The current tug-of-war over health care is exactly the kind of case where I stress to non-involved Americans that they have to PAY ATTENTION!
Yes, it’s hard. But anything worthwhile is hard. No, it’s not always exciting. But again – anything worthwhile is not always exciting. The republican movement seems to be “Anything that the president wants, we automatically oppose.” So when you see an ad about healthcare saying that the Obama plan will make you change your doctor to some kid who got his doctorate at Dope U. in Tijuana or whatever, look beyond the ad and find out what the truth is.
The most important aspect of this attention-paying is that you need to develop your own idea of what American health care should look like, or if we should have it AT ALL, and make sure that our representatives are doing that. If they’re not, vote against them next time.
For instance, my idea of American health care is that A) all Americans should have some kind of health care, including basic services that are not now covered by welfare such as annual check-ups and well-child checks, B) large employers should be REQUIRED to provide affordable health care for their employees, and C) small employers who DO provide affordable health care for their employees get massive tax breaks. President Obama’s plan seems to be similar to this. In four years, if either we don’t have health care, or if we do and it’s not satisfactory to me, then I’m going to see what my representatives and the president did or did not do on this issue and vote accordingly.
Peace.
Randal
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Consistency
Something happened at my day job recently that made me realize that the word “consistency” is going the way of “extreme” and “normal” and “regular”. It is losing the meaning that it SHOULD have.
I was disciplined at work for an accident, “consistently” (according to the store manager) with someone who had done the same thing purposefully.
Let's be really clear here. I tried to explain this to the manager, and then to a regional director, but neither got it.
Actions cannot and SHOULD NOT be “consistent”. Anyone who keeps doing the same thing in the same way either lacks courage, imagination or intelligence. RESULTS should be consistent, the actions taken to achieve that consistency should vary from situation to situation. Always, though, consistency of the end result should be the goal.
For instance, the consistent goal of business, time immemorial, has been to bring in as much money as possible with as little outflow as possible. The ways that we have achieved this through the years have changed significantly and need to keep changing. I always love it when some American says to me that something is the right way to do something because it's “always been done that way”. Really what this means is that it's always been done this way as far as you know, because, being an American, history for you began the day that you were born and will end the day that you die. Anything that happened before your birth is inconsequential... anything after your death is irrelevant. I think that this is the attitude that leads us to ignore global climate change so as not to inconvenience ourselves. We're seeing really minor changes in the weather and temperature. No big deal. We can live with it, right? The problem is that it's just going to keep getting nastier and nastier... more and more extreme. But hell, that'll be the KID'S problem, right?
So you see how our consistent actions are resulting in an outcome that is not consistent with what we claim in this country? We need to be FLEXIBLE in our actions if we want the same better world for our kids that our parents claimed to have wanted for us.
It's the same with business. Any business that does the same thing... in the same way... every single time... regardless of variables... will not last. Of course, just like with the global climate change issue, who cares what happens to the company in twenty years, right? If I aim at the short-term only (and remember anything that happens after me is irrelevant) then “staying the course” regardless of icebergs can be beneficial. Makes the books look really good for today and tomorrow. And that's all that matters. If my “consistency” causes the business to go bankrupt in twenty years because no one decent will work for them anymore out of fear of unjust “discipline”... well... that's simply not my problem.
Which brings something else about “consistent” to mind. Consistent is a relative term. Nothing can be, in and of itself, consistent. It can only be consistent with something else. So if your actions are “consistent” with your actions, then they're consistent with nothing. Doing the same thing in the same way is idiotic... I think, though, that people have a hard time saying “I'm going to do this the same way every time because I'm too (unimaginative/stupid/lazy) to look at the variables of each individual situation.
Which is inconsistent with the idea of long-term success and growth of a company.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, who could say almost ANYTHING better than I can, said “Consistency is the hobgoblin of the little mind.”
See how that works?
Peace.
Randal
I was disciplined at work for an accident, “consistently” (according to the store manager) with someone who had done the same thing purposefully.
