nothing is more important than family

"Nothing is more important than family."
    –My Mom.

NOTE: This entry is extremely long. Please read it anyway. If you’re short on time, at least read the beginning and end, before and after the blockquote. Thanks.

I spent much of Christmas afternoon and evening at my parents’ house. As dusk turned to night, I stood in their darkened living room, lit only by the lights of their tree, and watched my dad and brother play with my stepkids out in the street, just as he’d played with me when I was a kid.

My mom walked over to me, and after we watched them for a minute she said, "We read your essay."

She didn’t have to say anything else. Her tone of voice sent a chill down my arms and the sinking feeling in my stomach told me that something was very, very wrong.

I turned to face her, and her eyes were filled with tears. "You were totally correct about the Tookie Williams thing," she said, "but you really misrepresented me and your dad." The tears spilled down her face. "I never listened to Bill O’Reilly," she said, "and I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh. I want to move to Montana because I’ll feel safer there than I do in Los Angeles, I can ride horses again, and it’s more like the America I grew up in when things were simpler. It’s not because I’m a racist or a bigot, which is the impression I got when I read that. Did you forget that I am the child of immigrants? I’m a first-generation American! You made us sound like we are crazy wingnuts, and we’re not."

When I was just sixteen, and I had my first car, I saw two doves pecking at something on the ground. I thought to myself, "Boy, it sure would be funny to scare those birds and make them fly away!" I pointed my car at them, and accelerated. One took flight, but the other didn’t move in time and was crushed beneath the tire of my car. It was the first and only time I’ve ever killed another living thing on purpose, and the guilt stayed with me for years. When I looked at my mom, who has given me so much, and saw how disappointed and betrayed she felt, I felt a guilt and regret that was even worse. I really screwed up when I didn’t show them my essay before it ran, so they could comment to me about it, and correct anything which they felt was inaccurate. All of my instincts told me to do that, and I didn’t, because I was afraid of how they’d react. In other words, my cowardice has hurt my family in a way that I may never be able to repair.

When I wrote my story, I hoped that it would spark a dialogue about the nature of discourse in our country, and comment on movement conservatives who voted for Bush even though he has (in my opinion) abandoned most of their values. What I did not intend was for my parents to be hurt, embarrassed, humiliated, or misrepresented. While they both do not dispute the accuracy of the Wheaton Family Christmas Incident, they took great issue with the way I described and portrayed my father. My dad isn’t a Talk Radio Wingnut; in fact, I’ve learned that he’s a proud conservative, whose values have remained consistent (and far more moderate than I understood,) even as George Bush’s Republican party has abandoned him, and people like him.

While my mom and I stood in the living room, I promised her that I’d do whatever I could to set the record straight, and correct the editorial cartoon caricature of my dad that I’d created with my essay. In letters to the editor at Salon, and in comments on my blog, I’ve seen people make lots of assumptions about my dad, and call him all sorts of names which, if if spoken in my presence, would result in an immediate cockpunch from me. I know that my dad has read some of these comments, and I’m really upset that people would say things like that about my father, who is the kindest, most supportive, and loving man I’ve ever known. However, it’s entirely my fault, for allowing an impression of my dad to be created without thinking through the consequences of that impression, or giving him an opportunity to at the very least respond to it.

I take full responsibility for bringing this grief upon my parents. I was unfair and irresponsible, and this is my effort to set things right.

On the day after Christmas, I drove up to my parents house, sat with them in their kitchen, and had a long conversation with them about politics, where they stand on various issues, and why. I felt that I owed them a chance to set the record straight, in their own words. Over a couple of hours, I learned that my parents are both pro-choice and pro-family, oppose the Iraq war (my dad said that at least they knew why they were fighting in Vietnam — a war he also opposed as he served as a medic in the National Guard — but it’s become "too muddled" to know why we’re fighting in Iraq, thanks to the Bush administration’s changing rationales and lack of credibility.) I learned that my parents still hold the values of compassion, tolerance and charity which they instilled in me as a child, even if the politicians they support do not.

But more than anything else, and most importantly, I learned that my impression of my dad as a screaming-head blowhard, which I shared with the world, based on one incident and a bunch of irresponsible assumptions, was just plain wrong.

This is my parents, in their own words, transcribed from a conversation I had with them on December 26th, 2005:

WIL:  Okay, on the record: my motivations in writing my story were not -uh- I didn’t have mean ulterior motives. I wasn’t trying to misportray you guys, or misrepresent you guys, or anything like that.

MOM: We knew that.

DAD: Yeah.

W: But that doesn’t matter. What matters is how you guys feel. And that’s why it matters to me.

M: Because life is full of good intentions.

W: Yeah, and that’s why it matters to me to, you know, fix it. I — just so you know a little history of how this came about: Like I wrote, it’s not that big a deal that we don’t see eye-to-eye on things.

M: And I love it that we don’t see eye-to-eye on things.

W: That doesn’t matter to me. I don’t subscribe to this "winner takes all" theory that seems to be —

D: Neither do we.

M: We didn’t raise you to agree with us.

D: And mom told me that when you talked with her, you said that you felt I would yell at you whenever we’d have a political discussion —

M: You said for about two years —

D: — and I don’t think that’s the case.

W: Okay, that’s totally my recollection since the period preceding — whatever the campaign was during the first George Bush administration. But that didn’t particularly matter to me. It profoundly hurt my feelings, and embarrassed me in front of my wife and kid, and I was just surprised. I was totally surprised.

D: Uh-huh.

W: And I understand that it is a seriously emotional issue and stuff, and, uhm . . . It came up in conversation with some of my other writer friends, who run the spectrum from liberal to conservative, and virtually all of them said, "You know, this has happened to me with my parents over the last few years, also." As the country has become so polarized, and as the news media and the talk radio audiences have become so polarized, and especially — and a lot of them, regardless of political ideology, laid a lot of blame at the feet of Karl Rove and talk radio, for doing this ‘divide and conquer’ thing.

So everyone said I should write about it, because everyone has had an experience similar to this, and maybe it will start up a dialogue, about talk radio, and it will start up a dialogue about where political discourse is. And it did, and the only negative feedback I got — other than from you guys — was from people who called me a wimpy liberal for not supporting the death penalty. So my goals were not to, um, defame you guys, or to do anything like that. It was to write a story that I thought a lot of people could emotionally connect to, about an experience I’d had that I thought a lot of other people had had, and —

[My dad’s pager goes off, and he has to deal with some important work things. I am struck by how calm he is, even though, whenever my dad’s pager goes off, it’s usually a life-or-death moment. My stomach is still in knots, but I’m really glad we’re talking.]

M: Hang on for a second.

W: Okay, I’m going to pause this.

[Dad comes back to the table.]

W: So, you know what my goals were, and if I haven’t made it clear, I am so so sorry. I am so sorry, and I feel terrible, and my gut told me to call both of you before I turned it in, and talk with you and give you a chance to do things, to —

D: Uh-huh.

