I have always been a contrarian, ever since my childhood. I just didn’t realize it.
My personal intellectual hero is the most famous contrarian of all time: Samuel Johnson.
I have always been a contrarian. I have always tended to think everything through for myself and to form my own opinions.
When I was growing up in Cambridge, Massachusetts, there would be a sign on the front of our church in the summer reading: closed for July and August. This didn’t seem right to me. Most of my friends were Catholic. They went to mass every week.
The Catholic churches never closed.
I thought: if religion is so important in the life of mankind, how can it be UNimportant in July and August as opposed to November or December?
The following are the five WORST statements of mine — things I have opined from my young adulthood to later years — so adjudged by members of my nuclear family.
that I preferred to read whatever authors I wanted to and didn’t like reading assigned books in college (age 21)
that all prisoners should be released (in my early 20’s)
that I didn’t like Miami Dolphins coach Don Shula
that I didn’t think much of The New Yorker
that I think the New York Times editorials are boring and written in committee-speak
For Calhoun College students who fought for the name change, returning to campus to see signs for “Grace Hopper College” was energizing. “I think for a lot of people this summer has shown that it’s sort of beyond this ivory tower intellectual debate,” Maya Jenkins, a Hopper senior, said on Friday.
Admiral Hopper helped build the nation’s first electromechanical computer, developed the first compiler, proposed the idea of writing computer programs in words rather than symbols, and retired from the Navy at age 79.
Not that the university went far enough, Ms. Jenkins, a black student from Indiana, added in an email. “The college being renamed after a white woman does not fully rectify the violences of Calhoun’s legacy,” she wrote.
The university has opened two new residential colleges this semester, one named for a black Yale Law School alumna and civil rights leader, Anna Pauline Murray, and the other for Benjamin Franklin. The latter decision, too, has left many people “a little miffed,” said Vivian Dang, a Hopper College junior. “It’s another old white guy being honored.”
— “Calhoun Who? Yale Drops Name of Slavery Advocate for Computer Pioneer,” by Andy Newman and Vivian Wang, The New York Times, September 3, 2017
It’s not permissible any longer to honor a “white woman” and a “white guy”?
And, by the way, what is white, anyway, and what is black? When it comes to racial categories, that is.
Whites are not really white and blacks are not really black. Were my skin white, I would probably scare a lot of people.
I am a mixture of ethnicities and genes, as are all peoples and racial groups. Don’t we all have common ancestry?
There is such diversity in ethic groupings that it seems nonsensical to me to sort them into ironclad groupings. The groupings were made up by someone or other who manufactured them out of thin air, bureaucrats; they ignore many ethnic groups and sort them almost willy-nilly.
But, people will say, we are talking here about two identifiable groups: whites, meaning the population that is not black (excluding other minorities such as Asians and Hispanics) and African Americans, with one group being historically privileged (at least by comparison with the African American minority) and the other oppressed, both historically and, in many cases, still oppressed, as current events show.
I wish we could admire people for their individual qualities, as Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. urged. I wish we could welcome and respect ethnic and cultural diversity and recognize and acknowledge historical injustices without having to resort to racial stereotyping in the here and now.
And to him who wishes to bring a judgment against you, so he may take away your tunic, give him your cloak as well; And whoever presses you into service for one mile, go with him for two. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not turn away from one who wishes to borrow from you.
— The Sermon on the Mount; Matthew 5:40-42; The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart (Yale University Press)
He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars. …”
— William Blake, “Jerusalem”
… it is better to cherish virtue and humanity, by leaving much to free will, even with some loss to the object, than to attempt to make men mere machines and instruments of a political benevolence. The world on the whole will gain by a liberty, without which virtue cannot exist.
— Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France
According to an email I received recently from a close relative consumed by hatred, I am “totally selfish and self-absorbed.”
Really?
I just went to the corner mailbox this evening (Friday, January 11, 2019) in the cold to mail a couple of letters for my wife. A middle aged woman who looked cold and frazzled seemed to want to get my attention. It seemed hard for her to speak up. I heard her saying something about needing some change or a dollar, if I could spare it, to get something to eat. I reached into my wallet and there was a twenty dollar bill at the top. I gave it to her.
The twenty dollar bill came to hand. I didn’t think about it. I knew if I gave her more than she expected she would be able to at least afford something (a cup of coffee nowadays costs nearly two dollars) and would be, hopefully, slightly encouraged. Reflecting upon the amount I had given her, I thought to myself, what will my having twenty dollars less in cash on hand mean to me a day or two from now? Her misery or desperation far outweighs any aggravation she or any panhandler might cause.