Let's be really clear here. I tried to explain this to the manager, and then to a regional director, but neither got it.
Actions cannot and SHOULD NOT be “consistent”. Anyone who keeps doing the same thing in the same way either lacks courage, imagination or intelligence. RESULTS should be consistent, the actions taken to achieve that consistency should vary from situation to situation. Always, though, consistency of the end result should be the goal.
For instance, the consistent goal of business, time immemorial, has been to bring in as much money as possible with as little outflow as possible. The ways that we have achieved this through the years have changed significantly and need to keep changing. I always love it when some American says to me that something is the right way to do something because it's “always been done that way”. Really what this means is that it's always been done this way as far as you know, because, being an American, history for you began the day that you were born and will end the day that you die. Anything that happened before your birth is inconsequential... anything after your death is irrelevant. I think that this is the attitude that leads us to ignore global climate change so as not to inconvenience ourselves. We're seeing really minor changes in the weather and temperature. No big deal. We can live with it, right? The problem is that it's just going to keep getting nastier and nastier... more and more extreme. But hell, that'll be the KID'S problem, right?
So you see how our consistent actions are resulting in an outcome that is not consistent with what we claim in this country? We need to be FLEXIBLE in our actions if we want the same better world for our kids that our parents claimed to have wanted for us.
It's the same with business. Any business that does the same thing... in the same way... every single time... regardless of variables... will not last. Of course, just like with the global climate change issue, who cares what happens to the company in twenty years, right? If I aim at the short-term only (and remember anything that happens after me is irrelevant) then “staying the course” regardless of icebergs can be beneficial. Makes the books look really good for today and tomorrow. And that's all that matters. If my “consistency” causes the business to go bankrupt in twenty years because no one decent will work for them anymore out of fear of unjust “discipline”... well... that's simply not my problem.
Which brings something else about “consistent” to mind. Consistent is a relative term. Nothing can be, in and of itself, consistent. It can only be consistent with something else. So if your actions are “consistent” with your actions, then they're consistent with nothing. Doing the same thing in the same way is idiotic... I think, though, that people have a hard time saying “I'm going to do this the same way every time because I'm too (unimaginative/stupid/lazy) to look at the variables of each individual situation.
Which is inconsistent with the idea of long-term success and growth of a company.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, who could say almost ANYTHING better than I can, said “Consistency is the hobgoblin of the little mind.”
See how that works?
Peace.
Randal
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Some Thoughts on Marriage
I recently advised a young friend of mine who commented that she wasn't sure if she should get married not to. Her response was that, just because I had a bad experience, I shouldn't assume that everyone will. Which... as happens with MOST things... got me thinking.
It is true that I had a bad experience with marriage. I had a really excellent three year marriage. The problem is that it was spread out over a twelve-year period. A day here, a day there, it adds up. It is also true that 95% of the marriages that I know that are more than ten years old are no longer truly love relationships. They are now more like two buddies cohabiting. Or, in some cases, two rivals staying together only for the thrill of outliving each other.
But neither of these are the reasons that I proffered this advice. I just think that marriage is something that needs to be entered into with as clear of a head and as much reasonable thought as is possible. If you marry for passion, within a year you'll be struggling to remember why you got married in the first place.
Once upon a time, marriage was a necessity. Children could not be legitimized without marriage, you couldn't even have SEX without getting married first. Even after premarital sex became somewhat acceptable in the sixties and seventies, marriage was necessary to insure that both partners enjoyed each others work benefits, etc. That was really the reason that my ex and I married. We had planned on just living happily together forever, but the only way that I could cover she and my step-daughter on my health insurance was to get married. Now, with domestic partner insurance almost universally available, even THAT is no longer a requirement. So the question remains... why get married?
The first is the idea that you have some kind of religious thing that prevents you from having sex without marrying. This is not the case even among some pretty serious religious people these days, but it does still remain in some cases. Fine.
