Half a man is not quite a man yet

If you watch TV news in the past few days, you may have noticed the brouhaha over the remarks by Angus T. Jones, the young star of the CBS sitcom Two and a half Men. Apparently, the “half Man” of the series title has realized that the show’s raunchy humor and plot themes are incompatible with his recently found faith.  In an videotaped religious testimonial for the Seventh Day Adventist Church, he stated the show was “fifth” and he encouraged viewers to not watch it.  In the video, he implied the show was the work of the “enemy” and that it had a negative effect on one’s brain.  Now, it is unusual for an actor to openly denounce a show they are a part of, so of course this is news. What’s more, he currently receives approximately $300,000 per episode to be on the show.

Now I am not a big fan of this show, not because it is vulgar (I think it is, but so what), but because I don’t think it is funny.   However, I can see how the show could be offensive to individuals who have different values than I.  And, I applaud Angus T. Jones for taking the time to examine his values and for speaking out about what he believes. I just think his actions do not match his rhetoric.   

Angus T. Jones has been on this show since he was 9 years old (he is now 19). Given his young age when he started, it is understandable that he was not in a position to critically evaluate the show’ moral underpinnings when he began.   Now he has grown up and literally done some soul searching. Mr. Jones has apparently decided that he needs to live by the values espoused by his church, and he seems to recognize that what he does for a living isn’t compatible with his faith. Recognizing what you are doing is incompatible with your values is a start, but is insufficient. In my view, he is still looking at the world like a child, in which he isn’t truly accountable to himself for his own actions. An immature individual may recognize their actions run counter to their values but they will rationalize not addressing the situation.

 A man should be willing to stand up for his principles despite the cost.  I believe that if Angus Jones truly feels that he is involved in an endeavor that doesn’t conform to his morale principles, then he should be willing take whatever actions are necessary to rectify the situation.  If Mr. Jones is convinced the show he participates in is harmful as he states in the video, then he should quit. If that means he must break his contract, so be it.  It may cost him money, but money isn’t as important as being able to live ones values. A man understands that there are costs to standing up for what you believe and they are willing to pay them.  From what I see, Mr. Jones is moving in the right direction, but he is not quite there yet. 

The CIA Affair

General David Petraeus admitted to having an affair.  He is an admitted adulterer who has failed to live up to his own standards and who has brought shame upon himself and embarrassment and pain to his wife and family.  He also was, by all accounts, a highly effective leader of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who has successfully led the organization in our on-going battle with the terrorists that threaten this nation.  There is little dispute that his leadership at the CIA improved its effectiveness in this fight.  He appears to have been the right man, in the right job, at the right time.  So I ask, is the fact that he is an admitted adulterer sufficient grounds to disqualify him to head the CIA.  In my view, it is not.

I am not condoning adultery.  I believe it is morally wrong to break a vow.  The vows taken in marriage are among the most serious (some would say sacred) vows one can make in one’s life.   The commitments to one and other made in marriage are the fundamental building blocks of family, and families are the building blocks of society at large.  I do not buy the adultery apologist’s argument that excuse or lesson the behavior because Paula Broadwell “threw herself at him”.  That is a specious argument that implies that men cannot control themselves in the face of temptation.  It is true that many men and women do succumb to what use to be called “temptation of the flesh” and violate their marital vows.  However, that does not make it right. My point is that while adultery is wrong, it is, in the end, primarily a violation against one’s spouse.  

As a society, we generally accept that adultery is a personal failing whose ramifications should largely be personal in nature.  In most jurisdictions, adultery has been decriminalized.  And, in those jurisdictions where adultery still is listed on a crime, it is almost never prosecuted.  The only real exception to that rule is the US military.  Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, adultery is still a crime that is routinely prosecuted.  However, as a former military member, I understand why this is.

 The emotional impact on a soldier who discovers their spouse has engaged in an adulterous relationship can poison to that soldier’s morale and mission effectiveness. When that spouse’s adultery is perpetrated with another member of the soldier’s military organization, the situation can have a devastating impact on a unit’s ability to function effectively. Similarly, the military criminalization of adultery aids in the enforcement of the prohibition of fraternization between individuals of differing rank.  Fraternization can have a serious impact on a military unit’s effectiveness by undermining the command relationship.  As a result, the vast majority of adultery charges in the military are in conjunction with fraternization charges against the same individuals.  And, because military justice is enforced by the command structure, the military does not tolerate adultery among its leaders. To do so would undermine the commander’s ability to punish soldiers for engaging in adulterous relationships. 

In this instance, General David Petraeus is retired.  Therefore, he no longer is in the position to enforce rules related to adultery.  His behavior, while inappropriate and hurtful, is really an offense against his spouse and not against society at large.  

One might take the position that if an individual will lie about adultery, they can’t be trusted not to lie about other issues.  Of all the arguments in favor of Petreaus leaving his post as director of the CIA, this is the most compelling.  However, I do not believe every lie is immediate grounds for dismissal.  The world is not that simple.  In my view, the untruths spoken to hide ones adultery must be considered in the context of the individual’s overall pattern of behavior at the time and throughout their lives.  By all accounts, David Petraeus’s adulterous affair was uncharacteristic of his general behavior throughout his life. The people that served with and for him have characterized him as an honorable man.  Furthermore, it appears that when confronted by the FBI, David Patreaus admitted his adultery instead of trying to hide under the cover of further deceit.   

I am willing to accept that David Patraeus is a flawed man.  However, his flaws were not sufficient to render him incapable of continuing to serve our nation.  I wish he had not been so hasty to resign and I feel that our nation is less safe without him at the helm of the CIA.  

I Think, Therefore I Blog

I think it is time for me to start another blog and I am calling it Cogito Ergo Summers.  (At least my niece, the philosophy major, will get the joke).  

This is not new territory for me.  I used to have a blog, but I stopped keeping it up when I went back to grad-school more than four years ago.  I just didn’t have the time to keep it up.  And quite frankly, my previous blog just wasn’t that interesting. That was mainly because the subject matter was all over the place and the topics presented didn’t really lend themselves to any sort of dialog.

I plan to give this new blog a slightly more coherent focus.  I want to create a place where I can present my reflections about current events, politics, and social issues; sparking a good conversation along the way.  If I have set this site up correctly, you should be able to share your points of view as well. I really would like to hear what others have to say in response to my viewpoints.

Of course, I do not want this blog to be so serious that it turns people off. (I recognize that sometimes my interests can be a little lackluster.  I mean, not many of my friends have a penchant for watching CSPAN3 on the weekends and reading history books for recreation).  Therefore, I also plan to occasionally share my views on less weighty matters such as television, movies, and music.  Hopefully, I will keep this blog entertaining enough that you will participate with me.