W: To, to do things —

M: Uh-huh.

W: And to prevent, uh, you know,

W&D: This.

W: It was a combination of having to make a deadline, and just being pre-Christmas overwhelmed, and also feeling really afraid that you were going to freak out at me the same way you freaked out at me on Family Christmas . . . and it was quite obviously a bad choice to not trust my instincts.

D: Okay. Let me try to address the three things you brought up right now: First of all, when you called me to say "I’ve got something that’s going to be online," I figured there was a reason you put me "on alert" as it were, but I didn’t think it was going to be as overboard as it turned out to be in my opinion. Second of all, I apologize — I asked mom for a reality check, and I said, "Did I really turn into a monster and really unload on Wil?" and she said, "Yeah, well, kinda."

M: Now, wait a second. I said — what you wrote was very accurate. It was an excellent reporting of what went on, if we’re talking about family Christmas.

D: Except Jeremy hadn’t put the things on the tracks, yet, in the Christmas village, but I understand you needed to —

M: Oh, come on! I knew what you meant, and I’m really glad you wrote that.

D: Yes, I’m really glad you wrote that. Anyway . . .

W: Well, there goes my credibility.

D: Anyway, in thinking about it after the fact, I was so tired of hearing the Mike Farrells, and the Jamie Foxes of the world trying to excuse Tookie Williams and what he had done, and as I said to you, completely ignoring the families of the victims who were left behind. And I do believe in the death penalty, and . . . uh, there was some uncertainty about what Arnold was going to do, if he was going to roll over to his Hollywood friends and gain the liberal vote, if he tries to re-run, or if he was going to stand true to what he believed. And as it turned out, he did, and he gave eloquent reasons why he did.

W: Didn’t he campaign as a death penalty opponent?

D: I don’t remember that coming up.

W: I recall him — well anyway, I could be mistaken.

D: Anyway, so, I realized that, when mom said, "Yeah, you were a jerk," [he laughs] that I was disagreeing with you, but the over the top was just my frustration with your peer group — your former peer group — "the Hollywood crowd" [laughs, harder].

W: [laughs] The Hollywood crowd has never been my peer group!

M: [laughs]

D: [laughs] I know! I know! Okay . . . that’s why I said that in quotes  . . . trying to excuse this man because he’s written some books. And I was truly concerned that they were going to hold sway, which was, I believe, totally wrong. So, I didn’t mean to embarrass you, or Anne, or Nolan, okay? And that was not my intent. And we can talk about politics — and you and I disagree more than you and mom disagree —

M: Which is to say that your dad and I disagree —

W: But you know, my whole thing about the death penalty was not that Tookie Williams was some great guy who should get off, absolutely not. I don’t believe that at all.

D: I know that. And I told mom that I knew you were not defending Tookie Williams. That was not my understanding at all.

W: And my disagreement with the death penalty is that if the state makes a mistake, it can’t be undone.

M: Unless the state hasn’t made a mistake in the first place.

W: And the states that have it, have the highest homicide rates, so it doesn’t work. It only exists to exact some sort of societal revenge.

M: And in the case of Tookie Williams, it created a martyr.

W: And maybe it will end up dissuading kids from entering gangs. I don’t know.

D: I doubt that, based upon —

M: And they compared him to Rosa Parks!

W: And I was never saying that this guy was a good person. My whole thought was that, any time a case arises that makes people think, as a society, should we support the death penalty, there should be a dialogue, but because of talk radio, there can’t be. And it’s not possible, and I believe that it’s not possible, because in my experience, supporters or capital punishment almost always base their support on emotion, and opponents base their arguments on statistics and logic. But the emotional pull is so strong — and I am definitely guilty of this where my kids are concerned: when emotion and logic conflict where you feel strongly about something, emotion always wins.

D: Well, I don’t know about the nationwide statistics, but since the death penalty was instituted in California, there have been twelve executions, and eight of them have been whites. So this blanket statement —

M: And where was Mike Farrell then?

D: –that it’s only Blacks and poors are singled out is just wrong.

W: Maybe not in California, but absolutely in the rest of the country.

D: Right. And I’ve heard of cases where the defense attorney has been asleep at the table, or they get a public defender who decides that the guy is guilty, so they’re not going to mount a vigorous defense.

W: Would you agree that there’s a problem with the legal system where your class affects your chances of getting a truly fair trial.

D: I don’t know. Ask OJ. [laughs]

W: Well, there you go. So that’s one of the reasons I don’t support the death penalty. If it’s — I don’t think there’s any problem with putting people away from the rests of their lives without the possibility of parole, and I don’t think that prisons should be a vacation. Oh! And I got lots of letters from prison guards who were very unhappy with me for saying that inmates were beaten, and they said that was something I saw on TV, and they were right. I should have talked to prison guards before I wrote that, too. The point is, it shouldn’t be a good time.

D: But it’s not a bad time, either.

M: Did you hear about the guy from San Quentin who had been there for 28 years?

D: He’s the public relations officer now.

M: He said that Tookie Williams was still connected to the Crips from inside prison. And one of his books was dedicated to a current big wig of the Crips. So even if he’s in prison, he can still wield a lot of power, see, and that’s the truth with organized crime, too.

W: So he deserves to die because of that?

M: No, no. But, when — it makes it sound very final when you say they are locked away without any possibility of parole, that they still can have sort of this outside life, you know.

W: Okay.

M: They have a lot of freedoms.

D: And they are alive when they have taken an innocent life from someone who did not deserve to die. That doesn’t seem fair.

M: But you’re not here to debate the death penalty. You’re here so —

D: Let’s, let’s move on.

W: Okay.

D: You really mischaractarized me about Rush and Bill O’Reilly. I rarely listen to either of them, and —

[The phone rings. It’s my sister, telling my dad that the surf is so huge in Ventura County, they are towing surfers out using wave runners. As long as I can remember, if any of us needs an excuse to call dad, all we have to do is look at the surf report.]

D: Anyway, I don’t listen to Rush, and I don’t — and if I do, it’s just in channel surfing, because he is way over the top. And he forces everything into a certain perspective. Much like I feel the people on Air America do. Mom and I listened to Air America once, on our way up to Sacramento [to deal with my grandmother’s house after she died earlier this year — when my dad said that I was reminded what a horrible and tough year he’s had, and how the last thing he really needed was public humiliation at the hands of his idiot son.] — and this was when Bill Bennet said that thing about Blacks and about abortions, and he gave the analogy that if —

W: Yeah, I know what you’re talking about.

D: And it was Al Franken, and I forget who else, and they were completely twisting what he said, to bend it to their purpose, to their agenda.

M: They kept playing the same sound bite over and over again, and we kept listening, you know, to see if they’d get to the bottom of this, to the meat of what it was about, but they kept playing the sound byte over and over again, and it was edited, and it wasn’t true.

