I've been asked about my sexuality and it seems that because I require more than your average one or two words to explain it, it means I am abnormal. I am abnormal because I choose to be abstinent and people can not accept this. What I have come to find is that sexuality is enforced for adults where it is denied to young people. Choosing to express one's sexuality differently than the majority only seems to become a crime against nature when one has crossed that artificial and arbitrary edifice into adulthood, into the coven of humanity. It seems voluntarily going without intercourse is a greater crime against nature than forcing others to involuntarily abstain.
It's as if human sexuality is some prize to be won for years spent in enforced abstinence. Suddenly as an adult, you're supposed to be living it up, you're required to be expressing your sexuality, enjoying it, because you earned it. Decadence is how adults celebrate the fact that they've made it to adulthood, it's how they reap the benefits bestowed on them for simply being an adult, and one of the most obvious is the way they are expected to express their new-found sexuality. The adult way of doing things is indeed steeped in unhealthy decadence. Sexuality is natural, and however an individual chooses to express or not express it should be acceptable (as long as it doesn't conflict with the rights and dignity of others)--this either/or extremism between involuntary abstinence and involuntary decadence is not. It's a perversion.
Because adults enforce that no individual below their line in the sand edifice for sexuality is allowed to be sexual, they expect and require sexuality from each other. Abstinence is first required, expected, and then it is stoned to death. People react, with the same shock, to the incongruities of a sexual child as they do at an asexual adult--or at least, an adult with a sexuality that deviates from the norm. If one has to explain their sexuality in more than one or two words, then it is considered abnormal.
Normal sexuality for adults is whatever advertisers have told us it is. It is an erection at the sight of a beer bottle, a sleek car, or a hamburger. What is normal for the adult only becomes an abomination, it seems, when the same effect rubs off on a child. Children are not supposed to have a normal sexuality after all, they are in fact required to have no sexuality. When they express a sexuality, it is an automatic abomination--so says the west.
However, it seems the moment a youth reaches this magical deadline, sexuality is not just expected from them, but demanded of them. Adults will not accept one of their own confessing to be asexual, or at least, confessing to have a sexuality that is not one the consumer culture has picked out for them. When adults speak candidly about their sexuality when gloating on their self-defined "ability to be sexual," they react with little more than scorn when one member of their group does not jump right in line with their sexual fetish proselytizing. Sexuality is demanded from the adult, and with it, the open and constant expression of it, lest they become outsiders.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Questioning the Amber Alert
You may hear it said that anyone who questions something purported to save children's lives must be in league with whatever band of miscreants don't want children's lives to be saved. But what is a child's life worth to the people who make this broad leap of irrational zeal? Is a child's life a bargaining line against societal betterment? Are children now our excuse for apathy, for maintaining the status quo in a broken system? Does fixing the system's faults mean one is against saving children, and if such is the case, what does that make those who ignore the system's faults? Irrationality over children is the hideous beast that holds children captive if only to make sure no one else gets to set them free first, and it needs to die of a thousand cuts. Here's one cut we can make.
Let's consider Amber Alerts for a moment. Many may be tempted to think that such a dramatic, news-friendly theater narrative system recovers 12 children a day and costs nothing to implement--that its benefits outweigh any possible drawback to such an extent that it's not even worth investigating alternative methods for recovering children from abductions. In reality though, according to their own report for 2009 (the most recent one), out of 207 cases (269 children) nationwide, 45 (59 children) were recovered contingent upon the Amber alert having been posted, at a cost of 25 million dollars per state in federal money (from taxpayers) to pay for implementing the service. The average caseload per state (including three US territories), was about four, an average of one child per state and territory was recovered. So in effect, based on averages, 25 million dollars was spent to rescue about one child in your state in 2009. (Michigan had the highest at 27, but a majority of states had 0 or 1 cases).
The money seems insubstantial though, because if it helped save even one child's life, then it surely must be money well spent? A child's life, a human life, is certainly worth more than any dollar amount. But despite what any politician may say, the money that goes in to setting up the Amber Alert system does not "save children's lives." The Bill itself does not "save children's lives," it simply allocates money for states to set up Amber Alert systems. That 25 million pays for the infrastructure and technology needed to broadcast the Amber alerts--mainly, glowing highway signs, command posts, and emergency alert systems for television and radio. But why should this matter if all that equipment is being used in the service of spreading awareness about children being abducted?