Beggars and panhandlers are a fact of life for most people, I would suspect. Particularly city dwellers.
I occasionally find myself asking myself what is the best way to respond to or deal with them. Should one give? Are they to be regarded as nuisances?
My rule of thumb has been to be guided by instinct. Often, I will notice a beggar off to the side who can easily be ignored. I tend to never give to subway panhandlers (or buskers, for that matter).
But, there are frequent occasions when I feel compelled to give. Often, this happens when I make eye contact with a beggar. Occasionally, I will be walking down the street lost in thought when I half notice a beggar and walk a few steps past him or her, then turn around, walk back a few steps, and give. It is often the case that I do this when I am in a good mood and am inclined to count my blessings. At such times, I find myself saying to myself, if God is bestowing blessings upon me, if the world is my oyster, it behooves me to try and share some of these good feelings with another.
On such occasions, I usually, besides giving, try to briefly say something affirmative to the other person and to show by a word or two or a look that I respect them and appreciate their thanks, as a way of emphasizing our common humanity.
There are also times when I am not in a good mood and regard someone importuning me for a handout as a nuisance. Feeling churlish, I ignore the beggar and try to avoid eye contact. In such a mood, I feel, kindness by me would not be propitious. It’s sort of equivalent to saying that one shouldn’t give if one can’t do it in the right sprit. (A Japanese-American nurse in a hospital where I was working as an orderly once said something similar to me. Even when doing something as routine as dispensing medication, she said, she felt it had to be done in the right spirit to be effective.)
As noted by me on another post on this site, “My Boyhood,” I used to Christmas shop for my immediate family in Harvard Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts when I was around eleven or twelve years old. I put a lot of thought into buying gifts for my family, but it was on a very limited budget. I probably spent five or six dollars at the most.
Once, while shopping during the Christmas season, a panhandler asked me for money and I gave him something like 85 cents. It seemed then like a large amount to give and represented a substantial portion of the pocket change I had left. But I felt compelled to do it. I thought it was my Christian duty and that it was better to give than receive.
I had a similar experience in Manhattan once when I was in my early twenties. I was walking back to work on East 18th Street during lunch hour on a freezing cold day. I was on a very limited budget. I was doing alternative service work as a conscientious objector and was very low paid. I was always straining to conserve my resources; it was hard to live in Manhattan on my salary.
As I was about to enter the headquarters of my employer, I noticed a middle aged man approaching. I can’t recall what he said, but it was clear that he badly needed a handout. His teeth were chattering, he was so cold; he looked desperate and utterly forlorn. I gave him two dollars, which represented a goodly portion of my pocket money.
Nowadays, that would not seem like a lot, but I recall feeling that it was a lot then, but that I had to do it. I felt a strong moral imperative, the same Christian imperative. And, I felt that, overall, it was the right thing and would prove, over time, to have been so.
It is my practice nowadays to try to be charitable and helpful in various ways to people whom I encounter in the City. I feel that it is a matter of karma, and I often think of how often people have done little things for me, nice things.
I was walking in Brooklyn a year or so ago. I had just purchased something or other. I think it was electronic equipment. As I was crossing a street at a busy intersection, a traffic agent busily directing traffic noticed that the cheap plastic bag the store had given me had broken and that my products had fallen to the street, of which I was oblivious. She flagged me down and halted traffic, enabling me to return to the intersection, which I had already crossed, and retrieve my stuff. I would have been distressed if I had gotten home with an empty bag.
In situations where I am asked for a handout nowadays — when and if I am not inclined to simply brush the person off — I usually give more than asked for. If someone asks me for a dollar or for change, I usually give five dollars. I say to myself, what can one buy with a dollar nowadays?
One might ask, are you not, Mr. Smith, a smug do-gooder, someone who wants to be admired for your benevolence? And, how much good are our really doing? Why don’t you give to charities, or try to do good works with a lasting impact?
To this I would answer as follows, in a twofold response:
— I believe in serendipity, in letting things happen as they may. And in destiny. So, when I encounter a beggar, I often say to myself, it must be my time and duty to give today. There is a reason that fate has put us on the same path. It is a matter of taking things as they come.
— I feel that — this is crucial — giving under such circumstances can do more good than might readily be apparent. Because what the beggar needs, most of all, is encouragement, and a feeling that one is not regarded as being of no account or insignificant as a human being. So that, in surprising them and exceeding their expectations by being generous, one is giving beggars hope.
On Friday February 8 2019, I was on 57th Street around 6 or 7 in the evening on my way to a concert.
A woman who did not appear destitute and whose dress or appearance would not have attracted attention was standing on a corner. She looked innocuous and I didn’t take much notice of her.
