I usually watch only a couple of football games in a season, but since I live with a man who pays more attention, it’s impossible not to have some football news cross my radar. I’m hearing a fair amount about Michael Vick, of course, the latest was that Howie guy with the flattop and the glasses bleating about his ‘redemption.’ His basis for declaring Vick redeemed was that a) Vick is playing well and b) a “sitting president” inserted himself into the discussion. (The logic escapes me, too.)
Don’t get me wrong. I’ll agree that Vick appears to be rehabilitated. He is gainfully employed, has not offended again, at least that anybody knows, and has re-integrated into society in a way the typical ex-con could never hope to. The applicable definitions for ‘rehabilitate’ in Webster’s Dictionary are to “restore or bring to a condition of good health, ability to work, or productive activity’ and to ‘reestablish the good reputation of.’
The appropriate definitions for ‘redemption,’ on the other hand, are ‘deliverance from sin,’ and ‘atonement for guilt.’ (If the word ‘sin’ makes you uncomfortable, try substituting ‘offense against your fellow creatures,’ which is what sin is, after all. Believers simply believe it constitutes an offense against God, too.)
This is where Vick’s situation gets more complicated. I hope those who pronounce him ‘redeemed’ are just ignorant of the word’s meaning, thinking it interchangeable with ‘rehabilitated,’ rather than knowing the difference. Atonement is defined as ‘reparation for a wrong, amends.’ When it is impossible to truly repair the damage done, which is probably true in the majority of cases and is certainly true in this one—the dead and tortured dogs and bait animals can’t be brought back to life or have their suffering erased—atonement is generally understood to begin with heartfelt repentance, genuine remorse and shame for the harm caused. The only ones who know if Vick feels that are Vick himself and possibly, although not certainly, anyone very intimate with him.
The point is, playing good football and staying out of trouble doesn’t prove redemption. It only proves, assuming the latter lasts, rehabilitation. Playing good football and staying out of trouble are in Vick’s own interest; doing so is earning him millions. Pointing to it as evidence of remorse, or real change of character, is absurd.
I can’t know if Vick has undergone any real change, any more than all these sports pundits can, but my money isn’t on it. Real remorse means that if it were somehow possible for Vick to still have his dogfighting business and be guaranteed that no one would ever know and he would never get caught, he still wouldn’t do it because there was a transformation in his conscience and his consciousness. Imagine how big a change that would have to be, if you were someone who was not only capable of but, apparently, enjoyed engaging in such sickeningly sadistic behavior.
There were more than the electrocutions and drownings, which apparently seem less shocking to people the more time that passes. Vick and an associate killed one dog by swinging him by his back legs, slamming him onto the floor repeatedly until they broke his back and neck. When Vick was still in prison, I read an article about the dogs that had been rescued. One was a female who had had every tooth in her mouth removed with a pair of pliers, for the safety of the males who were mated with her. No anesthesia was used and the article remarked that some of the teeth probably required almost an hour to pry out.
I think Vick regrets doing what he did because of the steep price he paid when he got caught, not because he now sees what horrific cruelty it really was. I’ll reiterate that I can only speculate, and I could be wrong. For the sake of his own soul, I hope I am. But all these people who pronounce him ‘redeemed’ and a changed man, can’t know that, either. I wonder how many of them would put their money where their mouths are and ask Mike Vick to dog sit for a week?
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Tea Party and term limits?
I originally wrote a longer version of this post on the night before the election but learned, to my chagrin, that in future I should write my posts in 'Word' and paste here, because sometimes, when you hit 'publish,' it doesn't get published at all, but simply disappears forever into cyberspace....
With the enthusiasm of the former history teacher that I am, I talked a bit about the genius and dedication of those who wrote our Constitution. What an amazing accomplishment it was to come up with the necessary compromises and produce a framework for government that not only still works--220+ years later in a thoroughly changed world--but works remarkably well.