In reality, the effect of these gadgets and special announcements on the police and investigators solving their cases, is minimal. That was the finding in the first independent study on the effectiveness of Amber alerts at the University of Nevada, carried out by a team lead by criminologist Timothy Griffin. Hundreds of abduction cases between 2003 and 2009 were studied, and the finding was that Amber Alerts played little to no role in the recovery of children, despite their glowing reputation in the mainstream media. It was found that the majority of cases deemed successes by the Amber Alert system during those six years were children involved in custody fights between parents where the child was not at risk. In the minority of cases where kidnappers were the perpetrators, Amber Alerts usually failed to save their lives. It would appear that murderous kidnappers are not swayed to spare the child's life when the kid's face and name is plastered on every screen in the county.
Essentially, the Amber Alerts generally help police and investigators recover children from lower risk situations where the child's life is not at least immediately in jeopardy. "The fact is that once someone abducts a child with a murderous intent," Griffin said, "there's really not that much we can do about it." In 2009, nine children were recovered already deceased, and none were found to be a result of an outside the family kidnapping: 4 children died at the hands of relatives, 5 children died from unknown circumstances. While the Amber Alerts certainly do have the potential to be life saving, to make the assumption that every Amber Alert saves a life, or that Amber Alerts are a life saving operation like the ER, is a gross exaggeration.
One may also contend that Amber alerts in 2009 saved the lives of children at the hands of murderous rapists, kidnappers, and strangers. This is the image glorified in the media, after all. In actuality, of the 170 cases in which the abductor had been identified in 2009, 139 of them were in known relationships with the child, making only 31 cases nationwide where the child had been abducted by some rogue kidnapper. Of those 139 cases, 109 of those known relationships were familial ones. Imagine that, family members are the greatest threat to our nation's children, with 64 being the child's father, and 34 being the child's mother. This means that the number of child abductions in which the offender was the child's own parents vastly outnumbers cases where children were abducted by the rogue slugs that make for such an endearing news hour.
However, none of this is meant to suggest that Amber Alerts be done away with. In fact, one promising thing about Amber Alerts, if not because of the number of children they save, is the speed at which recoveries are made following activation of an alert. Many children with activated alerts on them were recovered within three hours of the alert being posted. In fact, 35 of the 59 children recovered in 2009 were rescued within three hours of the alert being posted, mainly because officers were able to identify the abductor's vehicle as described in the alert. This is encouraging, but once again, when most of the abductors are related to the child, information about the child's parents' vehicle is already determined. While the number of Amber Alerts issued has declined over time, the number of abductions has remained fairly consistent.
How necessary is this measure? One could say society is better off with Amber Alerts than it would be if no such method of alert existed for the recovery of abducted children. But how effective is the measure? Is its efficiency so great that it can not even be questioned--so great that all who criticize it can only be among those "against saving children's lives?" This is hardly an over-statement. I'm more than confident that, seeing how few children are actually recovered (even given that perhaps the numbers have changed since 2009), this is a costly apparatus that could probably be scaled back to something a bit more representative of its effectiveness. All that is made by human endeavor should be questioned, because regardless of whether Amber Alerts ever saved a child's life, ignorance to reality never has.
Let's consider Amber Alerts for a moment. Many may be tempted to think that such a dramatic, news-friendly theater narrative system recovers 12 children a day and costs nothing to implement--that its benefits outweigh any possible drawback to such an extent that it's not even worth investigating alternative methods for recovering children from abductions. In reality though, according to their own report for 2009 (the most recent one), out of 207 cases (269 children) nationwide, 45 (59 children) were recovered contingent upon the Amber alert having been posted, at a cost of 25 million dollars per state in federal money (from taxpayers) to pay for implementing the service. The average caseload per state (including three US territories), was about four, an average of one child per state and territory was recovered. So in effect, based on averages, 25 million dollars was spent to rescue about one child in your state in 2009. (Michigan had the highest at 27, but a majority of states had 0 or 1 cases).