D: It was inaccurate.

M: It wasn’t true.

W: I remember that, and I agree with you. It was taken out of context, and I wish you’d listened on a different day!

D: I do listen to Dennis Prager, and Dennis is conservative, but middle-of-the-road conservative, and I believe that he thinks out his positions very clearly, and he is more interested in truth than a political agenda.

M: He’s interested in the morality of things. The moral consequences of behavior.

W: What is his position on the Bush Administration?

D: Uh, that they’ve done some things good, and some things bad.

M: He doesn’t talk that much about it.

D: And Sean Hannity: I listened to Sean more during the election, but since, uh, Sean is, in my opinion,  a notch or two below Rush. He is well-meaning, and he believes what he says for the most part, but again he is bending things through his own prism to bring things into his point of view.  I do a lot of reading in the Sunday opinion section in the Times, and I try to get multiple points of view, so . . . I don’t rely on Rush and Bill to tell me what to think. That, that was what really hurt me. I felt that I was really mischaractarized.

[I looked into my father’s eyes as he said, in effect, "you really hurt me," and I felt a shame, and a regret, and a disgust with myself that I’ve never felt before and hope to never feel again.]

M: And we don’t form our opinions based upon FOX News.

W: I wrote those observations based upon coming up here during the election, and FOX News being on in your house all the time.

M: You know when FOX News was on? During the hurricane.

W: During the 2004 election, I saw FOX News on in your house all the time.

D: No! You’re mistaken! It was never on.

W: But I remember it being on.

D: [laughs] You have to stop smoking the crack.

W: I saw it. I’m pretty sure John Gibson is on FOX News.

D: I don’t even know who John Gibson is. Your mother is the news junkie who will watch the news for three hours straight.

W: If that’s the case, I don’t know how I made such a glaring error, and it’s a terrible terrible mistake, because it’s almost like there are two kinds of conservatives: rational conservatives, and then you have the FOX News, Rush Limbaugh conservatives, who are — I think accurately — described as "Wingnuts."

D: Uh-huh.

W: And it was absolutely not my intention to describe you as wingnuts, and I can see now that is exactly what I did. And I don’t think that you are!

D: Well, that’s a comfort. [laughs]

M: I think of myself as a moderate, and dad is to the Right of me.

D: Yes, I am more conservative.

M: But you have to remember that  a lot of that is because of owning a small business, and as I told you the other night, that’s our American Dream.

W: I know! I grew up with you guys building your business, and you know that if you tried to start a business today, because of the policies and tax codes and things from George Bush and this Republican Congress, you would have a very hard time getting started. You wouldn’t be able to compete with bigger businesses, especially being in the health care industry. You wouldn’t be able to compete with bigger health care companies.

D: That’s wrong. I disagree.

W: You don’t think it would be harder to compete with companies who are huge and have huge lobbies in congress?

D: Not in my business.

[I realize that I’ve made yet another huge assumption, and I don’t have the solid facts to back up what I’m pretty sure is accurate. I realize that I’ve fallen into the trap I often accuse others of falling into: I’ve developed a point of view, and all I can remember is the feeling that it’s correct. Who would know whether their business could succeed? My parents, who own it, and run it day to day, or their son who has no clue? I am disgusted by my immature, narrow-minded arrogance.]

W: Okay.

M: But it is getting harder, this has been a very hard year, because of our worker’s comp and malpractice going through the roof.

W: Okay, so during the election, when current events happened, and we talked about them, uh — I’ve been trying to recall some specifics, but I can’t come up with any, which I guess undermines my credibility on this, but it seemed to me that —

[Dad’s phone rings again.]

D: That my phone would ring again?

W: Yeah.

[Dad takes another call about work, and sends an employee to work at a hospital.]

W: Okay. So During the 2004 election, when current events came up, and campaign things came up in discussion, my recollection is that when I talked about those things with you guys, your responses were the same things that were discussed on talk radio, which seemed to boil down to whatever the Bush campaign talking points were. And based on my apparently incorrect recollection of FOX News being on the television when I came up here — and I just know that it was —

M: Maybe it was on a few times, and it obviously made an impression upon you.

D: You were traumatized by it. [laughs]

W: And getting into your car when we were going to baseball games, there was always one of those talking guys on the radio.

M: That was Dodger Talk.

D: Yeah, that was Vin Scully.

M&D: [Laughs]

W: It was 87 something on the radio.

D: That would have been Dennis Prager, or maybe [ominously] "Sean Hannity."

[My dad, even in what is clearly a painful moment for both of us, never gives up his sense of humor. When I was a teenager, and took myself /so seriously/ it drove me crazy. Now, though, I love it. My stomach is still in knots, but they’re beginning to loosen.]

W: What I should have done is fact-checked that with you both, to make sure. But during that time, and correct me if I’m mistaken, during that time, when the White House was selling this line that Saddam Hussein financed the World Trade Center attacks, which was widely disproved, all over the world, even then, it seemed to me that once the talking point came out of the white house or out of the campaign, even if if was disproved, that you guys discarded any of the evidence or arguments against whatever the White House said. And, uhm, so, I absolutely made the assumption, which is clearly incorrect, that the belief that you guys formed and adhered to, was supported  by hearing it repeated on talk radio, and seeing it repeated on cable news. Does that make sense?

D: It makes sense, but I don’t think it’s completely accurate. I decided early on that I didn’t want to see John Kerry in the White house.

W: Well, John Kerry was a terrible candidate, right behind Lieberman.

D: It made no difference what either side said, I would never cast my vote for John Kerry, so a lot of it is just like water under the bridge for me, the things that were said.

W: I so want to understand this. When I was growing up, the values you instilled in all of us, the strongest one, the one that still drives most of the decisions I make, is based on support for the civil rights movement. And was all based on tolerance and equality, and —

D: That hasn’t changed.

W: But it so strongly seems to me that the current Republican leadership in congress and in the state of California, seem so totally opposed to those values: the values of equality and tolerance and civil rights, and, uh, seem to have such an enormous credibility problem. How can you support them?

D: I don’t agree with that en todo. My feeling is that the Barbara Boxers of the world want to give everything to people who don’t work for what they have. They want to take our tax dollars and your tax dollars and give them away to other people.

W: But George Bush has taken your tax dollars, and given them to people who have so much money already, they don’t know what to do with that.

D: See, we disagree on that.

M: See, now that’s a Democratic talking point.

W: No it’s not, it’s the congressional budget office. [That’s wrong: I should have said Internal Revenue Service. What I meant was that I didn’t form my opinion of Bush’s tax plans from Democratic talking points, but from independent research.]