I commented that one of its few flaws (at least in that changed world) is the lack of a provision for term limits for members of Congress. No doubt, when John Adams and others of our founders were slogging through mud and cold on horseback for days on end to reach New York or Philadelphia, they didn't imagine that anyone would choose to do that forever. They couldn't possibly imagine the day when a Speaker of the House would be soaking the taxpayers for millions of dollars to fly her around on a private jet, when members of Congress would be abusing the franking privilege to mail re-election propaganda, and the perks and benefits of elected office were so great that those in those offices would do practically anything to stay.
Or, and this is where my money is, perhaps what they never envisioned was an American electorate so stupid, selfish, or disengaged that they would return people like that to office over and over.
Whichever it was, we need term limits for Congress, and herein lies the flaw. Amending the Constitution requires 2/3 of Congress to propose the amendment (followed by 3/4 of the state legislatures ratifying it.) Congress did this, of course, to limit the President's time in office (22nd amendment) but what are the chances we'll get 357 of these clowns to vote themselves away from the trough?
Which is why I bring up the Tea Party. There is much speculation, by supporters and detractors, about whether this movement has been a 'flash in the pan,' a la the Reform Party, or whether it's here to stay as a force in American politics. Much derision has been directed at this movement, some of it justified, more of it snobbery of the worst kind.
I suggest that an effort for these individuals, which would benefit the entire country (except those porkers at the aforementioned trough) and establish the movement as one with staying power and organizational chops, would be to lead the charge for Congressional term limits with an end run around Congress. The Constitution provides another pathway to amendment, although it's one that's never been used.
3/4 of state conventions can propose an amendment, with ratification following the same route--3/4 of the state legislatures. Congress would fight what they would no doubt consider a 'usurpation' of their power, probably by exploiting the non-specificity of the term 'convention,' but that's the beauty of the Constitution--it isn't solely their power. Our founders, with their incredible prescience, envisioned a time when the people's representatives would refuse to do their will, and provided a way to counter that intransigence.
With the enthusiasm of the former history teacher that I am, I talked a bit about the genius and dedication of those who wrote our Constitution. What an amazing accomplishment it was to come up with the necessary compromises and produce a framework for government that not only still works--220+ years later in a thoroughly changed world--but works remarkably well.
I commented that one of its few flaws (at least in that changed world) is the lack of a provision for term limits for members of Congress. No doubt, when John Adams and others of our founders were slogging through mud and cold on horseback for days on end to reach New York or Philadelphia, they didn't imagine that anyone would choose to do that forever. They couldn't possibly imagine the day when a Speaker of the House would be soaking the taxpayers for millions of dollars to fly her around on a private jet, when members of Congress would be abusing the franking privilege to mail re-election propaganda, and the perks and benefits of elected office were so great that those in those offices would do practically anything to stay.
Or, and this is where my money is, perhaps what they never envisioned was an American electorate so stupid, selfish, or disengaged that they would return people like that to office over and over.
Whichever it was, we need term limits for Congress, and herein lies the flaw. Amending the Constitution requires 2/3 of Congress to propose the amendment (followed by 3/4 of the state legislatures ratifying it.) Congress did this, of course, to limit the President's time in office (22nd amendment) but what are the chances we'll get 357 of these clowns to vote themselves away from the trough?
Which is why I bring up the Tea Party. There is much speculation, by supporters and detractors, about whether this movement has been a 'flash in the pan,' a la the Reform Party, or whether it's here to stay as a force in American politics. Much derision has been directed at this movement, some of it justified, more of it snobbery of the worst kind.
I suggest that an effort for these individuals, which would benefit the entire country (except those porkers at the aforementioned trough) and establish the movement as one with staying power and organizational chops, would be to lead the charge for Congressional term limits with an end run around Congress. The Constitution provides another pathway to amendment, although it's one that's never been used.
3/4 of state conventions can propose an amendment, with ratification following the same route--3/4 of the state legislatures. Congress would fight what they would no doubt consider a 'usurpation' of their power, probably by exploiting the non-specificity of the term 'convention,' but that's the beauty of the Constitution--it isn't solely their power. Our founders, with their incredible prescience, envisioned a time when the people's representatives would refuse to do their will, and provided a way to counter that intransigence.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Gay marriage--good idea or bad? Please weigh in.
