Chapter 48
If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Do It
Everybody’s trying to tell us how to live our lives these days. It’s annoying to me . . . In a big way. Here we are in a nation founded on personal liberty, but everywhere we turn there’s either a finger wagging at us or a law being proposed to stop us from the pursuit of happiness.
And you know, it’s more than annoying. It’s kind of alarming, don’t you think?
I say, if you don’t like someone’s behavior because he’s cheating on his wife—then don’t you do it. Don’t worry about him. If you don’t like it, don’t you do it.
If you’re concerned about gay people who want to get married . . . number one, don’t marry a gay person! What does it do to you if two lesbians get married? What does it do to your faith? Nothing.
If you think abortion is bad—don’t have one. But if I don’t think it’s bad? Don’t you decide for me what I need. It’s not your place.
And this is really the crux of this book. It’s the crux of everything:
If you don’t like it, don’t do it.
You don’t like to drink? You think alcohol is bad . . . then don’t drink. But I like my alcohol. I like to have a glass of champagne. I don’t want you all up in my business because I’m having a glass of the bubbly.
Out on the road, it’s a whole different story.
If I’m getting in my car, and I’ve had a
bottle
of champagne . . . yeah, it would be a good idea for you to stop me. Because I could be affecting your life.
Then
it has something to do with you.
If you don’t like violent TV—don’t watch it.
If you don’t like seeing sex on TV—don’t watch it.
Same with the movies. You don’t like all the violence—don’t go see those movies.
Some people like a good, violent movie. Like
The Three Stooges
. It’s violent. People getting hit all the time. You don’t like it? Don’t watch it. But don’t take it away, because I do like it. And I haven’t killed anybody or hurt anybody. If you have four examples of how it
may
affect some people, OK. We’ll keep an eye out for those people who may have those symptoms. But I don’t have those symptoms. So your decision to change what I do is really annoying
If you don’t like red meat, don’t eat it. If you’re a vegan, eat your vegetables and be happy. But if I’m a steak ’n’ potatoes girl . . . guess what? I don’t want to hear from you. And I don’t want you showing me pictures about how chickens and veal are butchered. I don’t want to see it! And I don’t see why you think it’s OK to show it to me simply because you don’t want me to do what I am enjoying.
If you don’t like it—don’t eat it.
I could see it if I had peanuts and you had a peanut allergy. Some people get anywhere near peanuts and it’s . . . PHOOMPH . . . like, their skin falls off. That is understandable. But you’re not saying to me, “You can’t have peanuts.” You’re saying, “You can’t have peanuts and make out with me.” That’s OK.
You don’t want me to wear a fur coat? You don’t like fur—don’t wear it!
Why should somebody not affected by something decide what someone else can or can’t do? People used to say to me, “Well, why did you buy that?” Well, why do you want to know? What do you care what I’m spending my money on? I’m not married to you. I am not your child. You are not my accountant. You have no business asking me that question.
“Wow, you paid that much for that?” Yeah . . . And?
You’re mad. You’re mad because I bought something with my money that I earned ’cause you think it’s too much money to spend. But that’s not my problem. That’s your problem.
So it comes down to my money that I earned. My decisions. What I choose to do.
As long as it doesn’t come into your house and mess with you—leave me alone. I’ll go back to where I started . . . Doesn’t it seem that what I’m talking about is the protection of our personal freedoms?
But here’s the problem. One-on-one meddling in our private lives is irritating enough. This whole ugly “interference mentality” went to Washington and joined the debate over health care. You heard congressmen and senators deciding not to vote for it because it might cover something they don’t like . . . Or want . . . Or find creepy.
Repeat after me: If you don’t like it, don’t do it.
You know, I listen to all these people who are still arguing that we never should have passed health care. Well, here’s my take on that: In the next year, every senator and congressman who’s against it should lose their benefits. They should all have to go out and get insurance like everybody else. And then they’d get it. Then they would understand it. It’s like politicians who’ve never been to war sending kids to war. Sure, it’s easy for them. If they’ve never been there, they might take a little more time before they made their decision. So if you have to fight tooth and nail to get your health benefits, I think you’d be a little more receptive to the pro side of the debate. You might understand why some systems might not work.
We heard the no’s from people who have excellent health care. People who are covered every which way. They get a hangnail? They can go to the doctor. But so many other people don’t have insurance and can’t afford it. They can’t get it because the decision is in the hands of people who have 100 percent insurance. So these guys and gals are still sitting around saying, “Aw, I don’t think this is a good idea for the country . . .” I say turn the tables on them. Would that be fair? Would that be better if we said, “OK, you don’t get to have
your
insurance. You have to have what we have. You have to take exactly the same routes that we have to take.”