D: Those rich people have already given so much to this country through their taxes, and I agree that, um, there are loopholes where they’re able to avoid taxation on some of their money, and I think that something should be done on that. But when people work hard for their money, it’s not right for the government to turn around and say, "you busted your ass for all this money, now give it to all these people, because they choose not to work, because they choose to have children without a father, because they come into the country illegally." Mom and I are not happy about what Bush has done with the illegals in this country  —

M: We discussed that the other night, Wil. [Where mom and I agreed that business owners who hire and exploit illegal immigration for cheap labor — especially in California farming — should be prosecuted, so the conditions which make illegal immigration favorable would weaken.]

W: So redistribution of wealth downward is bad, but redistribution of wealth upward is good?

D: It’s not redistribution! It was their money to begin with. It’s their money because they earned it.

W: I’m talking about the shifting of the tax burden. The tax burden, under George Bush, has shifted dramatically to middle-class tax payers. So people who are earning between, I think it’s 70,000 and 190,000 a year as a household, are shouldering a larger percentage of the tax burden, based upon their income, than people who are earning over 200,000 a year, and they are shouldering a greater percentage of the burden than the people who are earning over a million a year.

D: Of course they are. That’s simple percentages. Because if someone is making — like, to make that equitable, Bill Gates would have to pay billions in taxes a year.

W: Well, of course there should be a cap on taxes, and I’m not talking about Socialism, but under this tax code, we — and I think we’re still in the same tax bracket — we are paying more of our income in taxes than people who are earning two and three times what we are earning. And if the tax code is in fact a progressive tax code, where the idea is to tell people, "okay, to reach this level of success, you were able to reap the benefits of the society others helped to build, so now you need to help contribute to the infrastructure so that others have opportunities, too." If that’s the case, it seems really unfair to me to put so much of the tax burden on the middle class, and certainly not on the working poor.

M: I agree with that.

W: It’s gone overwhelmingly to the middle class. Under Bush, the tax burden has shifted onto us, and tax breaks and revenue redistribution has gone upward.

M: And in a similar situation, what do the Democrats want to do with our tax dollars?

W: What do you mean?

M: You said that under Bush, the middle class has shouldered more of the tax burden, and I actually believe that the middle class has always shouldered most of the tax burden.

W: But it didn’t under Bill Clinton. And I’m not making that up.

M: So if a Democratic administration was in the White House, how would it be different?

W: We wouldn’t have the deficit we have. I don’t believe that if the Democrats controlled the government the way the Republicans do, and the Republicans are really in the driver’s seat right now, you wouldn’t see the tax breaks for the ultra-rich. I’m not talking about people who have worked so hard to have what they have, either, I’m talking about inherited wealth. I don’t think we’d have the enormous budget problems that we have, and we’d probably see something like what Clinton did: raise taxes a bit on the wealthiest of people, and give relief to the middle class and the working poor. I don’t believe in this idea —  that Ronald Reagan sold so successfully — that there is an epidemic of shiftless jerks who just want to get rich off of your hard work, and the Democrats are going to help them do that.

M: Well, there are more social programs under Democrats than Republicans. And it seems like there’s an awful lot of abuse of those programs.

W: Of course there is, and it’s pretty easy to go through reams of data and pull out fifty or one hundred jerks who are breaking the law. You can do that in either direction, rich or poor — a dishonest person is a dishonest person regardless of income. What is confusing to me is that you guys have worked so hard to have what you have, and you deserve your success, but under George Bush, you’re paying more in taxes than we ever have, and it is unlikely that burden will be reduced while the Republicans control things. It seems like you’re voting against your best interests.

D: I think that’s not the whole picture, and you have to take the bitter with the sweet. And I have a conservative philosophy that’s opposed to the liberal philosophy, and I’m not happy about having to pay more taxes, and I’m not happy — I thought that, under Bush, the government would be made much smaller, but it hasn’t. It’s gotten much larger than it ever has been, and I don’t know how that happened because it runs counter to the conservative ideals. But at the end of the day, I am conservative, and I believe the conservative philosophy more than I do the liberal philosophy, and you have to take the lumps with the sugar.

For the next forty minutes, we talked about the differences between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, Clinton and Bush. We did it respectfully, quietly, honestly, and openly. It was about as far removed from talk radio as you can get, and the man I was talking with was not the man I portrayed in my essay. When I left, I felt closer to my dad than I have in years, despite all our political differences.

I’m really glad that I talked with my parents, but I still feel that I’ve dishonored my family, and given the entire world an incorrect view of my father. It was unfair and irresponsible of me to publish my assumptions publicly without giving him a chance to correct them privately. My dad is an incredible person, and I owe him much more than this.

I imagine that this will get reprinted around the conservative world the way my original essay was reprinted around the liberal world, and I will almost certainly be excoriated for this, which I certainly deserve. If that’s what it takes for my parents’ to have their names cleared, and to correct the impression I gave about my dad, I am more than willing to take whatever criticism I get. I should be boycotted, and if there was some way I could resign over this, I would. I made an incredibly irresponsible choice, based out of stupid fear, to not talk with my parents before my article ran. I can not unring that bell, but I hope that by letting them speak, in their own words, the image I created of them can be corrected. I have learned a valuable lesson, I just wish the cost of that lesson hadn’t been my family’s honor and my parents’ dignity. I am deeply ashamed of myself.

I ran this past my parents before I published it. They expressed some concern that they would be quoted out of context, or attacked for their beliefs, and suggested I keep our conversation between us. But I think they make a great case for their beliefs, even if I disagree with them, and I wanted them to have an opportunity to speak for themselves. I elected to leave it as-is, because I suspect that my parents (both Boomers) reflect beliefs that are fairly common among conservatives in their generation, and liberals of my generation who don’t have the ability or opportunity (for whatever reason) to talk with their parents could get a good idea of where people like my parents are coming from. I think it also shows how totally wrong I was in my original essay: we had a long conversation about several potentially-explosive topics, but the bonds of love and family which tie us together are stronger than the differences Talk Radio would use to divide us. My mom said that she doesn’t want to feel like she has to defend herself via my blog for anything, and I don’t think she does. She also wanted everyone to know that she forgives me, "just like all the other times you did something stupid . . . that’s a joke, Wil . . . the part about doing stupid things, not the part about forgiving you." She also said that I was a good writer, which she sort of has to say because she’s my mom. My dad said that it means a lot to him and my mom that I was "adult enough, and man enough to care about our feelings, and discuss this with us," and if I was really such an environmentalist, I wouldn’t have written something that took an entire tree to print out . . . which was also a joke. I’m glad my parents both still have their sense of humor, even now.

If you linked to my essay at Salon, please link to this as well. My parents shouldn’t have to suffer any more than they have because of my irresponsibility.

Discover more from WIL WHEATON dot NET

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

137 thoughts on “nothing is more important than family”

  1. what you wrote about illustrates the dangers of the assumptions many of us make…and it hurts to realize when we are wrong…and have hurt someone else in our assumptions…a loved one can forgive…but others who don’t share the bonds of family are not so quick to forgive…if only all political pundits could see the effect that their words can have…and take them back when they know they have wronged someone.

