start with any disagreement. Politics was just one of five examples I gave. I have seen some nasty flame wars erupt from political disagreements and (especially) religious disagreements lately. One from the religious front started as a discussion about religious denominations in the DC Universe (primary subjects were Black Lightning's Christian faith, Ragman's Jewish faith, and Mr. Terrific II's Atheism). What began as an interesting discussion quickly turned (quickly…as in within 10 or 12 posts) into some kind of vicious exchange between Atheists and Christians. An equally civil discussion about American political issues compared to those in Europe also deteriorated into a civil war, first between "Pro-Americans" and "Anti-Americans" (or those who did not agree with the "Pro-Americans"), then into a Republican Vs. Democrat flame war.Childish.