My last blog post sparked a spirited but civil exchange of views; I'm grateful to the contributors for their time. On the assumption that most people don't follow a comment thread all the way down, though, I wanted to bring the discussion back to the present.
The point I was really trying to make--and it's up for debate whether or not I made it very effectively--is that people who oppose making gay marriage legal are by and large not motivated by 'hate,' and that accusations to that effect are not only hateful, themselves, but counterproductive.
Personally, I support the idea of gay marriage, but I refuse to demonize people who don't. Some of them may be motivated by homophobia, but I believe the vast majority of them have reservations which are motivated by sincere religious convictions, or sincere concern over negative consequences for society. It is the latter of these two that I am most interested in hearing from people about. Obviously, if the objections are religious in nature, there is no real basis for discussing them--one either believes in the validity of the strictures or one doesn't. If one does believe in them, but accompanies that belief with respect and kindness to individual gays and lesbians, I cannot condemn such belief, although many do.
What follows is a column I wrote in August of 2003 for the Wilmington Star-News, when the issue of gay marriage was beginning to be much in the news. I was teaching history at the time, so there was an emphasis on giving the controversy some historical perspective. I was gratified that it generated a lot of mail, and that virtually all of it, no matter the opinion of the writer, was thoughtful.
August 27, 2003
It's virtually impossible to avoid the influence of our own preferences, prejudices, and fears when forming opinions about issues. We're even more likely to do it when the issue is controversial, which compounds the problem. It is a challenge to relegate those emotions to secondary status--to acknowledge that they're not sufficient for forming an intelligent opinion about what government should do to deal with complex problems.
Whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry is an issue that's picking up a lot of steam. So far at least, public discourse seems civil, which is good. I hope that people on both sides of the question can maintain an awareness that the majority of those who disagree with them are good people who care about the future of our society, but who simply disagree fundamentally about what is in that society’s best interest. Any time policy must be made that deals with something as sensitive and personal as human relationships, the going won’t be easy.
The issue of homosexual marriage has to be considered from two completely separate perspectives—the legal and the religious. And while the question of morality figures in both, it is important to remember that the first can be dealt with by our public institutions—legislatures and courts—but the second cannot. After much thought, I am leaning towards the view that gay marriage is inevitable and, from a legal standpoint, the right thing to do.
If civil marriage is a legally binding agreement between two people who make certain promises about fidelity, property, and commitment and who then receive certain guarantees about insurance benefits, property, and custody of children, then it seems unjustifiable to deny it to any consenting adult American who wishes to engage in it. Whether these civil marriages will be celebrated in churches, though, as unions blessed by God—well, that is a matter for the churches (as individual congregations and as members of larger institutions) to decide. Which of those—the individual churches or their parent institutions—has the greatest influence, will depend on the denomination.
The most frequently voiced argument against gay marriage (and I suppose this falls into both the legal and the religious categories) is that it will “threaten” the institution of marriage as it now stands. This seems to me not only vague, but specious. The existence of homosexual marriages is not going to dissuade heterosexual couples from marrying if that’s what they want to do; I doubt it would affect them much at all. The concern of opponents that deserves the most consideration is the welfare of children being parented by gay couples. To my knowledge, there have been no studies that have included enough subjects and have followed them long enough to really give reliable information about the long-term effects of being raised in a household headed by a same-sex couple. If denying marriage to those couples meant they would not be raising children, then the situation would be different. But it doesn’t. Gay couples are living together already—and raising children—all over the country. It’s a fact. Perhaps legal recognition of homosexual unions would actually be a step forward in terms of protecting the interests of children affected by them.