The money seems insubstantial though, because if it helped save even one child's life, then it surely must be money well spent? A child's life, a human life, is certainly worth more than any dollar amount. But despite what any politician may say, the money that goes in to setting up the Amber Alert system does not "save children's lives." The Bill itself does not "save children's lives," it simply allocates money for states to set up Amber Alert systems. That 25 million pays for the infrastructure and technology needed to broadcast the Amber alerts--mainly, glowing highway signs, command posts, and emergency alert systems for television and radio. But why should this matter if all that equipment is being used in the service of spreading awareness about children being abducted?
In reality, the effect of these gadgets and special announcements on the police and investigators solving their cases, is minimal. That was the finding in the first independent study on the effectiveness of Amber alerts at the University of Nevada, carried out by a team lead by criminologist Timothy Griffin. Hundreds of abduction cases between 2003 and 2009 were studied, and the finding was that Amber Alerts played little to no role in the recovery of children, despite their glowing reputation in the mainstream media. It was found that the majority of cases deemed successes by the Amber Alert system during those six years were children involved in custody fights between parents where the child was not at risk. In the minority of cases where kidnappers were the perpetrators, Amber Alerts usually failed to save their lives. It would appear that murderous kidnappers are not swayed to spare the child's life when the kid's face and name is plastered on every screen in the county.
Essentially, the Amber Alerts generally help police and investigators recover children from lower risk situations where the child's life is not at least immediately in jeopardy. "The fact is that once someone abducts a child with a murderous intent," Griffin said, "there's really not that much we can do about it." In 2009, nine children were recovered already deceased, and none were found to be a result of an outside the family kidnapping: 4 children died at the hands of relatives, 5 children died from unknown circumstances. While the Amber Alerts certainly do have the potential to be life saving, to make the assumption that every Amber Alert saves a life, or that Amber Alerts are a life saving operation like the ER, is a gross exaggeration.
One may also contend that Amber alerts in 2009 saved the lives of children at the hands of murderous rapists, kidnappers, and strangers. This is the image glorified in the media, after all. In actuality, of the 170 cases in which the abductor had been identified in 2009, 139 of them were in known relationships with the child, making only 31 cases nationwide where the child had been abducted by some rogue kidnapper. Of those 139 cases, 109 of those known relationships were familial ones. Imagine that, family members are the greatest threat to our nation's children, with 64 being the child's father, and 34 being the child's mother. This means that the number of child abductions in which the offender was the child's own parents vastly outnumbers cases where children were abducted by the rogue slugs that make for such an endearing news hour.
However, none of this is meant to suggest that Amber Alerts be done away with. In fact, one promising thing about Amber Alerts, if not because of the number of children they save, is the speed at which recoveries are made following activation of an alert. Many children with activated alerts on them were recovered within three hours of the alert being posted. In fact, 35 of the 59 children recovered in 2009 were rescued within three hours of the alert being posted, mainly because officers were able to identify the abductor's vehicle as described in the alert. This is encouraging, but once again, when most of the abductors are related to the child, information about the child's parents' vehicle is already determined. While the number of Amber Alerts issued has declined over time, the number of abductions has remained fairly consistent.
How necessary is this measure? One could say society is better off with Amber Alerts than it would be if no such method of alert existed for the recovery of abducted children. But how effective is the measure? Is its efficiency so great that it can not even be questioned--so great that all who criticize it can only be among those "against saving children's lives?" This is hardly an over-statement. I'm more than confident that, seeing how few children are actually recovered (even given that perhaps the numbers have changed since 2009), this is a costly apparatus that could probably be scaled back to something a bit more representative of its effectiveness. All that is made by human endeavor should be questioned, because regardless of whether Amber Alerts ever saved a child's life, ignorance to reality never has.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Love in a Sound Bite
I've heard the most poignant recitation of what we're really on about here, no doubt better articulated than I have made it. It was made by Dr. Cornel West, professor of African-American studies at Princeton University, while promoting his autobiographical book Hope on a Tightrope.
"Justice is what love looks like in public, just as tenderness is what love feels like in private."
Justice is the public expression of our compassion for the well being of others, and injustice is the public expression of the opposite. Those who express injustice or "perverted justice" against others in public, are incapable of expressing tenderness in private. They are devoid of compassion. They are vigilantes, downpressers, and molesters motivated by selfish desires. Let us consider that those who haven't been reprimanded for this wrongdoing have also been treated unjustly.