Barring that, why else? Because you love that person? That's fine, too. But I think that most of us know that love and passion don't typically last. There's an old saw about how, if you put a penny in a jar for every time that you have sex in the first year, and then take a penny out every time after that you'll never empty the jar. I know ONE couple for whom this is not true, but they're both hotties. I have a hard time figuring out how these two people ever manage to get out of bed. And I can honestly say that every woman that I've ever loved... including my ex-wife... I STILL love. But in each case that love has transmuted. So again I ask... why marry?
Do you expect marriage to change nothing between you? Then why marry? As my old dad says, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it works, don't monkey with it.
Do you expect marriage to change things between you? Presumably for the better? What if it doesn't? What if all of the things that drive you crazy about the other person that you expect marriage to fix STILL drive you crazy after five years of marriage? If you feel like things need to be changed (read as: fixed) in your relationship, shouldn't you fix these things BEFORE you get married? Another old saw has it that a man marries expecting the woman to remain the same and a woman marries expecting the man to change. My experience is that it's more accurate to say that a woman marries a man thinking that she can change (read as: fix) him.
I realize that it's not “romantic” to think logically of marriage before you do it. Personally, I think that if half the planning and thought went into the marriage as does the wedding that most people wouldn't get married. I mean, most people give more thought to a five-year contract to buy a car then they do to a LIFETIME contract of marriage.
Trust me, folks. I'm a romantic. But part of that is that, if I'm going to be in a relationship with someone, I want the passion and romance that I feel for that person on the first day to remain for the extent of the relationship. That's why I'm a proponent of contract marriages. Draw up a contract that you'll remain together for a year, or three years, or five years. No more than ten at a time. Include in that contract disposition of possessions and children at the end of the contract. If things are still going good at the end of the contract, renew it for another group of years. What is modern marriage, after all, but a contract? The difference is that it's a LIFETIME contract with only one out: divorce. And personally, I think that if contract marriages were put into place, you'd see our national divorce rate drop to zero.
Just a thought.
Peace.
Randal
It is true that I had a bad experience with marriage. I had a really excellent three year marriage. The problem is that it was spread out over a twelve-year period. A day here, a day there, it adds up. It is also true that 95% of the marriages that I know that are more than ten years old are no longer truly love relationships. They are now more like two buddies cohabiting. Or, in some cases, two rivals staying together only for the thrill of outliving each other.
But neither of these are the reasons that I proffered this advice. I just think that marriage is something that needs to be entered into with as clear of a head and as much reasonable thought as is possible. If you marry for passion, within a year you'll be struggling to remember why you got married in the first place.
Once upon a time, marriage was a necessity. Children could not be legitimized without marriage, you couldn't even have SEX without getting married first. Even after premarital sex became somewhat acceptable in the sixties and seventies, marriage was necessary to insure that both partners enjoyed each others work benefits, etc. That was really the reason that my ex and I married. We had planned on just living happily together forever, but the only way that I could cover she and my step-daughter on my health insurance was to get married. Now, with domestic partner insurance almost universally available, even THAT is no longer a requirement. So the question remains... why get married?
The first is the idea that you have some kind of religious thing that prevents you from having sex without marrying. This is not the case even among some pretty serious religious people these days, but it does still remain in some cases. Fine.
Barring that, why else? Because you love that person? That's fine, too. But I think that most of us know that love and passion don't typically last. There's an old saw about how, if you put a penny in a jar for every time that you have sex in the first year, and then take a penny out every time after that you'll never empty the jar. I know ONE couple for whom this is not true, but they're both hotties. I have a hard time figuring out how these two people ever manage to get out of bed. And I can honestly say that every woman that I've ever loved... including my ex-wife... I STILL love. But in each case that love has transmuted. So again I ask... why marry?
Do you expect marriage to change nothing between you? Then why marry? As my old dad says, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it works, don't monkey with it.