She must have thought I looked like a nice, non-threatening person.
She suddenly looked up and said distinctly and politely, sounding well spoken: “Do you think you could give me a dollar so I could get some pizza.” The specificity of her request surprised me.
Nowadays a slice of pizza in Manhattan often costs three dollars. When I first came to Manhattan, a slice cost twenty cents.
I’ll give her five dollars, I thought. I reached into my wallet. Couldn’t find a five. I gave her a ten.
“Ten dollars!” she said with enthusiasm. “Thanks!”
Suddenly, I felt great, her happiness washing over me.
I had a not un-similar experience to the one above on Saturday, June 22, 2019.
I was walking in Midtown Manhattan feeling abject — downcast and angry with myself.
A middle aged woman who did not seem shabbily dressed asked me for some change so she could get home to New Jersey. She pulled me momentarily out of my reverie and funk.
I said, “there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves. For example, if my neighbour has a mind to my cow, he has a lawyer to prove that he ought to have my cow from me. I must then hire another to defend my right, it being against all rules of law that any man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now, in this case, I, who am the right owner, lie under two great disadvantages: first, my lawyer, being practised almost from his cradle in defending falsehood, is quite out of his element when he would be an advocate for justice, which is an unnatural office he always attempts with great awkwardness, if not with ill-will. The second disadvantage is, that my lawyer must proceed with great caution, or else he will be reprimanded by the judges, and abhorred by his brethren, as one that would lessen the practice of the law. And therefore I have but two methods to preserve my cow. The first is, to gain over my adversary’s lawyer with a double fee, who will then betray his client by insinuating that he hath justice on his side. The second way is for my lawyer to make my cause appear as unjust as he can, by allowing the cow to belong to my adversary: and this, if it be skilfully done, will certainly bespeak the favour of the bench. Now your honour is to know, that these judges are persons appointed to decide all controversies of property, as well as for the trial of criminals, and picked out from the most dexterous lawyers, who are grown old or lazy; and having been biassed all their lives against truth and equity, lie under such a fatal necessity of favouring fraud, perjury, and oppression, that I have known some of them refuse a large bribe from the side where justice lay, rather than injure the faculty, by doing any thing unbecoming their nature or their office.
“It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever has been done before, may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice, and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities to justify the most iniquitous opinions; and the judges never fail of directing accordingly.
“In pleading, they studiously avoid entering into the merits of the cause; but are loud, violent, and tedious, in dwelling upon all circumstances which are not to the purpose. For instance, in the case already mentioned; they never desire to know what claim or title my adversary has to my cow; but whether the said cow were red or black; her horns long or short; whether the field I graze her in be round or square; whether she was milked at home or abroad; what diseases she is subject to, and the like; after which they consult precedents, adjourn the cause from time to time, and in ten, twenty, or thirty years, come to an issue.
“It is likewise to be observed, that this society has a peculiar cant and jargon of their own, that no other mortal can understand, and wherein all their laws are written, which they take special care to multiply; whereby they have wholly confounded the very essence of truth and falsehood, of right and wrong; so that it will take thirty years to decide, whether the field left me by my ancestors for six generations belongs to me, or to a stranger three hundred miles off.
“In the trial of persons accused for crimes against the state, the method is much more short and commendable: the judge first sends to sound the disposition of those in power, after which he can easily hang or save a criminal, strictly preserving all due forms of law.”
Here my master interposing, said, “it was a pity, that creatures endowed with such prodigious abilities of mind, as these lawyers, by the description I gave of them, must certainly be, were not rather encouraged to be instructors of others in wisdom and knowledge.” In answer to which I assured his honour, “that in all points out of their own trade, they were usually the most ignorant and stupid generation among us, the most despicable in common conversation, avowed enemies to all knowledge and learning, and equally disposed to pervert the general reason of mankind in every other subject of discourse as in that of their own profession.”
— Gulliver’s Travels Into Several Remote Nations Of The World, Part IV, ” A Voyage To The Country Of The Houyhnhnms,” Chapter V
And passing on from there Jesus saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax-collection house, and says to him, “Follow me.” And rising he followed him. And it happened that, as he was reclining at table in the house, look: Many tax-collectors and sinners came and reclined at table with Jesus and his disciples. And, seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax-collectors and sinners?” But he heard them and said, “The hale do not have need of a physician, but rather those who are ill. Go then and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice’; for I come to call not the upright, but sinners.”.