These expressions are connected. If we can not show tenderness in private, as the childlover may express toward a child, or as we as human beings ought to be expressing toward one another in general, we grow incapable of realizing a just world in public. We continue to see disparity where we should see charity, and because of disparity (in class, race, gender, sexuality, and age), we continue to see hatred, bigotry, and fear.
Those who are motivated by an expression of love (like the love for a child) realize their ideal on their own terms, while those who are motivated by that hatred, bigotry, and fear, go the way of the vigilante.
"Justice is what love looks like in public, just as tenderness is what love feels like in private."
Justice is the public expression of our compassion for the well being of others, and injustice is the public expression of the opposite. Those who express injustice or "perverted justice" against others in public, are incapable of expressing tenderness in private. They are devoid of compassion. They are vigilantes, downpressers, and molesters motivated by selfish desires. Let us consider that those who haven't been reprimanded for this wrongdoing have also been treated unjustly.
These expressions are connected. If we can not show tenderness in private, as the childlover may express toward a child, or as we as human beings ought to be expressing toward one another in general, we grow incapable of realizing a just world in public. We continue to see disparity where we should see charity, and because of disparity (in class, race, gender, sexuality, and age), we continue to see hatred, bigotry, and fear.
Those who are motivated by an expression of love (like the love for a child) realize their ideal on their own terms, while those who are motivated by that hatred, bigotry, and fear, go the way of the vigilante.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Pride in the Name of Love
Here in the United States, on third Monday of January, we celebrate the birthday of an inspirational man of peace, a courageous activist who forced change in a corrupt system, a preacher, an alleged conspirator against the US government, an eloquent orator for justice and brotherhood, and a tragic martyr for truth and understanding. In focusing on the man, it's easy to forget his message. The movement he began became the impetus for bringing the life of the disenfranchised to the average heart and mind from the streets of the south all the way to the congressional lobbies, and from there, all around the world.
Through him we came to understand that bigotry was the only thing keeping our corrupt bureaucracy from untangling and realigning itself to stay in keeping with our sentiments. We learned that fear, hatred, ignorance, and corruption should have no legislative excuse. The movement forced the change, but it was the man who taught us how to live within that change--that our moral obligation to one another in the moment trumps our obligation to tradition or regime.
As it is for race, gender, and creed, so should it also be for age, children not excluded.
On a personal note, King was one of the main inspirations for me as a young teen struggling to untangle his own desires. He gave me the clarity for a brief moment in my temporary angst to see a different path for myself, out from the public school haze that I'd been cast under. Suddenly everything they'd been neglecting to tell me in it started to ring in clear through King's speeches, and it was at that moment, as never before, that I decided I wanted to be a force of good in the world too.
And that's why we celebrate this man. He could delliniate what is good and what is wrong so profoundly that it became impossible to misunderstand the work of a selfless, loving soul, and the passionate self-righteous excuse making of a blind demagogue. And that is why we should celebrate him, because he can still teach us the difference.
In taking a man's life, a bullet attempts to also kill his conviction, but only succeeds when he's not in possession of the truth. As assuredly as the truth will bring out the bullets on the man, it will also bring new life to his message in his death. What is evil, can not win.
Through him we came to understand that bigotry was the only thing keeping our corrupt bureaucracy from untangling and realigning itself to stay in keeping with our sentiments. We learned that fear, hatred, ignorance, and corruption should have no legislative excuse. The movement forced the change, but it was the man who taught us how to live within that change--that our moral obligation to one another in the moment trumps our obligation to tradition or regime.
As it is for race, gender, and creed, so should it also be for age, children not excluded.
On a personal note, King was one of the main inspirations for me as a young teen struggling to untangle his own desires. He gave me the clarity for a brief moment in my temporary angst to see a different path for myself, out from the public school haze that I'd been cast under. Suddenly everything they'd been neglecting to tell me in it started to ring in clear through King's speeches, and it was at that moment, as never before, that I decided I wanted to be a force of good in the world too.
And that's why we celebrate this man. He could delliniate what is good and what is wrong so profoundly that it became impossible to misunderstand the work of a selfless, loving soul, and the passionate self-righteous excuse making of a blind demagogue. And that is why we should celebrate him, because he can still teach us the difference.
In taking a man's life, a bullet attempts to also kill his conviction, but only succeeds when he's not in possession of the truth. As assuredly as the truth will bring out the bullets on the man, it will also bring new life to his message in his death. What is evil, can not win.