Do you expect marriage to change things between you? Presumably for the better? What if it doesn't? What if all of the things that drive you crazy about the other person that you expect marriage to fix STILL drive you crazy after five years of marriage? If you feel like things need to be changed (read as: fixed) in your relationship, shouldn't you fix these things BEFORE you get married? Another old saw has it that a man marries expecting the woman to remain the same and a woman marries expecting the man to change. My experience is that it's more accurate to say that a woman marries a man thinking that she can change (read as: fix) him.
I realize that it's not “romantic” to think logically of marriage before you do it. Personally, I think that if half the planning and thought went into the marriage as does the wedding that most people wouldn't get married. I mean, most people give more thought to a five-year contract to buy a car then they do to a LIFETIME contract of marriage.
Trust me, folks. I'm a romantic. But part of that is that, if I'm going to be in a relationship with someone, I want the passion and romance that I feel for that person on the first day to remain for the extent of the relationship. That's why I'm a proponent of contract marriages. Draw up a contract that you'll remain together for a year, or three years, or five years. No more than ten at a time. Include in that contract disposition of possessions and children at the end of the contract. If things are still going good at the end of the contract, renew it for another group of years. What is modern marriage, after all, but a contract? The difference is that it's a LIFETIME contract with only one out: divorce. And personally, I think that if contract marriages were put into place, you'd see our national divorce rate drop to zero.
Just a thought.
Peace.
Randal
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Health Care Conundrum
Honestly, I’ve spent the day trying to figure out what the hell is so hard about national health care. Why does this present such a problem that we have to spend more than a decade and millions of dollars talking about it without actually DOING anything.
The argument presented by the corporate-run right is that a “public” health care option will pose a threat to private insurance companies. What I can’t figure out is that they actually say this as if it’s a BAD thing. But, okay. Let’s say that’s true. It’s not, by the way. Both England and Canada have both a public health care system and thriving private insurers.
So here’s the way that I think that it should go, if anyone’s interested.
At your basic tier, you have the public health care option. This is BASIC health care, provided to every American, free of charge PERIOD. On this health care plan there would be no voluntary procedures, such as plastic surgery, Viagra, anti-smoking pills or anti-fat pills. Yes, yes, howl socialism all that you want. I view it as more of a Christian imperative. Christ demanded that we care for one another, and frankly we’re doing a piss-poor job of it. Think of this first tier as a parachute. You’d much rather be riding in the airplane, but… failing that… it can save your life.
On top of that would be the tier that we now know. This is where the private insurers fit in. The argument is that, if a public health care option is available, people who currently have private insurance will give it up to suckle from the government teat. I can tell you, folks, that as far as I’m concerned that’s about as far from true as it can get. If there were a severely stripped and compromised public health care option available, or I could keep my Aetna coverage for what I pay for it every month, I’m keeping Aetna. I may have had my disagreements and run-ins with them over the years, but basically they’ve been pretty good to me. A little nuts – for instance, my diabetes lancets cost around $8.50 off the shelf, but the insurance co-pay on them is $10 – but basically pretty good to me.
Another aspect of this would be that businesses over a certain size would be REQUIRED to provide decent health insurance to their employees. And no, I’m not talking about burdening small business with this. That’s why you place a certain size restriction on it. If you have more than… to give a random figure… 5000 employees, you cease being a “small” business and have to start providing good health insurance. And what about small businesses? Any small business that voluntarily provided good health insurance to their employees would be showered with tax exemptions. Not the big guys. Wal*Mart will be fine without the billions of dollars in corporate hand-outs that they receive every year. They’ll still be around. Like a cockroach. But small, upstart businesses, like Sam Walton’s little five and dime was when it started, will be given the advantages that they need to succeed. One friend of mine argued that this would prevent small businesses owners from wanting to “grow” their business. Really? So I’m going to keep myself from accruing wealth at some point simply because I have to provide health insurance to my employees? I don’t bloody well think so.