Matthew 9:10-13
Now a certain one of the Pharisees requested him to dine with him, and entering the Pharisee’s house he reclined at table. And look: There was a woman in the city who was a sinner, and knowing that he is reclining in the home of the Pharisee, and bringing an alabaster phial of unguent. And standing behind, weeping at his feet, she began to make his feet wet with her tears, and she wiped them off with the hair of her head, and fervently kissed his feet and anointed them with unguent. But, seeing this, the Pharisee who had invited him talked to himself, saying, “This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and of what sort this woman who touches him is, for she is a sinner.” And in reply Jesus said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” … And turning to the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your home, you did not give me water for my feet; but she washed my feet with her tears and wiped them off with her hair. You gave me no kiss of friendship, but she from the time I entered has not ceased fervently kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil; but she anointed my feet with unguent. By virtue of which, I tell you, her sins—which are many—have be forgiven, because she loved much; but one to whom little is forgiven loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.” And those reclining at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” And he said to the woman: “Your faith has saved you, go in peace.” thee; go in peace.
Luke 7:37-50
— The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart
This is the meal equally set—this is the meat for
natural hunger;
It is for the wicked just the same as the righteous—I
make appointments with all;
I will not have a single person slighted or left away;
The kept-woman, sponger, thief, are hereby invited;
The heavy-lipp’d slave is invited—the venerealee is invited:
There shall be no difference between them and the rest.
— Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
If you become degraded, criminal, ill, then I become so for your sake, If you remember your foolish and outlaw’d deeds, do you think I cannot remember my own foolish and outlaw’d deeds? If you carouse at the table I carouse at the opposite side of the table, If you meet some stranger in the streets and love him or her, why I often meet strangers in the street and love them.
Why what have you thought of yourself? Is it you then that thought yourself less? Is it you that thought the President greater than you? Or the rich better off than you? or the educated wiser than you?
(Because you are greasy or pimpled, or were once drunk, or a thief, Or that you are diseas’d, or rheumatic, or a prostitute, Or from frivolity or impotence, or that you are no scholar and never saw your name in print, Do you give in that you are any less immortal?)
Walt Whitman, “A Song for Occupations”
Recall Christ, brother of rejected persons—brother of
slaves, felons, idiots, and of insane and diseas’d
persons.
In my senior year in high school, I took an IQ test administered by a graduate student at Boston University. A question on the test, which he administered orally, was why should one not associate with disreputable people? I answered that I did not agree with the premise.
Some fifty years later, I still feel the same way.
I have learned a great deal from, and my life has been enriched by, people of all levels of intelligence, backgrounds, occupations, persuasions, personality types, idiosyncracies, and life situations.
I have given rides and handouts to just released ex-convicts; associated with people whose opinions and/or behavior could be considered immoral, criminal, improper, antisocial, deviant, clueless, or odd by others; have never chosen my friends according to their political or religious views.
The driving force, in my own experience, behind making acquaintances and forming friendships has been: how is that person disposed towards ME? Do they wish to associate and communicate; do they desire or need human contact? Then, I find that it behooves me to respond affirmatively. I am a priori willing to accept anyone as a friend.
I have benefited, immeasurably, from such associations. These people have taught me so much or, to put it the other way around, I have learned so much from them.
I see no reason to change.
And, I am amazed and gladdened by the innate goodness and sincerity of so many people who are prone to neglect and sometimes scorn or to being rejected by polite society.
An acquaintance of mine posted a comment on Facebook last evening — following up on comments arising from a blog post of mine yesterday — saying that Donald Trump is “worse” than Hitler was. He then followed up with the comment that there are “many parallels” between Trump and Hitler.
He means it; he was not trying to be cute.
I was astonished by such a comparison having been made. After a brief check of the Times, however, I learned that others have been saying the same thing.
Another Facebook commentator, responding to the first person’s comments, wrote:
“Agree.
“And more recent history, Milošević: not only narcissism, popularism, support of white nationalists, but disturbingly parallel in terms of the belief in ridiculous conspiracy theories.
“Have you read Mein Kampf? Distorted, disordered thinking, stream of consciousness writing. If Hitler had twitter, he would tweet like this man [Trump]. And if this man could write (a book for himself rather than paying someone to write for him), his writing would likely be similar to Hitler’s.
“Except, Hitler had ‘grander’ visions … this man is indeed an idiot who has no thought beyond ‘winning’.”
After pausing to catch my breath, I would be inclined to say:
There may well be something to these comparisons in alerting us to current political developments in the USA and Western Europe, where the politics represented by figures such as Trump and Marine Le Pen in France, both of whom only recently did not seem to be taken that seriously, are in the ascendancy.
There may be instructive parallels with 1930’s-style Fascism.
Historical analogies can be useful.