We may like the idea of homosexuals marrying or we may not, on an elemental level, but with regard to civil rights and their equal application to all citizens, the Constitution and the law prevail, not our gut feelings or our religious convictions. How this all plays out in the religious arena, though, promises to be very interesting. I think it might, to some extent, even galvanize a sort of third “Great Awakening,” with schisms appearing in many denominations. The Episcopalians are already feeling the repercussions of ordaining a gay bishop, and the rank and file are speaking their minds through donations or the withholding of donations, just as the Catholic faithful have done over the sex abuse scandal in their church. It’s not a bad thing, really, and very typical of our history.
A European clergyman once told me that he feared faith was dying on his continent and that he was amazed by the religious vitality he saw in America. I told him that continual waves of immigration have meant a history of clashes between established groups and groups who were outside the mainstream, between the ‘status quo’ and new ideas. Upheaval and discord might be the immediate results of these clashes, but accommodation, assimilation, and toleration had to be the final ones if we were going to continue to live together as Americans devoted to the principles of liberty.
The point I was really trying to make--and it's up for debate whether or not I made it very effectively--is that people who oppose making gay marriage legal are by and large not motivated by 'hate,' and that accusations to that effect are not only hateful, themselves, but counterproductive.
Personally, I support the idea of gay marriage, but I refuse to demonize people who don't. Some of them may be motivated by homophobia, but I believe the vast majority of them have reservations which are motivated by sincere religious convictions, or sincere concern over negative consequences for society. It is the latter of these two that I am most interested in hearing from people about. Obviously, if the objections are religious in nature, there is no real basis for discussing them--one either believes in the validity of the strictures or one doesn't. If one does believe in them, but accompanies that belief with respect and kindness to individual gays and lesbians, I cannot condemn such belief, although many do.
What follows is a column I wrote in August of 2003 for the Wilmington Star-News, when the issue of gay marriage was beginning to be much in the news. I was teaching history at the time, so there was an emphasis on giving the controversy some historical perspective. I was gratified that it generated a lot of mail, and that virtually all of it, no matter the opinion of the writer, was thoughtful.
August 27, 2003
It's virtually impossible to avoid the influence of our own preferences, prejudices, and fears when forming opinions about issues. We're even more likely to do it when the issue is controversial, which compounds the problem. It is a challenge to relegate those emotions to secondary status--to acknowledge that they're not sufficient for forming an intelligent opinion about what government should do to deal with complex problems.
Whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry is an issue that's picking up a lot of steam. So far at least, public discourse seems civil, which is good. I hope that people on both sides of the question can maintain an awareness that the majority of those who disagree with them are good people who care about the future of our society, but who simply disagree fundamentally about what is in that society’s best interest. Any time policy must be made that deals with something as sensitive and personal as human relationships, the going won’t be easy.
The issue of homosexual marriage has to be considered from two completely separate perspectives—the legal and the religious. And while the question of morality figures in both, it is important to remember that the first can be dealt with by our public institutions—legislatures and courts—but the second cannot. After much thought, I am leaning towards the view that gay marriage is inevitable and, from a legal standpoint, the right thing to do.
If civil marriage is a legally binding agreement between two people who make certain promises about fidelity, property, and commitment and who then receive certain guarantees about insurance benefits, property, and custody of children, then it seems unjustifiable to deny it to any consenting adult American who wishes to engage in it. Whether these civil marriages will be celebrated in churches, though, as unions blessed by God—well, that is a matter for the churches (as individual congregations and as members of larger institutions) to decide. Which of those—the individual churches or their parent institutions—has the greatest influence, will depend on the denomination.
The most frequently voiced argument against gay marriage (and I suppose this falls into both the legal and the religious categories) is that it will “threaten” the institution of marriage as it now stands. This seems to me not only vague, but specious. The existence of homosexual marriages is not going to dissuade heterosexual couples from marrying if that’s what they want to do; I doubt it would affect them much at all. The concern of opponents that deserves the most consideration is the welfare of children being parented by gay couples. To my knowledge, there have been no studies that have included enough subjects and have followed them long enough to really give reliable information about the long-term effects of being raised in a household headed by a same-sex couple. If denying marriage to those couples meant they would not be raising children, then the situation would be different. But it doesn’t. Gay couples are living together already—and raising children—all over the country. It’s a fact. Perhaps legal recognition of homosexual unions would actually be a step forward in terms of protecting the interests of children affected by them.