Oh, on a side note… I also think that American businesses doing business overseas would have to play by OUR rules. They are American, after all. They would have to pay American minimum wage to their employees WHEREVER they are. They would be required to provide health insurance. Our pollution laws would apply to them, so they couldn’t enslave Chinese kids or poison the Yangtzee river anymore than they could enslave AMERICAN kids or poison the MISSISSIPPI river.
So can someone please tell me what’s so God-damned HARD about this before I go CRAZIER trying to figure it out?
Peace.
Randal
The argument presented by the corporate-run right is that a “public” health care option will pose a threat to private insurance companies. What I can’t figure out is that they actually say this as if it’s a BAD thing. But, okay. Let’s say that’s true. It’s not, by the way. Both England and Canada have both a public health care system and thriving private insurers.
So here’s the way that I think that it should go, if anyone’s interested.
At your basic tier, you have the public health care option. This is BASIC health care, provided to every American, free of charge PERIOD. On this health care plan there would be no voluntary procedures, such as plastic surgery, Viagra, anti-smoking pills or anti-fat pills. Yes, yes, howl socialism all that you want. I view it as more of a Christian imperative. Christ demanded that we care for one another, and frankly we’re doing a piss-poor job of it. Think of this first tier as a parachute. You’d much rather be riding in the airplane, but… failing that… it can save your life.
On top of that would be the tier that we now know. This is where the private insurers fit in. The argument is that, if a public health care option is available, people who currently have private insurance will give it up to suckle from the government teat. I can tell you, folks, that as far as I’m concerned that’s about as far from true as it can get. If there were a severely stripped and compromised public health care option available, or I could keep my Aetna coverage for what I pay for it every month, I’m keeping Aetna. I may have had my disagreements and run-ins with them over the years, but basically they’ve been pretty good to me. A little nuts – for instance, my diabetes lancets cost around $8.50 off the shelf, but the insurance co-pay on them is $10 – but basically pretty good to me.
Another aspect of this would be that businesses over a certain size would be REQUIRED to provide decent health insurance to their employees. And no, I’m not talking about burdening small business with this. That’s why you place a certain size restriction on it. If you have more than… to give a random figure… 5000 employees, you cease being a “small” business and have to start providing good health insurance. And what about small businesses? Any small business that voluntarily provided good health insurance to their employees would be showered with tax exemptions. Not the big guys. Wal*Mart will be fine without the billions of dollars in corporate hand-outs that they receive every year. They’ll still be around. Like a cockroach. But small, upstart businesses, like Sam Walton’s little five and dime was when it started, will be given the advantages that they need to succeed. One friend of mine argued that this would prevent small businesses owners from wanting to “grow” their business. Really? So I’m going to keep myself from accruing wealth at some point simply because I have to provide health insurance to my employees? I don’t bloody well think so.
Oh, on a side note… I also think that American businesses doing business overseas would have to play by OUR rules. They are American, after all. They would have to pay American minimum wage to their employees WHEREVER they are. They would be required to provide health insurance. Our pollution laws would apply to them, so they couldn’t enslave Chinese kids or poison the Yangtzee river anymore than they could enslave AMERICAN kids or poison the MISSISSIPPI river.
So can someone please tell me what’s so God-damned HARD about this before I go CRAZIER trying to figure it out?
Peace.
Randal
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Michael Jackson Remains Dead
As the media feeding frenzy around the death of Michael Jackson continues, I have only one wish... I wish that they would use it as an opportunity to open SUBSTANTIVE discourse on something instead of simply “did ya love him, did ya hate him, what's your favorite song, what's your favorite video”? (My answers, by the way, are that I thought that he was an excellent musical artist, but a severely flawed personality and my favorite video and song both are “Smooth Criminal”.)
