I read the Letters to the Editor in the daily paper. These can be interesting observations, funny anecdotes, elaboration on a news item or political advocacy. The only limits are those imposed by the editorial staff of the newspaper. Many letters, however, do follow a specific template. The writer is usually indignant about some outrage which he/she finds offensive when held up against some value or principle which is assumed to be universally accepted (or at least that which the reader finds so obviously critical that it should be universally accepted).
These letters often take this form: How can we do [some bad thing identified] when we do nothing about [an unresolved issue of importance to the writer]. You can fill in the blanks. Here is a letter printed in the San Francisco Chronicle several years ago. It is a perfect example:
Eating is a sport?
In a world where millions are malnourished and where obesity is a major health problem in this country, competitive eating (“Top dog downs 54 franks — but rival relishes spotlight,”) is supremely obscene. Where are our priorities? Elizabeth from Berkeley
The gist of the letter is that there should be no competitive eating events so long as a large part of the population exhibits insufficiently enlightened nutritional behavior. Stop the world, I have an issue!
Clearly, the hot dogs consumed at the offending competition would not have gone very far to feed the undernourished and furthermore, hot dogs would not be the food of choice to combat the twin problems of malnutrition and obesity. It is not the event itself which is the writer’s problem. Had the event never happened, there would be still be the same malnutrition and obesity problem out there and at the same level of intensity. It is the symbolism of the event that has the Elizabeth’s bowels in an uproar. One would hope that she only means to share her opinion that these contests are supremely obscene but it would be a pretty safe bet that, given the power to do so, Lizzie would ban such events and gleefully punish anyone ignoring the ban.
Of course, the same stance can be taken by the juxtaposition of any number of things. How can we spend billions on cosmetics when people have too little to eat? How can we spend one more dollar on the military when symphonies are underfunded? How can a guy make millions hitting a golf ball when teachers are underpaid? If we can go to the moon, why do third-world people all over the planet have inadequate access to potable water?
It may provide an effective optics to juxtapose the problem of obesity with the image a fat guy stuffing hotdogs down his gullet. Visually suggestive as it may be, however, the linkage implied by the writer just isn’t there. (And Interesting, the most celebrated champion of competitive eating isn’t fat at all. Evidently, the ability to engorge oneself with large quantities of food has more to do with swallowing technique than the belly size.)
Sometimes the comparisons are just plain bogus. A guy can make millions hitting a golf ball because purveyors of goods and services will pay millions of dollars to put their products in front of the millions of eyeballs watching those golf balls. If there were no PGA and no one watched golf, however, the money would not be available to augment to income of underpaid teachers. With this and similar arguments, the two sides of the presumptive equation have nothing to do with each other. Stopping one will not solve the other. There are arguments that favor better funding of education; Tiger Woods is not one of them.
The example of the moon landing and potable water comes from an actual public service announcement which has been running for years. These two are a disassociated pair not only because there is no linkage, but because they are very different kinds of problems. A finite bunch of competent professionals with adequate time and funding can go to the moon. When they do it once, the issue is resolved. Providing potable water can be achieved with far less sophisticated technology, but it requires an effort by everyone everywhere endlessly into the future. While the technology is easier, the sociology is far more complicated. This makes the water problem more difficult than the moon problem, but the comparison is meaningless because this is an example of the proverbial comparison of apples and oranges. The implication that we should not have gone to the moon until everyone has access to potable water is just silly.
The opinion of the writer of the Chronicle letter should not dictate the future of spectacles at which people shove five dozen hot dogs down their throat in one short sitting. Competitive eating has nothing to do with nutrition or obesity, and even if the Lizzie can conjure up a link in her specifically wired brain, that is not a valid reason to stop the sport, Okay, make that “sport.” You may agree or disagree with the writer that eating contests are obscene. Even if you agree, you may not be offended. And even if you are offended, you can always choose not to watch.
The main point here is that there is a certain, not-uncommon mentality that is willing to challenge any behavior deemed to be offensive. They do not seem to care or to understand that their perception of the alleged offense is subjective and that, even if the majority shares their opinion, this is still insufficient reason to impose or even encourage behavior modifications in others. Nevertheless, some people seem to know with self-righteous certainty what is and what is not acceptable behavior and have no problem doing whatever they feel is justified to stop said behavior. The extreme way to modify offensive behavior is to simply ban it. Another way is to regulate it and a third is to tax it. None are appropriate just because Elizabeth is offended.