Priorities

In perusing yesterday’s New York Times, I was struck by the number of times I thought to myself, “What are they trying to accomplish here?” It’s important to have priorities, but sometimes agendas collide and, when they do, the outcome is something less than noble. For instance:

A German diocese is under the bright lights for the mishandling of abuse while the current Pope was its archbishop. It seems that a priest was accused of molestation, entered therapy, and thereafter returned to his prior pastoral position. While Benedict admits to approving the therapy, a subordinate is taking full responsibility for the reassignment. I can’t help but wonder if someone is falling on his sword to protect higher-ups. This would be far from the first instance of such behavior, but the priority of protection seems misplaced with regard to truth and accountability.

The FCC is proposing a renewed commitment to providing high speed internet access to all areas of the country. There can be little argument that technology and the way we communicate is going in that direction and there can be little argument that we would all gain from the availability of DSL and the like. Nevertheless, companies entrenched in the business of providing computer, cable, television and telephone services are resisting this initiative. Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps they would be forced to upgrade their offerings or relax their grip on near-monopolistic enterprises. Money, in other words. (Or perhaps profits would be more appropriate.) It’s not that they’d make nothing, but only that they’d make less. With the overall gains that individuals and communities would realize, though, it seems that, once again, the priorities are bass-ackwards.

For the first time, South Africa (and Africa, in general) will host World Cup Soccer matches in June. Four games will be played in a new $137 million stadium near Nelspruit that is surrounded by some of the most deprived areas in the world. Mud houses and dirt roads are the norm. Once again, there is nothing new about splendid venues erected amid squalor, but yet again that nasty question about priorities rears up.

The Tea Party, it seems, is steering clear of divisive social issues such as gay marriage and abortion rights. Is it because these issues have no place in politics or because they’d just as soon get as many in their tent before turning to a more strident agenda? Bait and switch, in other words. And in a conservative-related story, the Texas Board of Education seemed to re-write history in establishing new text book guidelines that glorify Ronald Reagan while minimizing Thomas Jefferson. Historically, the Board held sway over the curricula in other states simply by virtue of the number of books Texas ordered. Now, with digital printing, one can only hope such partisanship can be kept within a state boundary. And in both cases, objectivity or honesty takes a lower priority to enrollment and the furthering of specific agendas.

Google seems to be at odds with China over censorship. The Chinese government seems bent on filtering the information available to its citizenry and Google, of course, specializes in all things informative. A no-brainer, right? Tell China to pound sand, pull out of the country, and trust in the creativity of the Chinese common-folk to establish avenues of unfettered access. Ouch! There’s that profit thing again. Oh well, what’s a little loss of freedom when compared to a boatload of yuan?

And finally, a soldier awarded the Silver Star for his meritorious actions during the battle of Wanat, Afghanistan is now subject to a reprimand for poor preparation in the days preceding the battle. WTF? Captain Matthew Meyer is the poor soul caught in this nightmare and, unlike the Catholic official taking one for the Pope, he is being scapegoated, pure and simple. Both scenarios obfuscate accountability, justice, and honor, but one is voluntary while the other is sacrificed in the name of expediency. While the volunteer may be seen as more “honorable”, I’d say we’re picking fly poop out of pepper because neither brings us closer to a responsible conclusion while producing innocent roadkill.

Pragmatism certainly seems to take a higher priority than more altruistic aims, doesn’t it? So should we all shrug and climb on board the “if I don’t do it, someone else will” train? I should hope not. If we lose our priorities and place right and wrong below more immediate and profitable agendas we serve only to hasten our descent into a world where “I” and “mine” are forever superior to “you”, “yours”, or “ours”.