We may like the idea of homosexuals marrying or we may not, on an elemental level, but with regard to civil rights and their equal application to all citizens, the Constitution and the law prevail, not our gut feelings or our religious convictions. How this all plays out in the religious arena, though, promises to be very interesting. I think it might, to some extent, even galvanize a sort of third “Great Awakening,” with schisms appearing in many denominations. The Episcopalians are already feeling the repercussions of ordaining a gay bishop, and the rank and file are speaking their minds through donations or the withholding of donations, just as the Catholic faithful have done over the sex abuse scandal in their church. It’s not a bad thing, really, and very typical of our history.
A European clergyman once told me that he feared faith was dying on his continent and that he was amazed by the religious vitality he saw in America. I told him that continual waves of immigration have meant a history of clashes between established groups and groups who were outside the mainstream, between the ‘status quo’ and new ideas. Upheaval and discord might be the immediate results of these clashes, but accommodation, assimilation, and toleration had to be the final ones if we were going to continue to live together as Americans devoted to the principles of liberty.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
NY gubernatorial candidate Paladino's comments regarding gays
Oh boy, here we go again--a firestorm about comments that the person who made them interprets one way, some listeners and the media, another.
Carl Paladino, running against Mario Cuomo for governor of New York, decried events like gay pride parades, and came out against gay marriage. According to some accounts, he used words like "pervert," and was playing to his conservative Orthodox Jewish audience--none of which excess I am defending, and I really can't stand name-calling--but people quick to jump on his condemnation of gay pride events would like to gloss over the fact that his objections are not to gay people living their lives and being who they are, but to public behavior that is gross and offensive, and would be just as offensive if it were engaged in, in public, by heterosexuals. (I realize that seems like a bourgois concept to those who think they are the intellectual and moral superiors of the 'common folk,' but there is a reason that a concept of "common decency" has been a feature of any stable community, at virtually every time and place in history.)
It's no surprise, of course, that Paladino is being vilified in the press, although he was at pains to point out that he condemned any persecution of gays and that his own philosophy was to "live and let live." From what I've read, his gay nephew is a part of his campaign team.
That said, I am not interested in defending Paladino's opinions here, as I don't share most of them. I think gay people should have the right to marry, and I don't think anyone is qualified to decide what constitutes a "valid" lifestyle, as long as it isn't one that exploits someone.
What I _am_ defending is the concept of being able to have an opinion without becoming an object of hate and ugliness. I think it is incredible that many of the same people who get the most angry about Christians (in particular, but basically any group that opposes gay marriage) are very much like the people they decry. The same self-righteousness that outrages them, the same sense of moral superiority they deplore, the same intolerance of dissent, are hallmarks of their own attitude. (Speaking of which, I happened to notice the other day that a friend of a friend on Facebook posted a link to an article about Paladino, and after condemning him as 'hate-filled,' went on, in the space of three lines, to call him an "A-hole" and a "rectal cyst." Don't you love the irony?)
I'm tired--and, frankly, bored--by those who continue to try to demonize anyone who isn't supportive of gay marriage. Sure, some of them are probably homophobic, but many more of them are kind, intelligent people who have friends and relatives who are gay, but who simply have sincere reservations about radically redefining the basic societal structure that has existed for millenia. I don't agree with them, but I'm not prepared to ridicule them and call them names because of it. Perhaps I'm just not hate-filled enough to do that.
Carl Paladino, running against Mario Cuomo for governor of New York, decried events like gay pride parades, and came out against gay marriage. According to some accounts, he used words like "pervert," and was playing to his conservative Orthodox Jewish audience--none of which excess I am defending, and I really can't stand name-calling--but people quick to jump on his condemnation of gay pride events would like to gloss over the fact that his objections are not to gay people living their lives and being who they are, but to public behavior that is gross and offensive, and would be just as offensive if it were engaged in, in public, by heterosexuals. (I realize that seems like a bourgois concept to those who think they are the intellectual and moral superiors of the 'common folk,' but there is a reason that a concept of "common decency" has been a feature of any stable community, at virtually every time and place in history.)