But, in the case of such claims, it is necessary to maintain a truly historical perspective; to avoid “reverse presentism,” so to speak (interpreting current developments in terms of past ones); to maintain some degree of objectivity and balance.
I believe that the left has become unhinged over the Trump candidacy and election and has lost all sense of proportion and reason.
Donald Trump has been called “a monster” by another one of my close acquaintances.
And, God knows what else (by others).
Trump does not have an appealing personality in many respects. (I can hear Trump haters saying to me, “you just discovered that?”)
I have not studied him closely, nor would I be qualified to develop a psychological profile.
But, he appears, more often than not, to be
an egomaniac
a male chauvinist
a groper, at least – I don’t think his several accusers, who all of them tell pretty much the same story, are making it up; I don’t believe his denials
an adulterer; probably — it would appear, undoubtedly — at various times in his life — a philanderer (in which categories I would suspect that he would be found to have a lot of company if a modern day Kinsey Report were compiled and published)
crude — at least sometimes; coarse and vulgar
given to puffery, braggadicio, and egregious self-promotion
given to distortion and playing loose with the facts when it suits his own purposes, in his public pronouncements
stiffs businessmen and women whom he or his firm has dealings with
his firm scammed students of the bogus Trump University
has to be the center of attention and has always acted as if he was God’s gift to mankind and womankind
espouses truly reprehensible policies
wants to dismantle Obama’s signature achievements
insults, trashes, or smears political rivals and those he disagrees with
can be demeaning to persons and groups who have suffered or appear disadvantaged
It would take quite a lot of butchery from our new president – he would have a long way to go — to match the track records of the above named historical figures and be classed among the worst of recent history’s tyrants.
An old friend of mine, whom I like and admire, marched with her extended family in an anti-Trump protest in Washington yesterday (January 22, 2017) and proudly posted a photo on Facebook.
One of her friends posted as follows: “Give me a break, _______. Trump hasn’t done anything yet and you guys are protesting. This is ridiculous.”
Well put. (Although I do not feel that protestors do not have the right to engage in a “counter inaugural” and to demonstrate on this or other occasions.) Hitler has a track record whereby history has indicted him. Trump’s remains to be seen.
I wonder. Is the left most incensed about Trump the “sexist pig”?
If so, I wonder why more fuss wasn’t ever made and as much outrage shown over:
JFK (had White House interns procured for him — one recently wrote a book about it that was respectfully reviewed; and, his girlfriend, the moll Judith Exner)
Ted Kennedy (Chappaquiddick)
Bill Clinton (Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and countless others; probably Denise Rich, to whose husband Clinton issued a scandalous eleventh hour pardon; apparently forcing himself upon Juanita Broaddrick)
Addendum: The following is my response to a reader of this post who criticized it.
My comments:
Your feelings are shared by many of your and my relatives and friends and are well expressed by you.
A couple of comments by way of explanation.
I do not necessarily think Trump is great businessman, and he certainly is not a genius. I have read articles over the years critical of his business dealings and articles which point to weak links and question the financial soundness of businesses and holdings in in his corporate empire. I was trying to point out that, when assessing Trump in the round, he does appear to have business acumen and some of the mental abilities that go along with that.
As far as the implication that I am wasting my time writing about Trump goes, I think that the anti-Trump hysteria (as I view it) is symptomatic of something deeper and is an illustration of a zaniness on the left these days when it comes to things that offend them, Trump being their current bête noire. Which Lionel Shriver talks about. See:
Lionel Shriver, “”Will the Left Survive the Millennials?” The New York Times September 23, 2016
I don’t like it when I see intolerance from either side, and when the public is in a frenzy, I find often find myself questioning it.
I could probably explain myself better if I took the time. But, one should not be faulted for writing what one honesty thinks, or for having an opinion that does not accord with others’. Nor is it a waste of time to point out what seem to be excesses by liberals.
It’s kind of like I’m being told, there is no point in even discussing Trump or any issues that might arise because of the controversy over his candidacy and election and revelations regarding him; that I am not allowed to even think or write about him, unless my view conforms and supports others’. But, for example, as was the case with my previous posts about the Billy Bush tape and the “Hamilton” cast’s remarks made to Vice President elect Pence, there were issues that arose that, aside from the news flashes, are worthy of consideration and, in my case, of reflection upon broader issues and concerns. Why should I steer away from controversial topics for fear of being disagreed with?
Many people became disillusioned with the Great Soviet Experiment, but were afraid to say anything. George Orwell saw that what was supposed to be an egalitarian, liberated society had actually become totalitarian and repressive, and wrote about it. I feel, as Lionel Shriver recently wrote, that “the left in the West [has] come to embrace restriction, censorship and the imposition of an orthodoxy at least as tyrannical as the anti-Communist, pro-Christian conformism [we] grew up with.”