  2. Wil,
    I think that you’ve done a wonderful job at setting the record straight. I also think, that at some point, in every parent and child relationship that in some way, one or the other is bound to disappoint the other. Whether or not it was intentional, the hurt it causes can put a major dent into said relationship.
    I read your “essay” when you originally posted it and didn’t get the feeling that your parents were loose cannons – just that they had very strong beliefs about that particular subject. In everyones life, there has to be something that sparks a person to stand up for what they believe in. From my point of view, the conversation was taken out of hand. People tend to say (and write) things in the heat of the moment that often gets them in trouble.
    I don’t know you or your father, but I can certainly see how much the two of you mean to one another. You were wrong and you tried to fix it. I think your parents should be proud of you for that, they’ve raised you well – even if you do have different standing points on political views.

  3. I read your orginial essay at salon at at no point did I get the impression that you did not love and respect your parents.
    I wouldn’t let this get you down too much. The holiday season can drive all of us a little nutty.
    Last time I checked it looked like you are still a member of the human race…”born to make mistakes” as the song goes… Or are you? Didn’t you evolve into something special at the end of Star Trek!

  4. I never read it as your parents being irrational. I only read the part on the blog here, but it seemed to me that there was a great deal of backstory that you were not privy to. It’s a fairly simple thing to read between the lines when someone reacts that emotionally about any issue, and, although this post is certainly an excellent postscript, I didn’t read the original one as “Wil comes from psycho-family.”

  5. I have read your blogs long enough to see you as an actor, an author, a husband ,and a father.This time you showed yourself as a man big enough to put right something that hurt your parents. This rates you alot higher in my book than ANY professional achievement ever could.

  6. Wil,
    I think you learned a valuable lesson, and I commend you for making amends.
    Personally, I am “middle-of-the-road” and I think there is too much hatred on BOTH sides. There is so much distrust. They refer to each other as “liberal” or “conservative” like they’re epithets.
    I think we should all agree to disagree and work together to make this country even greater than it is.

  7. Wil, I can only imagine just how hard this has all been for you. I’ve had disagreements with my parents on many things (and pretty similar arguments), but never in public quite like that. I’m really glad that you did what you did – it was the right thing to do. I don’t think my parents would be so forgiving if I made the same mistake. I envy you for having such a loving family.

  8. The one thing I take from all of this is that if you love the people who care about you as much as they love you, political differences don’t mean much in the end.
    If only everyone could be so calm and rational in understanding each other.

  9. Just, wow. Thank you for sharing this part of your family life.
    Let the healing begin – for your family, and for our country.
    Happy New Year, Wil.

  10. Something just like this happened to me in college. I wrote a column for the university newspaper that, in my mind, was an accurate reflection of how the women in my family had always been altruists who put their husbands and families ahead of everything, including their own well-being. My perceptions were wrong, and my column really hurt my mother and father. My dad sent me a firm but compassionate e-mail explaining that the women I’d seen as doormats were really businesswomen and entrepreneurs. It took a long time for me to stop feeling badly over it.

  12. Wil, you have done an admirable job of setting the record straight. Too many people just blow off the mistakes they make, and don’t take responsibility for making them, or for trying to correct them. The most important thing a mistake like this can do is show us what not to do in the future, and I’m sure that this lesson, however painful, is one you won’t soon forget. That, my friend, will make you an even better, more considerate person than you already are.

  14. Ah, Wil. This must have been so gut-wrenching a time for you. For people that think that political things don’t matter to each and every one of us on a personal level, your story should serve as a needed wake-up call. I think you did the right thing by publishing your story at Salon, and the right thing here by rectifying your mistakes. Strong families forgive and grow as a result of things like this; most of us don’t usually act as much in the public eye as you do, but I think we can pretty much all understand what you’ve been going through. thanks for being thoughtful, as always. It is what keeps people like me coming back.

  15. My first time to comment on one of your posts.
    I think the basic disagreement over politics or philosophy with your family is common enough. My wife and I are in roughly the same age group as you and Anne. We tend to be more liberal and rarely agree with most of our own family members, so we do our best to steer clear of any hot button issues during gatherings when possible.
    What is uncommon in my opinion is that most people let these things pass while they begin to develop resentment or anxiety towards a family member with an opposing viewpoint.
    You had the courage to reach out, begin to rebuild that bridge of communication with your parents and publicly set the record straight. You learned some things about your family and probably yourself in the process.
    I would imagine that you’ll be more cautious and better prepared to debate with your family in the future – and this can be an enjoyable thing. Plus you’ve learned something about the process of writing about people close to you and the power of your words.
    You’re all feeling a little raw right now, but this will pass. Painful as it was, good things can come of this.
    Have a Happy New Year and keep up the good work.

  16. Wil,
    Well done.
    What makes this blog so interesting is that you let us see you grow as a person in ways that many other bloggers would not. Bravo for doing so again!
    Seems to me the real long-term lesson for readers is not so much about what it means to place family first (i.e., ahead of the blogging audience), but rather how important it is to avoid stereotyping others based on a few political positions they may express — and yet how easy it can be to fall into that trap, even with those we love. I know I’ll be adding this subject to my New Years’ resolutions because of what you’ve written here. Hopefully other readers will be inspired to do the same.
    As for you, Wil, remember Gary Gygax’s useful distinction between intelligence and wisdom. Painful as this incident was, you’re wiser now for it, and that’s not a bad thing.

  17. Bravo. The essay at Salon was fantastic, and this post was even better. You *are* a good writer–from someone who makes a living as a writer and constantly struggles with the question of “am I any good?” Keep writing, and keep being the kind of person who cares as much as you obviously do, both about “getting it right,” and most importantly, about your family.

  18. Thanks for the follow-up Wil!
    The thing that still bothers me though is the raging epidemic of “Debate by Sweeping Declaration” that has choked off all serious political discourse in our country. Does your father honestly believe that Barbara Boxer gets up every day determined to see how much money she can take from the rich and give to the poor? The system can’t function when people on either side of the debate treat each other as mortal enemies – every day it’s “Liberals want to destroy America,” or “Conservatives want to destroy America.” No, neither of them do. They both want the very best for this country but have differing views on how to do it, and all the peripheral noise in the system (talk radio, biased media, etc) that emphasizes the differences makes it impossible to see the common ground, and makes it impossible to get anything done.
    The other thing that bothers me, and I don’t want to cast aspersions on your father – I lost my dad almost 15 years ago (and I’m younger than you) and I know the greatness that is the father/son relationship, but your father seems to be saying the same thing a lot of people are now saying:
    “I don’t like what Bush has done with our taxes. I don’t like what Bush is doing with the immigrants. I don’t like what Bush has done with Iraq. I don’t like what Bush has done with the size of the government. But he’s labelled a conservative so I support him.”
    Huh? In sports terms, this is like a Packers fan saying Brett Favre should be in the Pro Bowl, despite his nearly 30 interceptions and the Pack’s 3-12 record.