It's no surprise, of course, that Paladino is being vilified in the press, although he was at pains to point out that he condemned any persecution of gays and that his own philosophy was to "live and let live." From what I've read, his gay nephew is a part of his campaign team.
That said, I am not interested in defending Paladino's opinions here, as I don't share most of them. I think gay people should have the right to marry, and I don't think anyone is qualified to decide what constitutes a "valid" lifestyle, as long as it isn't one that exploits someone.
What I _am_ defending is the concept of being able to have an opinion without becoming an object of hate and ugliness. I think it is incredible that many of the same people who get the most angry about Christians (in particular, but basically any group that opposes gay marriage) are very much like the people they decry. The same self-righteousness that outrages them, the same sense of moral superiority they deplore, the same intolerance of dissent, are hallmarks of their own attitude. (Speaking of which, I happened to notice the other day that a friend of a friend on Facebook posted a link to an article about Paladino, and after condemning him as 'hate-filled,' went on, in the space of three lines, to call him an "A-hole" and a "rectal cyst." Don't you love the irony?)
I'm tired--and, frankly, bored--by those who continue to try to demonize anyone who isn't supportive of gay marriage. Sure, some of them are probably homophobic, but many more of them are kind, intelligent people who have friends and relatives who are gay, but who simply have sincere reservations about radically redefining the basic societal structure that has existed for millenia. I don't agree with them, but I'm not prepared to ridicule them and call them names because of it. Perhaps I'm just not hate-filled enough to do that.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Stuxnet--'google it'
One of my favorite movies is "Master and Commander" starring Russell Crowe as Captain Jack Aubrey of the British Royal Navy. The movie was based on a long series of meticulously researched novels by the late Patrick O'Brian; the script incorporated elements of many of them. In the film, there is a scene in which Aubrey is holding a model of a ship that two of his crew have made, one of them having heard accounts of its construction at a Boston shipyard. Aubrey and his officers can't figure out why they've been able to inflict so little damage on this enemy ship, until they see the thickness of the hull and other innovative particulars of its design. Holding the model, he muses, "What a fascinating modern age we live in." (I think that's exact, but if not, it's close enough:))
I thought of that when I first heard of 'Stuxnet.' It is a computer worm that is generally being credited with derailing, at least temporarily, Iran's nuclear program. Apparently, it has a number of features no other malware has had, including the ability to know what systems it has penetrated and 'decide' whether or not to attack them. The worm was designed to operate in Siemens products, which are the main components in Iranian industrial facilities, including their nuclear ones. It has been discovered in a number of other countries, but Iran appears to be its target. The Iranians discovered its existence in June, but there is evidence it has been working for possibly a year. (According to what I read, the worm had to have been introduced via USB port--not over the internet.)
The Iranians have pointed accusatory fingers at Israel, the United States and India, but primarily at Israel. It is too early to tell, especially since Iran is not going to be entirely forthcoming, how much damage Stuxnet has done to their nuclear program so far, or how much continued capability it has, but if indeed Israel is responsible, it certainly answers the question of why they never bombed those facilities when it seemed there was still time to do so.
(I am not very knowledgable on the subject of computers, so if I have mischaracterized anything about Stuxnet's capabilities or methods, or used incorrect terminology, it's not surprising.)
I thought of that when I first heard of 'Stuxnet.' It is a computer worm that is generally being credited with derailing, at least temporarily, Iran's nuclear program. Apparently, it has a number of features no other malware has had, including the ability to know what systems it has penetrated and 'decide' whether or not to attack them. The worm was designed to operate in Siemens products, which are the main components in Iranian industrial facilities, including their nuclear ones. It has been discovered in a number of other countries, but Iran appears to be its target. The Iranians discovered its existence in June, but there is evidence it has been working for possibly a year. (According to what I read, the worm had to have been introduced via USB port--not over the internet.)