Criticisms of Trump notwithstanding, it is not a waste of time to weigh in on such issues. They often arise when the person attacked is among the least popular and most reviled.
This searing article depresses me and makes me angry.
Many of the women got pregnant young. Many were abused by boyfriends or raised in horrible conditions as children.
Most are in prison for drug offenses. They should not be incarcerated. There is no reason for it. Perhaps drug treatment would help them. But drug abuse is a victimless crime.
The other crimes described in the article – committed by these “horrible creatures” — seem almost petty.
The woman prisoner mentioned at the beginning of article was “shackled to a wall” during the interview.
She and many of the other women have been cruelly separated from their children. It’s a system that perpetuates abuse and cruelty and that causes a continuous cycle of misery, from generation to generation.
Abuse – if not barbarity — by the “corrections” system is monstrous and unremitting.
And, we profess to lecture other nations about respecting the essential worth and dignity of each individual and adhering to the doctrine of human rights.
— Roger W. Smith
November 26, 2016
***********************************************
“I know some of you are glaring at this article and thinking: It’s their own fault. If they don’t want to go to prison, they shouldn’t commit crimes!
“That scorn derives partly from a misunderstanding of drug abuse, which is a central reason for mass female incarceration in America (and a major reason for mass incarceration of men as well, although to a lesser degree). As Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, the surgeon general, noted in releasing a major report this month: “It’s time to change how we view addiction. Not as a moral failing but as a chronic illness.” In short, we should think of drugs not primarily through the criminal justice lens but as a public health crisis.”
Other factors conspired in the party’s debacle. One in particular haunts me. From the presidential race on down, Democrats adopted a strategy of inclusiveness that excluded a hefty share of Americans and consigned many to a “basket of deplorables” who aren’t all deplorable. …
Liberals miss this by being illiberal. They shame not just the racists and sexists who deserve it but all who disagree. …
Political correctness has morphed into a moral purity that may feel exhilarating but isn’t remotely tactical. It’s a handmaiden to smugness and sanctimony, undermining its own goals.
“The Democrats Screwed Up” by Frank Bruni, The New York Times November 11, 2016
Three cheers for Frank Bruni. Finally, someone has actually spoken out against the views of the fanatical politically correct crowd: the new orthodoxy. (Well, that’s not quite right. Others have.)
Ms. Shriver, a noted American author, brilliantly and incisively makes points along the same lines – to the effect that a new “totalitarian orthodoxy” is setting in — already has: the orthodoxy of the politically correct left.
re: “Kathleen Kane, Former Pennsylvania Attorney General, Is Sentenced to Prison,” The New York Times, October 24, 2016
The article states:
The brief, unlikely political career of Kathleen G. Kane, Pennsylvania’s brightest rising star when she was elected attorney general less than four years ago, came to a humiliating close on Monday when a judge sentenced her to 10 to 23 months in prison for her conviction on charges of perjury and abuse of her office.
She was convicted of illegally leaking grand jury records in an attempt to discredit a critic and then lying about it to a different grand jury. In August, a Common Pleas Court jury here found her guilty of two felony perjury charges and seven misdemeanor counts, forcing her to resign from office.
She broke down in tears on Monday while testifying at her sentencing hearing, pleading with the judge to consider her two teenage sons.
“Maybe I deserve everything I get; they don’t,” she said. “I am not going to ask for your mercy because I don’t care about me anymore.”
Called to testify on her behalf, her son Chris, 15, said: “My mom is like my rock. We just know that we can’t lose our mom.”
She faced a maximum sentence of 12 to 24 years in prison, but her lawyers argued that the loss of her career and reputation was punishment enough.
Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy, however, said, “Any lesser sentence than total confinement will absolutely depreciate the seriousness of the crime.”
Ms. Kane grew up in Scranton and worked there as an assistant district attorney, specializing in prosecuting sex crimes.
“In her first few months in office, she rejected [former Pennsylvania Governor Tom] Corbett’s plan to privatize management of the state lottery, refused to defend in court the state’s ban on gay marriage, offered only a lukewarm defense of a voter identification law, and exposed corruption at the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. She also gave a promotion to her twin sister — who had worked for years in the attorney general’s office — prompting accusations of nepotism.
*************************************************
Commentary:
I don’t care what the facts of this case are. I would care if it were a heinous crime. This case does not involve a heinous crime.
Figuring out what Ms. Kane is guilty of is difficult for the average reader – unacquainted with the case and Pennsylvania politics – like myself.