  19. I just wrote three long comments, then erased the whole thing because it seemed either callous or unfair.
    And I realize that’s the nature of blogs. While your writing is very good, we’re not in your head and can’t feel you or your family’s feelings.
    That being said, if it brings happiness to you and yours, I’m happy for you. However, it reads a bit like you’re playing the part of the good son to your parents by backing down from your positions and recollections (i.e. FOX news during the election). Are you attempting to keep family peace, doubting your memories and feelings or really having your position changed? Or some of each?
    More curious than anything. If I as a shadow have offended, think but this and all is mended: that you have read here a post of bots from far and near.

  20. Wil, I’m a conservative that was a bleeding-heart liberal (voted Nader in 2000!) until 9/11, so I have an idea of what both sides are like. The sad truth is that neither side listens to the other. Read ten liberal and ten conservative blogs and you’ll think you’re accessing two different dimensions via broadband. Both will have facts, but both groups of facts are cherrypicked and combined with a lot of duckspeak* to make an unreliable mess. Talking to your family calmly and, really, kinda sweetly, was something that just doesn’t happen in the media. I don’t know how to fix it, other than getting a lot of kitchen tables and chaining ourselves to them until we talk.
    * In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, duckspeak is a Newspeak term meaning literally to quack like a duck or to speak without thinking. Duckspeak can be either good or bad, depending on who is speaking.

  21. Interesting post, two thoughts… one, the love and respect you have for your father came through in *both* essays, not just this one.
    And two, I do think your dad’s characterization of some of the liberal positions — specifically Boxer and the economics of a democratic administration — suggest that he has been listening to some of those folks more than he’d perhaps even like to admit to himself. It’d be fascinating to have this kind of insight into his thoughts on the conversation, as I imagine you made him think as much as he made you.
    Congrats for having the conversation… I can’t imagine it was easy. And thanks for sharing it with us.

  22. That we all make mistakes and at some point disappoint those we love is simply a part of the human condition. What sets us apart is how you set it right. I cannot imagine a better way of doing just that than what I have read here.
    Take consolation in knowing that you are now a better, wiser man than you were before this incident.

  23. Dear Wil

    For as much as you would think Im a Republican wingnut, I wholeheartedly believe you are a moonbat liberal Democrat wacko. And I think you give talk radio and Fox News too much credit. After all, the libs have the lying news med…

  24. Dear Wil,
    Please stop beating yourself up. You made a mistake about your parents–how utterly human of you! You eviscerated a member of your family over a political discussion; you’re not the first. When my youngest was 16 and in her belligerent, rebellious stage (and when one’s mother is a liberal pagan, where does one go?), she and I had a heated discussion about abortion and the right to life vs. the right to choose. For the sake of argument (she later claimed), she chose the Right to LIfe position. I, on the other hand, had had 20 years, more years than she had been on the Earth, to perfect my arguments for the Right to Choose, and proceded to eviscerate her. Did I feel guilty about it? Well, as a mother, yes, sort of, I did (and do, occasionally) feel bad about flaying alive one of the people I’d brought into this world. But as a liberal and feminist attacking a narrow-minded, conservative position of nonsense, I didn’t have a qualm–and during the course of the argument, I was a liberal feminist, not a mother. My point is that in the grand arena of political discussion, shit happens. I appreciate the fact that your family discussion was made public by you, but, honestly. If I have learned nothing else from my English literature education, it’s that one should *always* question the point of view presented. Your blog is told from your point of view, so your father is presented as you saw him at that time. Do I think that he’s an hysterical, screaming monster? As a parent, I have to say, “no.” Do I think that this is how he seemed to you *at the time* of the Wheaton Family Christmas Incident? As a person, I have to say, “yes.” Do I think that this is how your father is, 24/7? Again as a person, I have to say, “no.” I’m glad you had the chance to talk to your parents about what happened and to discuss their views and yours about an important issue; I’m glad you were able to better understand where they were coming from and that (hopefully) they were better able to understand your position. But hang the cross back up on the wall, sweetie; we can only report the truth as we see it at the time. It’s a failing, but it’s also what makes us human. And human is the best we can hope to be on this plane and in this life cycle.

  25. Hey Wil,
    Just another voice to let you know that your intial story and this follow up could pretty well be used as *the* example of how journalism (and interpersonal relationships) should work. Make the mistake and then own up to the mistake with clarity and brutal honesty. Sadly, our current age sees almost everyone (journalists, Politicos, CEOs) completely commited to a routine that invariably steers to *denial* or *ass covering* when they screw up. Believe it or not you are a *beacon* to the nerd legions. Onwards and upwards Traveller!

  27. Wil,
    Just out of curiosity, you made a comment in this post that sounded like you are opposed to socialism?
    I’m not certain I’m reading that right, so if I’m not, forgive me.
    If I am reading it correctly, I am curious what your oppositions to Socialism are.
    Thanks.

  28. Wil:
    I have been down the same road with my parents and it typically has something to do with the differences on personal outlook in life. I have had numerous conversations with my parents about something I posted. I have even received the occasional, “…We taught you better…”
    In the end though, we have agreed to disagree and part of being a son is occasionally stepping on your parents’ toes. Part of being a parent is sometimes being shocked that your child would have the gall to demonstrate free thought that is different then their own.
    Cheers for your honesty and willingness to talk it over with them. Try not to beat yourself up too badly for if your parents are as mine, love will conquer all.
    -WTS

  29. Wil-
    For what’s it’s worth, I’m proud of you. I think we all are. I think it takes a lot of courage to let a world full of strangers into your life and your home like this. How much simpler would it have been to simply let it go and let everyone think what they wanted? I think you’re quite a guy to step up to bat for your parents like that, even if, apparently, most people didn’t perceive your dad like you thought they did.
    You’re a wonderful writer and I really look forward to reading what you have to say next. Thank you for showing the world that you’re only human, and we all make mistakes, but it’s the good ones who are big enough to admit those mistakes and correct them. Your kids have a fabulous role model in you. It took a lot of strength and willpower for you to get online and share your feelings with us. Thank you for letting us be a part of it all.
    Happy New Year,
    Shauna

  30. There is *One* very good thing about being Human Wil…
    *None of Us are Exactly the Same*…..
    If we were…
    My, My What a Boring World this would be…
    Cheers, my friend…
    Keith