The Iranians have pointed accusatory fingers at Israel, the United States and India, but primarily at Israel. It is too early to tell, especially since Iran is not going to be entirely forthcoming, how much damage Stuxnet has done to their nuclear program so far, or how much continued capability it has, but if indeed Israel is responsible, it certainly answers the question of why they never bombed those facilities when it seemed there was still time to do so.
(I am not very knowledgable on the subject of computers, so if I have mischaracterized anything about Stuxnet's capabilities or methods, or used incorrect terminology, it's not surprising.)
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Bullying of gay students--what's the solution?
'Heartbreaking' is the word that comes to mind with regard to last week's suicide of a Rutgers University freshman. Tyler Clementi leapt to his death from the George Washington Bridge, prompted it appears, by the public humiliation he received at the hands of his roommate and another student. They hid a camera in the dorm room Tyler and his roommate shared, recorded a sexual encounter Tyler had with another male, and streamed it, live, to the web.
The incredible cruelty of such a vicious trick takes my breath away. Tyler was not just outed and embarrassed, he was violated. And thanks to modern technology, he knew that his humiliation was guaranteed never to really disappear. I wonder if that might have even been the worst part, the part that drove him to think he simply couldn't get through this, because it would never really end.
And then, in California, a 13-year-old has just died after ten days on life support--his attempt to hang himself from a tree didn't succeed at first, leaving him in a coma. There was another who shot himself in Texas, another suicide in Indiana, all boys who decided they could no longer take the persecution being meted out to them by classmates because they were gay.
I have never known anyone who is gay that didn't really struggle as a teenager. To come to a level of self-acceptance and self-love required time, and that these young men didn't have more of it is a terrible tragedy and a great loss.
The thing I wonder about is, were these kids and so many others like them persecuted because they are gay, or because they are vulnerable? Is it really the homosexuality that motivates their tormentors, or are they just motivated to inflict harm and suffering, and gay kids are easy targets? Perhaps it's a meaningless distinction, but I'm not so sure.
If it really is the homosexuality that triggers the bullying, then the stock answer is that more education is needed, about both homosexuality and 'tolerance.' The reasoning is that these kids act out of ignorance and fear. That they need to be taught to see homosexuality and gay people in a different light. Once they do, their behavior changes.
But I'm not convinced kids are all that ignorant. I think some of them are just vicious. The capacity to be cruel exists in all of us, but to a greater degree in some than others. A lot of bullying goes on in schools that is _not_ targeted at gays, which supports the conclusion that the motivation is simply sadism--pleasure in someone else's suffering. Gay kids, or those who are struggling to come to terms with whether or not they are, are simply better targets than virtually everyone else, because their 'issue' tends to isolate them. Although it's changing some, confiding in parents or friends is so much more difficult because it requires disclosure the child is often not ready to make.
I wonder sometimes if kids are crueler now than they used to be, or if the popular culture just gives them so many more examples to emulate and technology gives them so many more ways to stick the knife in deeper. Either way, I don't know that the conventional wisdom--that the answer is to 'educate' them into being more accepting of or comfortable with homosexuality--is the most effective solution at their age. I taught high school for many years, so I know that it's something that makes many kids, particularly boys, _un_comfortable, and growing up is what dissipates that discomfort, in most cases. The important point is that the vast majority of these students who were squeamish about homosexuality were not out tormenting kids they thought were gay.
There are people, both gay and non-gay, who think the only acceptable end goal is for everyone to be okay with it--to regard homosexuality as inherently 'normal' and to be in favor of gay marriage, and so on. To that end, some of them label anyone who doesn't/isn't as a "hater" or a bigot.
I think that's unrealistic and unproductive thinking, though, and not the best line of offense when it comes to preventing more tragedies like Tyler Clementi's. We need to teach kids instead, that the criteria that determine their treatment of others has nothing whatever to do with their personal feelings. It has everything to do with kindness, decency, and honor.