But, there is no point is sending Ms. Kane to jail.
Separating her from her teenage sons.
It is indicated in other articles about the case that she is separated from her husband and is undergoing divorce proceedings. Therefore, it would seem that the hardship of her being separated for a year or two from her sons will be even worse than if her children lived in a situation where there was an intact marriage with two parents at home.
Of course, none of this mattered, or matters, to the judge. She has to make a point. Has to have her pound of flesh.
It appears that Ms. Kane not only got on the wrong side of the law, but that she was also on the wrong side politically, as far as many public officials were concerned. Perhaps she was a scheming, devious, manipulative, power hungry office holder. Perhaps she abused her office.
I still don’t think she should be sent to prison.
The prison system is full of people who should not be there. Keeping them locked up does no good. It’s a system that perpetuates cruelty, plain and simple. There is no other way to construe or view it.
— posted by Roger W. Smith
October 2016
************************************************
See also:
“Pennsylvania Attorney General Quits on Heels of Perjury Conviction,” The New York Times, August 16, 2016
“Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Is Convicted on All Counts,” The New York Times, August 15, 2016
“Perjury Trial Begins for Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General,” The New York Times, August 9, 2016
“Pennsylvania Attorney General Faces Arraignment,” The New York Times, August 8, 2015
“Pennsylvania Attorney General, Kathleen Kane, Charged in Leak Case,” The New York Times, August 6, 2015
“Fall in Fortunes for Pennsylvania Attorney General,” The New York Times, February 3, 2015
“Grand Jury Recommends Pennsylvania Attorney General Be Charged With Perjury,” The New York Times, January 21, 2015
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
— John 3-11 (King James Version)
It is not you alone who know what it is to be evil;
I am he who knew what it was to be evil;
I too knitted the old knot of contrariety,
Blabb’d, blush’d, resented, lied, stole, grudg’d,
Had guile, anger, lust, hot wishes I dared not speak,
Was wayward, vain, greedy, shallow, sly, cowardly, malignant;
The wolf, the snake, the hog, not wanting in me,
The cheating look, the frivolous word, the adulterous wish, not wanting,
Refusals, hates, postponements, meanness, laziness, none of these wanting.
Jon Cruz, age 33, was a teacher and debate coach at the Bronx High School of Science in New York City, one of the city’s most competitive high schools. He was arrested in March 2015 on charges that he persuaded three teenage boys to send him nude or suggestive photographs in exchange for gift cards. He was charged with possessing, receiving, and producing child pornography, whereupon he resigned his teaching positon.
Cruz was a popular figure at the school. He was recognized as a tireless coach for the speech and debate team, which became a formidable national competitor under his leadership (New York Times).
The Times noted:
The charge carries a minimum prison term of five years and a maximum of 20. As part of the plea, the prosecution agreed to recommend a sentence of approximately 11 to 14 years. That range is just advisory, however, and Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York will sentence Mr. Cruz in January [2017].
announced the charges that were brought against Cruz on the day he was arrested (March 6, 2015) in his Manhattan apartment. The charges were:
— one count of production of child pornography;
— one count of receiving child pornography;
— one count of possessing child pornography.
According to the press release:
For production of child pornography, CRUZ faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison. For his receipt of child pornography, he faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. For his possession of child pornography, he faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
*************************************************
The charges sound grave, and they are serious ones for an educator who worked with teenage boys. But, I do not think it unreasonable to ask, what has Cruz — who has pleaded guilty and who confessed when he was first apprehended — done? Are his crimes deserving of a draconian sentence?
I am not employed by the FBI. But, using layman’s judgment, I would say that the criminal activities Cruz was charged with – in my own words, absent legal jargon – can be “boiled down,” so to speak, as follows:
— Disguising his identity, Cruz attempted to befriend teenage boys via the Internet and, over time, encouraged them to send photos of themselves to him. He would encourage them to pose erotically. In several of the photos that Cruz received, the boys posed naked with erect penises. In a few others, they were flexing their muscles.
— The criminal complaint indicates that 30 photos of naked boys aged fourteen to sixteen were found on Cruz’s computer in his Manhattan apartment.
That seems to be the sum total of what Cruz did.
It does not seem to be the kind of activity that usually comes to mind when one thinks of child pornography.
What was Cruz NOT charged with:
— rape, groping, or molestation;
— actual sexual acts;
— making the photos public or disseminating them;
— making pornographic videos.
In fact, the only contact with this “victims” was anonymously via the Internet.
details Cruz’s exchanges via Facebook and text messages with teenage boys. It provides details about the number and types of photos he obtained. The photos included:
— several photos of naked teenage boys with erect penises;
— photos of boys in their underwear pointing to their crotches;
— photos in which boys struck poses requested by Cruz such as showing their bare feet or flexing their muscles;
— “thumbs up” selfies of non naked boys.