  31. Wil,
    I read everything you ever post, you should know this, you’ve even gotten at least one email from me. I believe you have done a very noble and wonderful thing as a writer and a son to apologize to your parents. Sometimes we say things that we don’t really mean out of anger or annoyance, and we can’t really change what we’ve done… but we can atone for our actions.
    The honest part is… every single day, you come and share your life with us… the good, the bad, the funny, the angry. And you’re human. Believe me, I didn’t see you being any worse before… but my respect level for you has gone up immensely (and it was very high already). I’m proud of you. Extremely.
    I hope that you, Anne, Nolan, Ryan, and the pets had a great Christmas, will have a wonderful New Year, and I’ll definitely be poking fun at that beautifully hilarious moment on I Love the 80’s with you, the Snuggle Bear, and the hilarious squeaky voice. Have a good one, sir.
    Amber

  32. Will Wheaton and the Effective Tax Rate

    I recently read a very well written post by Will Wheaton which covered a variety of topics. At the risk of missing the big picture, one part caught my interest in particular. He makes the argument that the Bush administration has shifted the tax burden…

  34. Wil,
    I think you’re realy overestimating the damage to your parents’ reputation. You acted rashly, and have taken herculean efforts to a) admit your error, b) find out your parents’ side of the story, and c) make it right as best you can.
    When I read the story about Family Christmas, my first thought was, “Wow, I wonder if Dad reads the articles.” My second was, “Sounds liek Will is ready to learn to listen to his parents from a new place.”
    Anyone who’s paying attention gets to do that a few times throughout his life. We, as humans, do tend make up our minds first, and then see the evidence to support our ideas. A wise person (and I rank you as one, now) notices from time to time, and takes steps to clear the logs out of his eyes.
    So, Wil, take heart. You’ve done a brave and wondrous thing. I can only imagine your relationship to your parents will grow stronger from this.
    ~~Scix

  35. Oops — an addendum, on the mixed memories of Fox News:
    My advice: don’t make too much of it, either way. As humans, we have an amazingly fictitious memory, and anything that seems imnportant to us at the time tends to become bigger: “always” or “never.”
    Likely, you saw Fox News at least once, it jibed with your idea of how the family was sliding into the Pits of Conservative Wingnutiness, and the little man who keeps your memory records added a few extra tick marks. This doesn’t mean you’re false, or crazy, but that you’ve come up against a sometimes startling truth: we make up 90% of our memories, and then categorize them as fact.
    Your folks probably did watch Fox News once or twice, but as it was important to them to be clear that they were not influenced by Fox News, their little memory guys shuffled the Fox News File to a footnote on a back page.
    One can insist on being right, or one can open up and communicate. Sounds like you and your parents chose the latter. Kudos, sir.
    ~~Scix

  36. I applaud the balls it took to admit a mistake. For the record, I took that original post you made as a son frustrated with communication issues with his father (like I have with mine) and not a son condemning his parents for being wingnuts.
    I think a huge part of the problem with this country is the fact that there are only two allowable viewpoints, and it seems we have to choose NOT the one we agree with, but the one we disagree with the least.
    We need more choices.

  37. That couldn’t have been a podcast? That was a lot of reading for a blog 😉
    Seriously though, very cool of you to set the record straight.

  38. Wil,
    To use a word my parents love, that took a lot of moxie. I (and I think most of us) have made mistakes and choices that have hurt the people I love, so please do not feel so alone in that. Your parents love you, that much is clear, and being able to have the dialouges that you did is a great thing. Too bad not everyone is so lucky.

  39. It’s too bad more liberals (and more conservatives) don’t “dig a little deeper” before painting each other with such broad brushes and stereotypes.
    I think, down deep, we’re all Republocrats anyway. I mean c’mon…I’m a Republican but I want clean air and water, safe food, etc.
    I too, like your parents, have been hurt by some of the “Republican bashing” that you have done in your blog. Hopefully, this experience will help us all to remember that we’re not “right wing nuts” or “left wing wacko’s” we’re all Americans who love our country and just want to get through this life the best way we can.

  40. Being a veteran of a few embarrassing arguments, I must admit that I saw the confrontation with your parents coming and I have been a little worried for everyone’s sake.
    I didn’t think your dad was anything other than what you have always protrayed him to be – a very good person. I just kept in mind that in the middle of a political argument, ideals will make us all end up sounding more fervant than we realize. And we all remember things in a distortion.
    I will be honest, though, you shouldn’t have posted that disagreement. As much as I enjoy your openess, there is a time and a place for everything. I’m just very glad that you found a way to set the record straight.
    And I am very impressed that you and your parents took the time to talk and show some respect for each other. That’s the one real problem with political discourse today – a lot of people act like total jerks when they interact with someone of an opposing view. They think that just because they believe they are right – that they have the right to be disrespectful to the other person.
    I’ll be honest with you, I can be very nasty in a debate, but I usually make sure it’s in a venue where debating is the expected response. Then it’s a sport. But I *never* fool myself into believing that I am actually going to change the other person’s mind.
    Someone else commented that she feels it’s her duty to viscerate those she disagrees with. That is wrong. Viscerating is an act of violence. Not that I’m against in the proper forum. There is a time and a place for everything. But towards another family member is not the time nor the place. It is nothing but a sign of an abusive person. You don’t do crap like that to someone you love. You do what you and your parents did – you listen to each other and calmly discuss it, like secure and mature individuals.
    Thank you for being an example to others who have no clue how to resolve thses issues. Anyone who can’t respect your parents after this, aren’t worth having the respect of.

  41. Wil… not just kudos to you for being able to see what your actions wrought, AND to be able to talk with your parents about it. [Bravo.]
    But also, bravo to your parents for being able to talk about it rationally and not be “old, set in their ways, stubborn, etc. old ____”.
    The young[ish] are not the only ones that make assumptions that make things bad or worse. All humans are well adapted to do that kind of harm.
    Like I said, kudos to you and your parents for being able to talk it through, and reach a better understanding of what you each believe.
    [Now, if only we could figure out a way to effectively “pay that forward”, lol. Oh, I can dream.]
    18 yrs. registered Orange County Republican.
    1 yr. independant that voted Libertarian!

  42. Excellent comments, Wil. It takes a lot to own up and do what you did. It’s always good to have hearty conversations with our parents, we don’t know how much they mean to us until they’re gone. I’m glad to still have mine, but as both are in their 70’s, I know the day is coming when one then both won’t be there.
    Enjoy them while you can.

  43. The power of the printed word…ouch. It’s so easy to feel like,in the moment, you’re completely right. And then you realize in hindsight that you went over the line and of course it’s out there…forever and like smoke, you can’t get it back.
    Kudos on lesson learned and doing what you could to set it right.
    You may share some different views with your folks but it’s great that you have such open communication.
    I agree with the previous poster who said “enjoy them while you can.” I’ve lost one and almost just lost another. They can drive you crazy sometimes (it’s their job as much as it’s yours) but there’s nothing like the void of losing one of them.