When President Obama addressed Congress, he said everybody should have what we have. What he should have said is, “We should have what they have.” That’s really what needs to happen. And that will spark a debate like you can’t believe, because the minute people who have had the best can’t have the best . . . there’s a fight.
The point is health care reform was finally made law. But some people just won’t let go of it. Too many things in it they don’t like. Or want. Or find creepy. Well, they need to get past all that. Drop the shoe, Sparky!
Maybe they’ll read this book. Or maybe you can tell them something for me:
If you don’t like it, don’t do it.
Chapter 49
Should We Be Worried About This?
OK, we’ve all had this happen. We’re ready to sit down and have dinner. The phone rings. It’s your long-lost high school friend. “Guess who this is? . . . Really, guess! I ran into Jane at the supermarket and she gave me your number. I hope it’s OK.” Maybe it is OK. Maybe it’s not. The fact is, it’s a little late to ask that question.
Whoever gave your number out to that old high school classmate probably thought they were doing something kind for you. Or they were in the produce section and felt kind of put on the spot . . . Or maybe woozy from garlic fumes. The smarter thing to do—always—is to say, “You know what? Let me see if I can get hold of them.” And call them and say, “I just ran into so-and-so, and they want your number. Do you want me to give it to them?” It only takes as long as it takes for you to write down the information.
Now, most people don’t know what your relationship to that person is. Whether you’re ready to talk to them, or whether you want to talk to them or be anywhere near them. And when you give out someone’s personal information . . . whether it’s an email address, a home address, or a phone number, you are potentially endangering them. Because you don’t know what you’re dealing with.
And even if you think, “Oh, I know this person wouldn’t hurt her,” the fact is, you don’t know what the relationship to the person whose information you’re giving out has been. So take a minute and just call or send an email making sure it’s all right to share that info.
I’m a big believer in respecting personal boundaries. I try to respect other people’s and I want them to respect mine . . . You do too, I bet. If not, please take a step back. Go back to the beginning of this book and start over.
I’m not just talking about people getting physically close or walking in your yard without your permission. That’s another conversation. This is about personal information boundaries . . . and people need to respect those too. Including your friends and coworkers.
Think about what happens with your emails. You write them, you send them. Done, right? Nope. Because then what happens? People forward. So you send an email to somebody personal in your life. You’ve not only sent the text that you wrote to them, but if that gets forwarded, not only does your message get forwarded, so can your email address.
It’s like this: I send an email to you. You say, I think Sherri would think this is funny. So you forward it to Sherri. Sherri then gets what I wrote—plus my email address. That’s fine with me because Sherri’s cool, but what if it’s not Sherri? What if it’s somebody I don’t want to have all that? I didn’t get a choice.
They have this thing called Blastmail, which is tech slang for a mass email from a mailing list. Now, say your friend sends out a Blastmail to you and thirty other people. Unless your friend knows how to mask them, every single one of those email addresses show up there too. So thirty other people, some of whom may be strangers, just got your email address. And you just got theirs. I just learned this . . . the hard way.
The privacy thing is only part of it. You know those little buttons for “Reply” and “Forward”? There’s also one for “Reply All.” Somebody clicks that, all thirty of you get their reply. Handy, I suppose, if you’re working on a project with a large group. Or if you’re a Baldwin or a Jonas and you want to make sure everybody in the family gets the word. But some folks get irritated when it’s thirty responses to the joke about “You know you’re over fifty when . . .” And then for the next three days you’re getting emails coming to you from amateur comedians who pressed “Reply All.”
I’m guilty of this. People send me wonderful, dopey emails that I love, so if I know other people that I think will like it, I send it to them.
But if you send out something that contains confidential information . . . it’s all on you. So it’s worth it to take a moment to read what you are sending. Then just make a new email without any of the sensitive content in it. That’s an easy cut and paste job, and then you’re covered.
I guess if people take the time and look at what they’re doing before they send their emails out, a lot of hurt feelings can be avoided. The ladies on
The View
were talking about the fact that they have sent out emails to people by mistake. It’s because they weren’t paying attention. But it’s too important not to. You’ve got to know what button you’re clicking. You think you’re forwarding but you’re actually . . . replying?!? Uh-oh!
The Web is a great tool for communication. Unfortunately, it’s just as great for miscommunication. Or a little too much communication.
This brings me to Tiger Woods. If nothing else came out of all that, it’s learning that there are no borders in the digital world. If you put anything out there, you lose control of it. Someone can take it. And use it.
All those women say they have all of these texts between them. Now, with emails, I understand how you can save those. But a text message, I don’t know how you physically save text messages for nine, ten, twelve months. Unless you’re transcribing them. Or doing a cut and paste to email or Word. I’d like to know how they did that. How does that work? I need to know how to keep my texts for an entire year. Maybe I can do something with all those racy text messages Baby Elmo is always sending me.