Apparently, there were 30 photos on Cruz’s computer of teenage boys posing nude. It appears that Cruz will be sentenced to more than ten years. This for possessing 30 photos on his computer of boys posing nude, not engaging in sex acts. (Cruz did occasionally discuss sexual acts with the boys over the Internet, but this did not go any further.)
Cruz was charged with, and convicted of, “producing child pornography.” I can see no common sense foundation or basis for such a charge. He did not even take the photos of the boys.
Setting aside for a moment the legal or criminal aspects of the case—I am repeating myself, I realize; but I can’t help asking the question again — what nefarious behavior is Cruz guilty of, what abhorrent things has he done?
–he trolled and, undeniably — to a limited extent — preyed upon teenage boys under age eighteen;
— he did not force them to comply, but he talked them into sending him photos, which he offered to (and did) pay for;
— he did not produce kiddie porn, nor view (insofar as what is alleged in the criminal complaint) or disseminate such pornography, with the exception of the 30 photos of teenage boys found on his computer, not all of which were pornographic.
In practice (leaving aside legal questions for a moment), what damage or harm has his criminal activity caused?
— an offense to public morals and common decency, compounded by the fact that he was a high school teacher working daily with students (he was not, however, changed with criminal activity involving his students);
— psychological damage that may have and probably did occur, to a greater or lesser degree, in some of the incidents in which Cruz procured the photos, since he was, using a fake identity, encouraging the boys to engage in questionable and illegal activity with him — specifically, sending him the photos — when they were under age, quite possibly not certain and perhaps confused about their sexuality, and who, because of this, could therefore experience psychological damage or impairment from such activity, activity not initiated by them.
This is questionable behavior. If I were the principal or administrator at Cruz’s school, I would be concerned. If I were the parent of one of the affected boys, I would be more than just concerned.
You know what I think should be done which such offenders? (I realize that few will agree with me.) They should be required to undergo counseling.
In the press (e.g., the New York Daily News), Cruz was referred to as the “perv,” the “pervy teacher” and the “twisted” teacher.
Granted his behavior was not admirable; nor was it healthy for those concerned, including Cruz himself, I would aver. But, when it comes to perversions, I would bet that many people are or have been subject to thoughts and urges that, if made public, they would be ashamed of, which Walt Whitman had the prescience to point out a century and a half ago.
We should not crucify people for perversions. We should try to help them.
Though the majority would find Cruz’s sexual desires and curiosity perhaps abnormal, strange, or offputting, and though he went about it in a devious fashion, I would imagine that, from a gay perspective, his desires would be considered normal. He did get to the point where he could not control his urges and manage them, and got himself in trouble.
For this, I repeat, I think he would have benefited from counseling.
“I just want to say to my family and friends and former students who are here that I am very, very sorry,” Cruz stated in court on September 23, 2016 when he pleaded guilty.
The fact is that punishments for what is considered deviant behavior have varied over time, as mores have evolved. In colonial times, rape, sodomy, bestiality, buggery, adultery, and incest were all capital crimes.
Consider the case of Newton Arvin, the so called Scarlet Professor. Arvin (1900-1963) taught at Smith College for 38 years and won numerous awards for literary scholarship. He was forced into retirement in 1960 after pleading guilty to charges stemming from the possession of pictures of semi-nude males that the law deemed pornographic. Nowadays, possessing such photos (of adult males) would not be considered criminal.
Arvin pleaded guilty, paid fines of $1,200, was given a one-year suspended sentence, and was placed on probation. Smith College suspended Arvin from teaching. Shortly after his arrest, Arvin spent some time in Northampton State Hospital, where he was admitted for suicidal depression.
Jon Cruz’s proposed sentence is far too severe. He had much good to offer society and his students. It is a shame to see his life destroyed by behavior of his that did violate the letter of the law and which was not admirable, but which is being made out to be far worse than it actually was. There are remedies other than a long period of incarceration which will last until he is well into middle age. He should have been sentenced lightly, and I would say, what he and many nonviolent offenders like him should get is treatment.
The mother of a recent Bronx High School of Science student said in a letter to the court that she did not condone what Jon Cruz was accused of doing but that he was “not a monster,” and that he had helped many young people grow and flourish.
It is sad to contemplate that few people exhibit a like degree of wisdom, good judgment, and humanity.
Cannot we see the goodness in people as well as their failings?
“[T]he law is a ass–a idiot” (Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Chapter 51).