For instance, in 2005, as most of us remember, Jackson was accused (again) of molesting little boys at his Neverland Ranch. At the time, the big question that everyone was asking was “Do you think that he did it or not?” To me, even at the time, the bigger question was “How on Earth is this man expected to get a fair trial?” You would have to move the trial to darkest New Guinea to get a jury of twelve who not only hadn't heard the case, but didn't already have their minds made up about it. Americans have a very screwed up idea of what “fair” means in this context, though. I was watching an episode of the TV show “The Practice” recently and they were doing voir dire for a trial for a man who was accused of murdering his wife with an axe. One potential juror, when asked if she had heard of the case said “Yes, but I think that every American deserves a fair trial – even men who kill their wives with an axe.” She didn't seem to realize that if she already believed that he did it, she could AUTOMATICALLY not give him a fair trial. But the 24/7 news coverage of this stuff makes a fair trial, especially for a celebrity, in this country impossible. (My personal opinion, if you're interested, by the way, is that he did it. After all, one of the little boys fairly exactly described the discolored patches on Jackson's penis. Kind of hard to do if you haven't been up close and personal with it. Which leads me to my next point.)
The other thing that we could do here, is use this as an opportunity to open a discourse about the way that we treat child molesters in this country. I think that one of the reasons that MJ HAD to be acquitted is because we're taught to treat ALL child molesters in this country equally – as irredeemably scummy bastards. And love him or hate him, it's really hard to think of MJ as an irredeemably scummy bastard. Therefore, by that logic, he cannot be a child molester.
So let me open this dialogue.
I'd like to start with the idea that all child molesters and pedophiles are NOT created equal and should not be treated the same under the law. There are three types of people out there who harm children sexually. The first is a pedophile. A pedophile is a person who has a sexual attraction to children. And contrary to what the religious right says, the VAST majority of pedophiles are not homosexual. There are homosexual male pedophiles who are attracted to little boys, homosexual female pedophiles who are attracted to little girls, but the majority are heterosexual pedophiles attracted to the opposite sex.
A pedophile, by definition, has not acted on this attraction. They have never touched a child. These people CAN be helped, and I think that, as a society, it is our responsibility to help them. Although many people find this distasteful, I think that one way to do that is to provide them with fantasy materials. Illustrations and stories, in other words. Things that do NOT harm a real child in their production. Also, we need to end the law that requires therapists to report ANYONE who comes to them admitting a sexual attraction to children to the police. This doesn't reduce predation on children, it simply prevents these people from coming forward while they still CAN be helped.
Once a pedophile has acted on this attraction, he or she becomes a child molester. This is where MJ fits in, and, I think, the majority of Catholic priests who have been busted for touching a child. I think that, because of his own screwed-up childhood, he had an attraction to children that his adult mind translated as sexual. Jail time IS appropriate for a child molester. However, I do think that the sentence has to be dependent upon the action, rather than mandatory sentencing. For instance, a guy who touches a little girl's breast should get less of a jail sentence than a woman who performs oral sex on a little boy, who should get less of a sentence than a man who penetrates a little girl or boy with his penis. See? Degrees of severity. And no, people, I am not speaking from a depth of ignorance here – I was molested by an older relative when I was a kid, so I have some basis for what I'm saying here. (And no, please do not append notes of condolence – most of my memories of this are lost to time (I was about eight at the time, thirty-five years ago) but that few that I retain are not unpleasant. Ask a woman who was penetrated as a little girl if that's an accurate description of how badly SHE was traumatized.)
The third category, the irredeemable bastard category, is the predator. The predator is not necessarily a pedophile, even if he or she harms a child sexually. The predator is simply drawn to weakness or perceived weakness. Vulnerability or perceived vulnerability. Serial killers fit into this category, as do rapists. Their actions are rarely if ever prompted by sexual desire as we know it. They are turned on not by the other person, but by the vulnerability of the other person. Although these people are frequently damaged personalities, they are beyond help or redemption. The damage has simply gone too far. As opposed as I am personally to the death penalty, I cannot help but think that all that we can do with a person like this is jail them for life or execute them. We cannot allow them back into society, period. Some people believe that the answer to this is physical or chemical castration. The problem with physical castration is that as long as the predator retains hands or a mouth, they retain the ability to prey sexually on another person. The problem with chemical castration is that there has to be some way to make sure that the person remains on their regimen of castrative drugs. This may well work with many child molesters, as many of them are racked with guilt by their desires, and will continue taking the drugs simply to be free of that guilt. Most predators will not.
I base my statement on child molesters on a friend of mine. He went to jail for sexually interfering with a twelve year old girl. When he got out of prison, he was determined not to do it again, so he would introduce himself by explaining that he was a pedophile and could not be alone with children. EVER. A female acquaintance of his, believing, I guess, that this determination made him safe, asked him to babysit her kids. My friend, in a moment of weakness or stupidity accepted. He molested all three kids. He never went to jail for this because, before he could be arrested, he hanged himself in grief.
Folks, if we truly wish to stop this evil, we have to start addressing the issue as responsible adults, not as scared kids.
Peace.
Randal
For instance, in 2005, as most of us remember, Jackson was accused (again) of molesting little boys at his Neverland Ranch. At the time, the big question that everyone was asking was “Do you think that he did it or not?” To me, even at the time, the bigger question was “How on Earth is this man expected to get a fair trial?” You would have to move the trial to darkest New Guinea to get a jury of twelve who not only hadn't heard the case, but didn't already have their minds made up about it. Americans have a very screwed up idea of what “fair” means in this context, though. I was watching an episode of the TV show “The Practice” recently and they were doing voir dire for a trial for a man who was accused of murdering his wife with an axe. One potential juror, when asked if she had heard of the case said “Yes, but I think that every American deserves a fair trial – even men who kill their wives with an axe.” She didn't seem to realize that if she already believed that he did it, she could AUTOMATICALLY not give him a fair trial. But the 24/7 news coverage of this stuff makes a fair trial, especially for a celebrity, in this country impossible. (My personal opinion, if you're interested, by the way, is that he did it. After all, one of the little boys fairly exactly described the discolored patches on Jackson's penis. Kind of hard to do if you haven't been up close and personal with it. Which leads me to my next point.)
The other thing that we could do here, is use this as an opportunity to open a discourse about the way that we treat child molesters in this country. I think that one of the reasons that MJ HAD to be acquitted is because we're taught to treat ALL child molesters in this country equally – as irredeemably scummy bastards. And love him or hate him, it's really hard to think of MJ as an irredeemably scummy bastard. Therefore, by that logic, he cannot be a child molester.
So let me open this dialogue.
I'd like to start with the idea that all child molesters and pedophiles are NOT created equal and should not be treated the same under the law. There are three types of people out there who harm children sexually. The first is a pedophile. A pedophile is a person who has a sexual attraction to children. And contrary to what the religious right says, the VAST majority of pedophiles are not homosexual. There are homosexual male pedophiles who are attracted to little boys, homosexual female pedophiles who are attracted to little girls, but the majority are heterosexual pedophiles attracted to the opposite sex.
A pedophile, by definition, has not acted on this attraction. They have never touched a child. These people CAN be helped, and I think that, as a society, it is our responsibility to help them. Although many people find this distasteful, I think that one way to do that is to provide them with fantasy materials. Illustrations and stories, in other words. Things that do NOT harm a real child in their production. Also, we need to end the law that requires therapists to report ANYONE who comes to them admitting a sexual attraction to children to the police. This doesn't reduce predation on children, it simply prevents these people from coming forward while they still CAN be helped.
Once a pedophile has acted on this attraction, he or she becomes a child molester. This is where MJ fits in, and, I think, the majority of Catholic priests who have been busted for touching a child. I think that, because of his own screwed-up childhood, he had an attraction to children that his adult mind translated as sexual. Jail time IS appropriate for a child molester. However, I do think that the sentence has to be dependent upon the action, rather than mandatory sentencing. For instance, a guy who touches a little girl's breast should get less of a jail sentence than a woman who performs oral sex on a little boy, who should get less of a sentence than a man who penetrates a little girl or boy with his penis. See? Degrees of severity. And no, people, I am not speaking from a depth of ignorance here – I was molested by an older relative when I was a kid, so I have some basis for what I'm saying here. (And no, please do not append notes of condolence – most of my memories of this are lost to time (I was about eight at the time, thirty-five years ago) but that few that I retain are not unpleasant. Ask a woman who was penetrated as a little girl if that's an accurate description of how badly SHE was traumatized.)
The third category, the irredeemable bastard category, is the predator. The predator is not necessarily a pedophile, even if he or she harms a child sexually. The predator is simply drawn to weakness or perceived weakness. Vulnerability or perceived vulnerability. Serial killers fit into this category, as do rapists. Their actions are rarely if ever prompted by sexual desire as we know it. They are turned on not by the other person, but by the vulnerability of the other person. Although these people are frequently damaged personalities, they are beyond help or redemption. The damage has simply gone too far. As opposed as I am personally to the death penalty, I cannot help but think that all that we can do with a person like this is jail them for life or execute them. We cannot allow them back into society, period. Some people believe that the answer to this is physical or chemical castration. The problem with physical castration is that as long as the predator retains hands or a mouth, they retain the ability to prey sexually on another person. The problem with chemical castration is that there has to be some way to make sure that the person remains on their regimen of castrative drugs. This may well work with many child molesters, as many of them are racked with guilt by their desires, and will continue taking the drugs simply to be free of that guilt. Most predators will not.
I base my statement on child molesters on a friend of mine. He went to jail for sexually interfering with a twelve year old girl. When he got out of prison, he was determined not to do it again, so he would introduce himself by explaining that he was a pedophile and could not be alone with children. EVER. A female acquaintance of his, believing, I guess, that this determination made him safe, asked him to babysit her kids. My friend, in a moment of weakness or stupidity accepted. He molested all three kids. He never went to jail for this because, before he could be arrested, he hanged himself in grief.
Folks, if we truly wish to stop this evil, we have to start addressing the issue as responsible adults, not as scared kids.
Peace.
Randal
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The 2008 Election is Finally Over
Al Franken was finally declared the winner of the senatorial race in Minnesota, seven months after the election. This election, more than anything, makes me wish that the Gore campaign had fought harder in 2000. It was a tough fight, but finally the people of Minnesota received justice, which the people of Florida never did.
Really, though, the thing that struck me the most about this was the response of both candidates. I, for one, am so sick of the bitter, vitriolic partisan politics that’s been… not a PART of our political landscape, but our ENTIRE political landscape… since 1996, that I found myself letting out an audible sigh of relief when Norm Coleman bowed down like a gentleman, and Al Franken admitted that that he barely won.
Franken, especially, demonstrated the kind of humility that you never see in politics anymore. “I won by 312 votes (out of three million)… a lot of people didn’t vote for me. I have a lot to prove to the people of Minnesota.”
One thing that people have said is that a comedian has no part in government. Well, let’s see… comics… at least lasting comics like Franklin and not flashes in the pan like Andrew Clay… tend to be intelligent, thoughtful, clever and creative. These people are right, I guess. There’s no place for people like that in modern U S government.
Peace.
Randal
Really, though, the thing that struck me the most about this was the response of both candidates. I, for one, am so sick of the bitter, vitriolic partisan politics that’s been… not a PART of our political landscape, but our ENTIRE political landscape… since 1996, that I found myself letting out an audible sigh of relief when Norm Coleman bowed down like a gentleman, and Al Franken admitted that that he barely won.
Franken, especially, demonstrated the kind of humility that you never see in politics anymore. “I won by 312 votes (out of three million)… a lot of people didn’t vote for me. I have a lot to prove to the people of Minnesota.”
One thing that people have said is that a comedian has no part in government. Well, let’s see… comics… at least lasting comics like Franklin and not flashes in the pan like Andrew Clay… tend to be intelligent, thoughtful, clever and creative. These people are right, I guess. There’s no place for people like that in modern U S government.
Peace.
Randal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)