Kidding!
But think about it. It just seems very odd of them to do that . . . to save all those supposed texts from him . . . For a year! What were they planning? I’m just curious. Just how does that work and should we all be worried about this? Because this is something that can potentially affect every person who uses texts.
You know, when you write a letter, people can keep them. So, I guess, any communication can be held. That is to say you could turn it into a booklet of the letters that were written to you. You could even turn them into dialogue for a musical. But now we have texts and we all have to start wondering, “Wow. Wow . . . How’s that going to affect me?”
It’s kind of spooky when you think about it. We suddenly get this new idea that you can’t communicate without fear now. Anything you text—to anybody—is floating around like a big shoe that’s waiting to drop.
Well, I guess people are starting to get hip to the problem, because they have come up with this new program, some app for cell phones that lets you make your text messages disappear from the other person’s cell phone after they are read. It’s kind of like the self-destruct thing at the beginning of
Mission: Impossible
. . . but without all the smoke. The maker’s slogan is “Cover your tracks.” Well, like they say, necessity is a mother.
They’re calling this app
tigertext
.
Nuff said.
Chapter 50
Bloggers Are Cowards
Not long ago, a blog published a story that the poet Maya Angelou couldn’t appear at an awards event in Los Angeles because she had been rushed to the hospital. Instantly, the Web started buzzing. This was big. Twitter kicked in and, you know, next thing . . . word was out that Maya Angelou was dead. Her family and friends heard about it and started calling the house and panicking. She wasn’t dead. She wasn’t even in LA . . . which is almost as bad. She was in St. Louis, kicking back at her house.
This particular blog apologized for lighting the fuse on that story, but it’s not the first blog to get it wrong in a big way. Another one famously posted a death speculation about Fidel Castro back in 2007. A bit premature.
The thing about these two bloggers, is that at least we know who they are. Shame on y’all!! But with most, you don’t. They’re anonymous. Anonymous assassins. They publish rumors and innuendo and sensational guesses. If it’s about you, you’re getting slammed left and right and you don’t even know who it is.
And forget famous people. This is happening to you and your neighbors too. Even kids in school. Someone writes something on their friend’s Facebook page about someone else. And
nobody
has to check it. But people see it and say, “Oh, this is a fact.”
Bloggers are people who write stuff and no one has to check it. There’s no one saying, “Is this accurate?” And true or not, once you say it in our wired-up society now, it travels around the world . . . four thousand times before noon.
Hey, you anonymous, unaccountable blogger. You’re a coward. And my name is Whoopi Goldberg, if you’re looking for me. I’m not scared to tell you that you’re a coward because you hide. You don’t want the effects of what you’ve said to come back and kick you in the ass. So there are no consequences. And because there are no consequences, you think you’re absolutely free to say and do whatever you want. But what if there were consequences to this? . . . What if you had to register your real name? You’d have to take the heat that you stirred up.
And that means that you’d have to own the consequences of your actions. Or your words. Let the lawsuits begin!
When consequences disappear, civility goes out the door and anarchy takes over. If there is no consequence for bloggers doing damage, then they’re just going to keep doing whatever they want to do . . . saying whatever they want to say. And who’s to stop them?
What’s that? Do I hear you saying wait a second? “Um—er, Whoopi? Isn’t this a contradiction? Aren’t you one moment talking about personal liberties like freedom of speech, and now here you are calling out bloggers for exercising theirs?”
You’re right, I do prize freedom of speech. But last time I checked, freedom of speech doesn’t mean you get to say any old thing you like. “Fire” in a theater and “bomb” in an airport are just two that come to mind. There are also libel and slander laws we all pretty much agree help protect folks from written and spoken abuses. And that’s where I come down against the anonymous bloggers who do harm to people by spreading lies—without accountability—and think it’s all cool just because it’s on the Web.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the Internet. But I don’t love it. I like that I can find facts and information, but I don’t like that anyone can say anything they want about people anonymously. But I do love it that some judge ruled that the anonymous blogger running
Skanks in NYC
had to reveal her identity to the ex-model who sued to find out who was talking shit about her. I think that’s what it should be. I think you should have to be real. I don’t think you should be able to post anonymously.
You want to talk shit? Face up.
It comes back to accountability. You should not be able to write just anything and have it circulate like that and not be held accountable for what you’ve written. I don’t think it’s good for adults . . . And I certainly don’t think it’s good for kids.
Remember, you don’t have to be famous to have this happen to you. The best example of that, of course, was the security guard that they wrongly accused in the Atlanta bombings at the 1996 Olympics, Richard Jewell. That poor man’s plight illustrated how you don’t have to have your facts straight. And you can say it loudly and largely on paper, on television, everywhere.
And ruin a guy.