"I was in close confrontation with the devils. I could see them face to face. I could see them feed upon their brother's face as the fowls of the air feed upon the dead meat of the earth. I can see everything that is [deadly] upon creation...arranged to assassinate those who speak the truth."
- Peter Tosh
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Road Rage
Anyone who believes that adults are superior to children needs only look so far as the driving habits of the typical adult to be put off that notion in a hurry. The road is truly the adult at his or her most childish, most aggressive, most vulnerable, and most impatient, and the morning commute, nothing but a group of adults throwing a collective temper tantrum. The same amount of self-centered fury you'd expect from a four year old who can't get what they want, you should expect from what the state considers to be its "competent drivers."
Those who criticize the bushmen for beating drums to ward off evil spirits haven't seen freeway drivers honking horns to speed up stopped traffic--indeed, it is all a matter of a relative expression of universal human superstition. This same human nature also links adult and child behaviors, because in no way other than formally are adults better than children, and in no way are children better than adults. All the same virtues and vices apply to each, just on a bigger or smaller developmental scale.
A child might throw a tantrum when they are forced to wait their turn, as if expecting to be first for everything, and by comparison, an adult will throw a tantrum on the road when they are forced to slow down behind a driver who has to merge. They'll ride straight up on the slower car's rear as if to virtually push the other car to accelerate beyond the speed limit, and if such an expectation is not met fast enough, actually start to lane jump their way around the vehicle (which by now has sped up sufficiently). Then they'll pull in front defiantly, having advanced ten feet from their starting position mistakenly believing to have made significant progress. Both behaviors are indeed childish.
Children throw tantrums, it doesn't matter if they are three or thirty. It is only adults though who like to believe that they are in control of themselves simply for being recognized as an adult and being granted responsibilities and rights, but they are not. They are just as much a slave to instinct and environmental demand as the children they routinely demean for their "childishness." Neither tolerate impediments on the scale that directly affects their level of awareness, and both scoff at the "tribulations" suffered by the other on a daily basis. Adults laugh at a childhood squabble that children take very seriously, and children fail to grasp the significance of putting other drivers in danger to move 10 feet forward in traffic--for example.
Despite what any adult may think, being bigger means bigger things frustrate you and cause you to take your temper tantrum. There is no such thing as "handle it like an adult," because nobody's perfect.
Those who criticize the bushmen for beating drums to ward off evil spirits haven't seen freeway drivers honking horns to speed up stopped traffic--indeed, it is all a matter of a relative expression of universal human superstition. This same human nature also links adult and child behaviors, because in no way other than formally are adults better than children, and in no way are children better than adults. All the same virtues and vices apply to each, just on a bigger or smaller developmental scale.
A child might throw a tantrum when they are forced to wait their turn, as if expecting to be first for everything, and by comparison, an adult will throw a tantrum on the road when they are forced to slow down behind a driver who has to merge. They'll ride straight up on the slower car's rear as if to virtually push the other car to accelerate beyond the speed limit, and if such an expectation is not met fast enough, actually start to lane jump their way around the vehicle (which by now has sped up sufficiently). Then they'll pull in front defiantly, having advanced ten feet from their starting position mistakenly believing to have made significant progress. Both behaviors are indeed childish.
Children throw tantrums, it doesn't matter if they are three or thirty. It is only adults though who like to believe that they are in control of themselves simply for being recognized as an adult and being granted responsibilities and rights, but they are not. They are just as much a slave to instinct and environmental demand as the children they routinely demean for their "childishness." Neither tolerate impediments on the scale that directly affects their level of awareness, and both scoff at the "tribulations" suffered by the other on a daily basis. Adults laugh at a childhood squabble that children take very seriously, and children fail to grasp the significance of putting other drivers in danger to move 10 feet forward in traffic--for example.
Despite what any adult may think, being bigger means bigger things frustrate you and cause you to take your temper tantrum. There is no such thing as "handle it like an adult," because nobody's perfect.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Happy New Year
Another year has come to a close. It's a new year for all of us together. This is a time we as humans have set aside for forgiveness, let's not forget that going into the new year.
Peace, love, and justice. -Crake
Peace, love, and justice. -Crake
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)