You don't have to approve of another person's lifestyle, or be comfortable and non-judgmental about all their preferences in order to choose not to bully them. You choose not to because you're a decent human being and decent human beings don't do that to other human beings. But, how to instill that conviction in kids who didn't incorporate it at home, I don't know.
The incredible cruelty of such a vicious trick takes my breath away. Tyler was not just outed and embarrassed, he was violated. And thanks to modern technology, he knew that his humiliation was guaranteed never to really disappear. I wonder if that might have even been the worst part, the part that drove him to think he simply couldn't get through this, because it would never really end.
And then, in California, a 13-year-old has just died after ten days on life support--his attempt to hang himself from a tree didn't succeed at first, leaving him in a coma. There was another who shot himself in Texas, another suicide in Indiana, all boys who decided they could no longer take the persecution being meted out to them by classmates because they were gay.
I have never known anyone who is gay that didn't really struggle as a teenager. To come to a level of self-acceptance and self-love required time, and that these young men didn't have more of it is a terrible tragedy and a great loss.
The thing I wonder about is, were these kids and so many others like them persecuted because they are gay, or because they are vulnerable? Is it really the homosexuality that motivates their tormentors, or are they just motivated to inflict harm and suffering, and gay kids are easy targets? Perhaps it's a meaningless distinction, but I'm not so sure.
If it really is the homosexuality that triggers the bullying, then the stock answer is that more education is needed, about both homosexuality and 'tolerance.' The reasoning is that these kids act out of ignorance and fear. That they need to be taught to see homosexuality and gay people in a different light. Once they do, their behavior changes.
But I'm not convinced kids are all that ignorant. I think some of them are just vicious. The capacity to be cruel exists in all of us, but to a greater degree in some than others. A lot of bullying goes on in schools that is _not_ targeted at gays, which supports the conclusion that the motivation is simply sadism--pleasure in someone else's suffering. Gay kids, or those who are struggling to come to terms with whether or not they are, are simply better targets than virtually everyone else, because their 'issue' tends to isolate them. Although it's changing some, confiding in parents or friends is so much more difficult because it requires disclosure the child is often not ready to make.
I wonder sometimes if kids are crueler now than they used to be, or if the popular culture just gives them so many more examples to emulate and technology gives them so many more ways to stick the knife in deeper. Either way, I don't know that the conventional wisdom--that the answer is to 'educate' them into being more accepting of or comfortable with homosexuality--is the most effective solution at their age. I taught high school for many years, so I know that it's something that makes many kids, particularly boys, _un_comfortable, and growing up is what dissipates that discomfort, in most cases. The important point is that the vast majority of these students who were squeamish about homosexuality were not out tormenting kids they thought were gay.
There are people, both gay and non-gay, who think the only acceptable end goal is for everyone to be okay with it--to regard homosexuality as inherently 'normal' and to be in favor of gay marriage, and so on. To that end, some of them label anyone who doesn't/isn't as a "hater" or a bigot.
I think that's unrealistic and unproductive thinking, though, and not the best line of offense when it comes to preventing more tragedies like Tyler Clementi's. We need to teach kids instead, that the criteria that determine their treatment of others has nothing whatever to do with their personal feelings. It has everything to do with kindness, decency, and honor.
You don't have to approve of another person's lifestyle, or be comfortable and non-judgmental about all their preferences in order to choose not to bully them. You choose not to because you're a decent human being and decent human beings don't do that to other human beings. But, how to instill that conviction in kids who didn't incorporate it at home, I don't know.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Israeli construction moratorium expiration: genuine obstacle to Israeli/Palestinian peace talks, or red herring?
Any opinions on this subject? I'm leaning more toward red herring, because one has to wonder why so little was accomplished in the ten full months the moratorium was in effect. It was a conciliatory gesture aimed at re-starting meaningful talks, but none got going until it was set to expire. Now the Palestinian demand is for it to be extended, apparently without any firm concession in return.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)