  45. First – I read it all. All.
    Second – You have an amazingly cool family, which you know, right? But I guess it’s nice to hear other people saying it.
    Third – All three of you, from the transcript, handled such a difficult conversation fantastically.
    Fourth – Your mother ROCKS! No offence to you or your father, but she’s brilliant! I guess kudos to your dad, and that’s another reason why you’re one of the luckiest people around. I mean:
    M: We didn’t raise you to agree with us.
    Wow.

  46. Wil,
    Thanks for that fantastic posting!
    A big part of how you got into this mess is that you have never really tried to understand the arguments on the other side of your political views. If you want to understand your father better and avoid insulting him in the future, you would do well to subscribe to some conservative magazines or newspapers for a while, long enough to discover for yourself what logical bases they have for their arguments. Then you wouldn’t be so quick to assume the TRUTH is on your side and that the other side has been duped by emotional nitwits. Maybe you and your dad could trade gift magazine subscriptions. National Review for Mother Jones or whatever.
    The whopper of a claim you made is that the death penalty doesn’t deter. The modern consensus view based on the best econometric studies is that it does deter. To merely compare states with or without the penalty is silly; anyone who does that is searching for good propaganda rather than good evidence. What matters for deterrence is the chance that the penalty will actually be used, not whether it is a theoretical legal possibility. Besides, it’s not an independent variable – a state with a high crime rate is more likely to institute tougher penalties than a state with a low crime rate.
    Suppose you read the paper I linked to above and conclude that each execution deters around, say, ten murders. The interesting conclusion is that even if the state is wrong and executes a totally innocent person 1% of the time, you’d still be saving many innocent lives on net by having the death penalty. (Sure, a mistaken execution isn’t reversable, but neither is a preventable murder!)
    The intellectually honest anti-death-penalty advocate has to stand up and say “I am opposed to the death penalty despite the fact that it deters.” Don’t take the easy way out and assume all facts back up your prejudices. Sometimes they don’t, and this is one of those times.
    I’m not saying your dad was right to react as he did. He made the same assumptions about you that you made about him. He assumed that you were driven by emotion and groupthink just as you did about him. He got angry at you as a member of a group (“hollywood liberals”) just as you got angry at him as a member of a group (“right-wing conservatives”). Maybe after this excellent conversation the two of you can go back to seeing each other as individuals and realize that you’re a lot more alike than your group affiliations would suggest.

  47. I’ve read your blog for quite a while now (though I admit to sometimes skimming the poker-only posts), though I rarely comment. I think I commented once, like a year or so ago. Honestly, that’s because I’m rarely sure what to say, or by the time I come along, someone else has said what I was thinking.
    This time, though, if someone else has said this, well–add my voice to the mix.
    From what I’ve seen, you’re a smart man. And yet (yes, there had to be an “and yet”), you provide a blanket statement, which according to your transcription your father called you on, and not only did you offer up no real evidence, but you backpedaled a bit when your father pointed it out.
    Here’s the original, from your transcription:
    –D: Well, I don’t know about the nationwide statistics, but since the death penalty was instituted in California, there have been twelve executions, and eight of them have been whites. So this blanket statement —
    –M: And where was Mike Farrell then?
    –D: –that it’s only Blacks and poors are singled out is just wrong.
    –W: Maybe not in California, but absolutely in the rest of the country.
    Now here’s how I read it:
    –D: Well, I’m not entirely clear on national statistics, but I do know that here it doesn’t work like that.
    –W: Well–uh–so what? It’s true for the rest of the country!
    Come on, Wil. You’re smarter than that. Now, mind that I’m not trying to “call you out,” or any other stupid thing. You have a damned good head on your shoulders, and while I disagree with you on some things, like the death penalty, you don’t seem to be pulling beliefs out of your ass or a crack pipe, so that reaction rather surprised me.
    I can’t and won’t comment on your ability as a father, a son, a husband, or a man, because all I have is this blog to work from, this collection of letters on a glowing screen. I don’t feel that that’s really enough to truly judge anyone.
    That said, what I’ve seen has generally been well thought-out when it’s warranted (as in when you’re in a serious and/or philosophical mood), so I don’t think for a moment that that one moment undermines your position or anything else. It was just surprising to see a blanket statement defended rather than internally looked at when it was questioned.
    Other than that–you’re a good man, Charlie Brown. You seem to have a good family, and I as well as most (if not all) of the other commentors are glad you had the opportunity to sit down with them and calmly discuss such an emotional event. Politics aside, I as well as anyone know how hard it is to have a conversation with family after a rather emotional event.

  48. I wish that dialogue could happen in my family, but umm yeah, this is why I can’t write about personal stuff in my blog. I would write exactly what I felt to be true, my parents would see it, and then cut off all contact.
    They raised me to see all people equally, to stick up for those who can’t stick up for themselves, and to always question.
    And yet, I’m the black sheep of the family for it. It wasn’t always so, but ever since 9-11-01, my parents have changed… and not for the better.
    We used to be able to have that open dialogue that you had. In fact, we loved to have a good old fashioned debate and it never became a fight.
    Not anymore, and I’ve lost some respect for parents because of it, and I feel bad that I can’t get it back.

  49. I’m about as far right as you are left, and firmly ensconced in ‘wignut’ territory by your estimate, I’m sure. That said, this is why I still read your stuff, even when you go off in moonbat territory. You’re a decent person, and you’re not afraid to admit that you’re wrong. Lefty or not, you’re a good guy, and I appreciate that.

  50. Funny, it never dawned on me until just now why those on the left have such a bizarrely venomous dislike of FOX and of Rush and simultaneously have such a skewed perception about how “/our/ views are based on facts and evidence, while /yours/ are based on emotion.” There’s a connection between those two oddities.
    Your average lefty doesn’t read conservative newspapers or magazines or books or have any conservative friends who do. Lefties do read liberal newspapers and magazines and books, but the only exposure they get to conservative ideas is the occasional bit of talk radio or television.
    Talk radio and television aren’t a good medium for conveying background facts. The arguments made by on-air pundits and personalities can only be convincing in context; they don’t stand alone. You can get the necessary context if you listen regularly and do some homework, the equivalent of supplementary readings. Thus, people who have multiple regular conservative sources of information tend to find arguments on FOX or Rush convincing. But for those who don’t, it’s like an alien language is being spoken. You don’t know the syntax, you don’t have the vocabulary. Without a common understanding of how the world works, without acceptance of the axioms on which the proofs are built, it sounds like nonsense.
    Rush, O’Reilly, and even Coulter might make an argument that is totally rational given their premises. If you disagree with the premise, you won’t buy the argument, but they don’t have the bandwidth to explain every premise to every new viewer every time. So the occasional non-conservative listener is left with the impression that the arguments are bad, yet is mystified that these bad arguments are somehow convincing people…

Comments are closed.

Related Posts

Recent Posts

Discover more from WIL WHEATON dot NET

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading