Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Pictures Must Be Released

America has the strangest perspective on sex. On one hand, we're horrified by it, scandalized whenever anyone's good judgment is overcome by passion -- Clinton's sexual misadventure is seen by many Americans as worse than Bush's slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents. On the other hand, we're obsessed with it. "Sex sells," we know, and so it's everywhere, from the movies to billboards, to department stores, everywhere.

Some argue that the naughtiness is what makes it good. This is a kind of extension of the school of thought that what the stripper leaves on is more important than what she takes off, the "leave a little to the imagination" school of thought. I tend to think this is a cop-out. Oh, it may be correct that teasing has its own kind of arousing effect, but I don't think this is really what the American state of sexual denial is really about. Repression doesn't make it better.

To tell you the truth, I don't think it's healthy. It seems to me that someday we've got to get over it, recognize sex as the part of human nature that it is, and learn to behave decently -- in harmony with our nature, not in opposition to it. This idea that we will white-knuckle reality as tightly as possible for as long as we can, and maybe somehow get through life without sinning too badly, just doesn't hold water.

The result, it seems to me, is that America has a dark side that it's hard to admit. Secrets we can't face.

Here's one. From Editor and Publisher:
NEW YORK A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image. Last year a Republican senator conceded that they contained scenes of "rape and murder" and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said they included acts that were "blatantly sadistic." Judge Orders Release of Abu Ghraib Photos

Look, nobody wants to see these. Nobody wants to admit they exist. This will not get any media attention. We want to believe that these kinds of things just don't happen, that good Americans don't behave like depraved monsters.
What is shown on the photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon has blocked from release? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images, "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe." They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.

A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of "rape and murder." Rumsfeld then commented, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

The photos were among thousands turned over by the key "whistleblower" in the scandal, Specialist Joseph M. Darby. Just a few that were released to the press sparked the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal last year, and the video images are said to be even more shocking.

Look, we really do have to ask ourselves, why has this happened? Rape, I'm sorry to say, has always been part of war. But this isn't even that. This isn't "just" rape. This is depravity that far transcends rape.

The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are our neighbors and relatives. They're regular guys and gals from homes like ours, serving our country. So why have they behaved like this?

Of course we condemn it, but how do we understand it?
In the same period [Spring, 2004], reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: "Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men ... . The women were passing messages saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.'

"Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out."

Why has this happened?

We have a lightweight local controversy here in Montgomery County, some people are afraid about what will be taught in a sex-ed class. But it seems obvious that our society needs to heal itself, we need to find balance, we need good comprehensive, unbiased education, just so we can learn to deal with sexuality as a natural part of life, so our society doesn't feel the need to express itself in these kinds of acts. You know I'm right about this.

17 Comments:

Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

We have a lightweight local controversy here in Montgomery County,

Perhaps in relative terms, but standards of correct behavior are not trivial.

some people are afraid about what will be taught in a sex-ed class.

"Afraid"? Hah! That is nonsense, pure and simple. No, I am not "afraid"...try offended and you would be within striking distance.

But it seems obvious that our society needs to heal itself, we need to find balance,

A healing balance is all that we need? Spoken like a true, blue, believing liberal. The belief that people are essentially good is not only incorrect, it is dangerous. As a conservative I believe that the human nature of every individual has the potential for evil and depravity, just as we have the capacity for goodness and benevolence. Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Russian novelist (Nobel Prize for Literature, 1970), Soviet dissident, and former "resident" of the Soviet Gulag knew all too well of what he spoke when he stated that "the battle between good and evil runs through the heart of every man."

we need good comprehensive, unbiased education, just so we can learn to deal with sexuality as a natural part of life, so our society doesn't feel the need to express itself in these kinds of acts.

Again, spoken like a true Liberal...that's it, all we need is good, unbiased, comprehensive sex education so that soldiers going into battle will understand that just like urinating and defecating, copulation is just a "natural part of life"! Wow, that is breath takingly naive...

Here, I have a counter proposal: simply teach this basic principle.
A virtue is a good habit, and a vice is a bad habit. Good habits are the result of correct individual choices; bad habits are the result of wrong individual choices. We all make this world a better place by cultivating virtues and suppressing vices. I know...I know, this is all terribly simplistic...though I suspect that those who participated in the evil that took place at Abu Ghraib prison did not have this taught them in such a way that they internalized the most basic ethical and moral standards of decent human behavior.

The catch with the above approach? Well, it involves judging and shaming language...and not, "oh, you must have behaved badly Johnny (or Suzy) because you had all of this pent up sexual angst that you were never relieved of...oh, we are so very sorry".

But I bet that many of them know how to use a condom...

You know I'm right about this.

Actually Jim, of anything you have ever written (and you have written alot), of this I know you are wrong. It would be like you are telling me that four plus four equals five. It takes hard headed, both eyes wide open, type thinking to make this world a better place...not neo-Freudian wish fufillment.

October 24, 2006 2:57 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

This is too horrible to comprehend. The idea that Americans were doing this- the hideously vicious acts I associate with the Burmese army and the Janjaweed. Is it possible that this didn't happen? Making adult men strip and form human pyramids (as we have seen) is wrong but nothing on the scale of sodomizing and raping women and children.

October 24, 2006 3:14 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Orin

Now I'm the one who's offended.

Of course you have been quite consistent over the months about the evil at the core of the human spirit, fine, the Bush years have made me appreciate the heart of darkness, trust me. You have a shorthand formula for interpreting my views, and if you choose to use that, well, we all do use heuristics but yours are causing you to fail to understand me.

Your talk about habits is irrelevant, and your explanation about what may be offensive in your discussion is wrong. If we are talking about sexual orientation -- and we are -- then "habit" has nothing to do with it. A young person doesn't become gay by acting gay, the behavior almost always follows the heart-wrenching realization that that's how they really are.

Worst of all, your crap about "judging and shaming language" is just that, crap. Nobody cares if you judge or shame anybody -- these are very useful tools for social control, all of us judge and shame people every day. Nobody here has ever said they would live without judging others or that they wish for a world without shame. Shame is just the feeling that you have done something your social group would judge you negatively for, that's fine, that's just human nature. We're a social species and this is one way it works. Well, I hate to see people experience shame when they haven't done anything wrong, but in general the feeling is quite useful.

Your Johnny or Suzy example is just stupid. You appear to be quoting somebody, but I think all it is is that you are quoting some moron like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly parodying a liberal. This is a parody of a parody, and has no substance to it at all.

So, Orin, sometimes you need to get over yourself, man. You seem like an intelligent guy, I don't know why you would try so hard to be unconvincing.

JimK

October 24, 2006 3:55 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

Of course you have been quite consistent over the months about the evil at the core of the human spirit, fine,

Sigh...do I have to quote myself to make myself clear??? Ok, I will...

This is what I just wrote, "As a conservative I believe that the human nature of every individual has the potential for evil and depravity, just as we have the capacity for goodness and benevolence." Simply put, humankind has the capacity for acts that are at one end of the spectrum so evil and depraved (such as the sadistic torture of those detained at Abu Graib) that they make decent people flinch, and at the other, so selfless and compassionate (need an example? ok, how about this one...the crash of Air Florida 90 in January 1982 where only 5 of 79 onboard survived with a sixth passenager that repeatedly gave the life line to the others to be pulled from the icy waters and perished in the process).

Now Jim, I know you have a command of the english language, so my only question is this: what part of the quote by Solzhenitsyn don't you understand?

the Bush years have made me appreciate the heart of darkness, trust me.

The same was said of Reagan...yawn.

You have a shorthand formula for interpreting my views, and if you choose to use that, well, we all do use heuristics but yours are causing you to fail to understand me.

Huh? No, actually I do understand you...I just don't agree with the connection you made in this blog entry with sadisitic pictures and video taken at Abu Graib and the need for your kind of sex ed. Did you not write,

Why has this happened?

We have a lightweight local controversy here in Montgomery County, some people are afraid about what will be taught in a sex-ed class. But it seems obvious that our society needs to heal itself, we need to find balance, we need good comprehensive, unbiased education, just so we can learn to deal with sexuality as a natural part of life, so our society doesn't feel the need to express itself in these kinds of acts. You know I'm right about this.
??? These are YOUR words, not mine.

Your talk about habits is irrelevant, and your explanation about what may be offensive in your discussion is wrong.

"Irrelevant"??? You have got to be kidding me? Ok, let me see if I understand you correctly here...habits are "irrelevant" when talking about sex and teens? Isn't correct and consistent condom use among sexually active teens (promiscuous?...nay, we don't want to judge the kiddies now do we?) one of the goals of Teach the "Facts"? And could this not be described as a habit?

And you say my explanation is wrong...how so?

If we are talking about sexual orientation -- and we are -- then "habit" has nothing to do with it. A young person doesn't become gay by acting gay, the behavior almost always follows the heart-wrenching realization that that's how they really are.

Huh? Until you mentioned sexual orientation above the thought had not even crossed my mind. Fortunately some school districts are wise enough to steer clear of the topic of sexual orientation because they know that is an issue best left alone. Besides, the culture is so gay friendly these days that teens like my daughter are as likely to have gay/lesbian friends as straight ones.

Case in point:
Tuesday nite my 17 year old and I attended the 4th Colorado Congressional District debate between Marilyn Musgrave, her Democratic challenger Angie Paccione and a third party candidate, Eric Eidsness (Reform Party; I liked him the best as he was so honest and straightforward). At first my 17 year old did not want to go, but when her high school govt teacher offered her "mega" extra credit, she could not resist. After the debate, wherein all three candidates presented themselves well, my daughter and I talked about the debate and I offered suggestions on how she could get even more credit for her attending the debate (btw, she took excellent notes). When she told me that she had arrived at the debate with an open mind about all three candidates I told her that she should work that into a letter to the editor of our local paper (coloradoan.com), identifying herself as a 17 year old soon to be independent voter. I strongly encouraged her to write it up and submit such a lette, eventhough she made it clear that she liked the Democratic candidate best (I have a re-elect Musgrave bumper sticker on my 1985 Jetta). I asked her what she thought was the most important issue, and she said civil unions and abortion rights.

When I talk about habits I am refering to the habit of treating every member of the human race with respect and dignity.

Worst of all, your crap about "judging and shaming language" is just that, crap.

I am sorry that you feel that way...

Nobody cares if you judge or shame anybody -- these are very useful tools for social control, all of us judge and shame people every day.

I am not talking about myself on the micro level...I am talking about the societal, macro level. The hundreds/thousands of people who were directly hurt by the collapse of Enron have an interest in seeing Jeffrey Skilling judged and incarcerated (and if that is not shaming then what is?) Such punishment serves two purposes. First, it punishes the wrong doer; in the case of Skilling he will have 24 years to consider what it was that he did wrong. Second, it warns similar potential wrong doers.

Nobody here has ever said they would live without judging others or that they wish for a world without shame. Shame is just the feeling that you have done something your social group would judge you negatively for, that's fine, that's just human nature. We're a social species and this is one way it works. Well, I hate to see people experience shame when they haven't done anything wrong, but in general the feeling is quite useful.

I don't think people should be made to feel shame for who they are, only for the harm they do to others. Don't you agree?

Your Johnny or Suzy example is just stupid.

"Stupid"? Is that the best you can do? I always can recognize an argument that is weak or in trouble..."stupid" is a red flag for a weak argument.

You appear to be quoting somebody, but I think all it is is that you are quoting some moron like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly parodying a liberal.

Since the only radio I listen (other than the music my 13 year makes me listen to on the drive home from school) anymore is exclusively is NPR...yup, National Public Radio. I have not listend to Rush for years...same goes for O'Reilly.

Nope, I made that one up on my own...yes, it is a tad exaggerated, but the core part is accurate of a large swath of our present day therapeutic culture.

This is a parody of a parody, and has no substance to it at all.

Perhaps...maybe along the lines of Seinfeld ("oh, he's gay!!!...not that that's a problem!" is a good example of a Seinfeld parody of our PC culture). There's substance...what is without substance are adjectives like "stupid".

So, Orin, sometimes you need to get over yourself, man.

No thanks...for the advice, that is.

You seem like an intelligent guy, I don't know why you would try so hard to be unconvincing.

"Intelligent"? Yeah, I wish...sigh. I know, to you I am not convincing...I am ok with that...really now, I expect it. I hope at least one person, quietly lurking, reads your words and my words and from that gains a moment of moral clarity.

October 25, 2006 6:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"we need good comprehensive, unbiased education,"

This is an incredible statement considering how biased is the curriculum TTF supports. Basically, anything that could even remotely tend to shed a negative light is strictly verbotten. There's the "bias".

As for "comprehensive", same deal: only to the extent that teens aren't warned of the dangers of homosexuality.

October 25, 2006 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

negative light on homosexuality, that is

October 25, 2006 11:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"This is an incredible statement considering how biased is the curriculum TTF supports. Basically, anything that could even remotely tend to shed a negative light is strictly verbotten. There's the "bias"."

Allowing the shedding of any "light" -- positive or negative -- would be to be biased, although depending on a person's perspective, almost anything can be interpreted as biased.

Anonymous said:
"As for "comprehensive", same deal: only to the extent that teens aren't warned of the dangers of homosexuality."

There is nothing dangerous about homosexuality per se.

K.A.

October 25, 2006 1:03 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin, its incredibly hypocritical of you to criticize Jim for saying "our society needs to heal itself, we need to find balance" and then to yourself make the facile statement "We all make this world a better place by cultivating virtues and suppressing vices." Both are obvious truths that omit the devilish details needed to actually make things better.

Your statement that "the culture is so gay friendly these days that teens like my daughter are as likely to have gay/lesbian friends as straight ones. is laughable. Look at how people like you are fighting to put out the message that there is something wrong with being gay. Look at the prominence of somone like Musgrave (and your support of her) who considers making marriage discriminate against gays the most important issue of your time. The culture is hardly "so gay friendly".

Given the highest estimates only 10% of the population is gay - teens like your daughter are not anywhere near as likely to have gay/lesbian friends as straight ones.

Anonymous at October 25, 2006 11:11 AM

Your desire to shed a negative light on gays is typical of a historic bias against gays. Heterosexuality can be negative, think rape, teenage pregnancies, disease, etc. I don't hear you whining about the need to shed a negative light on that. A responsbile loving supportive sexuality is a good thing regardless of the gender of one's partner.

October 25, 2006 4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pictures Must Be Released"

Why?

October 26, 2006 6:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is nothing dangerous about homosexuality per se."

No, other than its promiscous nature, leading to public health problems and emotional disturbances among the young people and leading a sizable minority of young adults from participating in the stabilizing and civilizing institution of marriage.

October 26, 2006 6:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your desire to shed a negative light on gays is typical of a historic bias against gays."

Light is not negative. Light represents truth. Telling the truth about homosexuality will tend to make people negative about it but facts are facts.

October 26, 2006 6:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The culture is hardly "so gay friendly"."

Ever hear of Hollywood, Randi?

October 26, 2006 6:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is nothing dangerous about homosexuality per se."

Any guess what percentage of gays are per se?

I think if you were able to see the per se gay ratio, you'd be able to see why AIDS is so disproportionately prevalent among gays in societies where homosexuality is tolerated.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't advocate making homosexual activity illegal. But I don't think the government should participate in creating a positive perception of it and that gays should be expected to observe the same public discretion that everyone else does.

October 26, 2006 6:45 AM  
Anonymous Daisy said...

"Light is not negative. Light represents truth. Telling the truth about homosexuality "

You don't know the truth about homosexuality; you only know what you read or hear about it. You continue to insist there's no such thing as long term committed gay unions and your insistence shows your inability to even consider the truth that these unions exist.

Orin has told us about his gay neighbors. How long have they lived as a couple now Orin? Do they have wild promiscuous parties or do they assimilate and fit in with the rest of your neighborhood?

The culture is hardly "so gay friendly"."

Ever hear of Hollywood, Randi?


The culture was not so "gay friendly" for Matthew Shepard, Eddie Garzon, Brandon Teena, Juana Vega, and the thousands of other gays who have been killed because of the hate people like you spread.

October 26, 2006 8:18 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 26, 2006 6:34 AM if you were truly concerned about promiscuity amongst gays you'd be advocating that they participate "in the stabilizing and civilizing institution of marriage."

Anonymous at October 26, 2006 6:37 AM light may symbolize truth but there's none of it in your blind attempts to portray all gays negatively. I and all the gays I know live in wonderful loving supportive relationships. That's a good thing for us and for society - facts are facts. Your blind hatred is destructive and despicable.

Anonymous at October 26, 2006 6:38 AM

The culture is not so gay friendly. Yeah I've heard of hollywood, unfortuantely I've also heard of Republicans and the anti-gay religious people backing them and describing themselves with code words for gay hatred like "family values", "protect marriage", "values voters", etc.

Anonymous atOctober 26, 2006 6:45 AM

White children are better off, more educated, and healthier than black children. This isn't because whites are better, its because they've oppressed black people and this destruction of their society and relationships shows. The same is true for gays. You take every step you can to oppose and destroy our relationshps with each other and society, of course it has a negative affect. The problem is not homosexuality, its your hatred and punishment of gays who don't hurt you in anyway.

October 26, 2006 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"No, other than its promiscous nature, leading to public health problems and emotional disturbances among the young people and leading a sizable minority of young adults from participating in the stabilizing and civilizing institution of marriage."

Haha oh man you are so full of it. I can always get a laugh from reading your illogical babble.

I added "per se" for a reason, but you being you, just decided to to equate homosexuality with promiscuity and AIDS. True colours being revealed again? Well that's just the start of your foggy mind.

Homosexuality, in and of itself, is no more "dangerous" than heterosexuality.

October 26, 2006 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And you always conveniently leave out lesbians don't you?

October 26, 2006 3:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home