There are people you naturally want to root for; take Seattle Mariners pitcher Felix Hernandez, who became the 23rd major leaguer to pitch a perfect game. Hernandez has been described as a good-natured, generous spirit—and a rarity in the Seattle sports scene: A selfless superstar who actually wants to stay in town. Then there are people who—if you don’t look at them from a “homer” or political angle—you root against. Take, for example, women’s soccer player Hope Solo, who, if you read the sycophantic Seattle Times, is a local “legend.” The Times always neglects to mention her personality defects exhibited on countless occasions—most recently in a twitter spat with a soccer analyst during the Olympics. Well, not exactly MOST recently; that goes to her newly published “autobiography,” which at least one person mentioned in the book is calling a work of fiction. Given the narcissistic Solo’s habit of whining, excuse-making and personal attacks, this is to be expected; despite the evidence from the comments on the Internet--that suggest her shtick has long since exceeded its expiration date--the conceited Solo continues to act as if people are actually interested.
Of course, sports isn’t “real” life, and if you have the talent, it really doesn’t matter what manner of human being you are; there were few more vile personalities to grace the field of sport than Ty Cobb, but his natural gifts (aided by the occasional foul play) always seemed to outweigh his debits—at least in the eyes of the media at the time. But for the vast majority of the human race, life isn’t a “game.” No matter how hard we work, the majority of us can’t negotiate for million-dollar salaries, rather made to feel fortunate to have a job at all just to pay for basic essentials. “Meaning” to life also has a price; whether than means having sufficient leisure funds to get drunk, watch television or visit the opera (i.e. “culture”) is according to one’s taste and funds. This is what “separates” humans from the beast of the field and jungle. Of course all animals—except humans—seem to have a specific function in the chain of life; if a species is removed from the chain (or added, like rabbits), something is lost. It can’t be certain what exactly would be lost in the grand scheme of the universe if humans disappeared from the scene. Does the universe really need humans to exist?
Anyways, humans are endowed with the capacity to think and reason—much like a crow, which will bully small birds for scraps of food, run like a coward when confronted by superior force, and generally consume everything in sight. Unlike crows, however, humans cannot simply behave on whim; everyday existence is structured (theoretically, in theory) in a way that everyone at least has a fighting chance without leave of the bigotry and greed of another. I saw a photograph recently of some Jurassic Age white man wearing a hat with buttons that said “I’ll keep my guns, my freedom and my money” and “You can keep the “change.” What old, hate-filled bastards like this never seem to understand is that there is no “freedom” to be found at the point of a gun; you start shooting, your freedom will evaporate, and you will live in fear of someone taking your own life, or should. Furthermore, it isn’t entirely “his” money; it is in part a social contrivance in which the worth of one’s labor is arbitrarily set. Because “worth” is not necessarily tied to actual productivity, some people are paid more than they are worth, and some less than what they are worth. This naturally leads to social unrest between the haves and the have-nots, although the individual noted above sees the poor as the “enemy” and not the rich, and his ideology is likely tied to simple-minded stereotypes and prejudice against the "others." I am reminded of a time when I was living Sacramento when there was a story in the Bee about a school district that was essentially two disparate parts cobbled together: one an affluent, mainly white community, the other a low-income, mostly minority half. The affluent white community was attempting to separate itself from the minority half, apparently because it felt no societal necessity to concern itself with the potential of anyone who did not share their skin color.
But if on one hand we have those who want to separate themselves from society by hoarding everything for themselves, there are also the dropouts of society who have little and want little—and contribute little; a job is anathema to them, but other than the occasional aggressive panhandling, thieving is not in their genes: It is too much work and requires too much planning for your typical bum, hobo and vagrant. But there exists in some twilight zone a breed of human who has the wants and desires of the greedy well-off, yet like the hobo doesn’t wish to work, or makes excuses why they choose not to be useful members of society. They become robbers, thieves, drug dealers, drug addicts and the like. Sometimes they kill to fulfill their “needs.”
So it is that I took this circuitous route to arrive at this particular point: Last week the Seattle Times published a report on the so-called “If Project”—a local prison program for women founded by a Detective Kim Bogucki. The story first caught my eye because the Times photographer took photos only of white inmates, apparently a cynical effort to raise the sympathy level. But according to the website, it seems that it is a mixed race group. The premise seems simple enough; the women are asked to respond on a piece of paper the following question:
“If there was something someone could have said or done that would have changed the path that led you here, what would it have been?”
According to the program’s website, the inmates involved have group therapy sessions in which they impart “Not just a desire to search themselves to find what could have changed their own lives, but a larger desire to impart this information to help others. Through them, we will search for answers as to how to break the chain of felonies that have brought them all here, in the hopes of preventing others from doing the same. The general tenor of these sessions might go something like the following, from the missives written by inmates:
“Ginger” came from an educated, comfortably middle class family. She admits to “acting out” and skipping school, and getting drunk. Her parents “bribed” her to attend counseling sessions. She was a pill-popper to make her “feel better.” She claims her best friend’s father had been abusing her. She ends by saying she wished someone had told her that abusers lie and she wouldn’t have lived in fear. Why exactly she is in prison on a 15-year sentence is unknown.
“Lakeisha” is serving 15 years for an unknown crime. She wishes someone had loved her like her grandmother, who died.
“Filomena” is serving a life sentence. She wishes she had a “support” system, but not to be “lectured”—meaning she didn’t want to be told to shape-up, but to have a sympathetic sob-sister shoulder to cry on. She wishes someone had given her “choices.” She stole things. She went to a private school with mostly white students. She tried to “fit-in” by turning to gang-affiliation and drugs. She took to dipping, dabbing and straight kicking—meaning experimenting with, then becoming a Heroin junkie (I had to do some investigating to discover the meaning of this street lingo), and was now serving a life sentence. There is no indication, like the rest, of what exactly her crime was. But she wishes she had a “friend” to talk to.
“Mirriam” is serving a 20-year sentence, crime unknown. She apparently ran away from home at some point because her parents did not give her “unconditional” love (this is why single women like dogs: They give “love” without making demands of their own).
“Jeannie” is serving a five-year sentence, for what she admits is committing a “deadly act” against a man she “once loved.” Her reason? Depression. She wishes someone had recognized her problem—although given her rather light sentence, someone probably gave her more sympathy than she deserved.
“Jackie” is serving a life sentence, crime unknown. She blames her parents for not listening to her and talking too much. They should have talked to her more about what she “wants to be” instead of “material stuff.” She needed unconditional love—i.e. don’t have expectations in regard to behavior. Praise her for what she is and don’t bribe her to be good.
“Andrea” is serving a 25-year sentence. She wishes she admitted she was “broken,” and should have called her dad for help like he had always provided in the past. She seems to think that if her family had told her that her smiles were needed in hard times, she would have felt loved and needed.
If these were male inmates, I doubt they would find many sympathizers; they would be expected to confront their wicked selves and explain how they should change. No one would take seriously to such drivel from a male as “unconditional love,” “a friend to talk to” and “a shoulder to cry one.” But this society always seems to assume that women are victims who are driven to criminality, and that is the “out” that the original question provides these criminals: It allows them to consider themselves to be “victims” rather than perpetrators. They are being allowed to find the blame for their actions in others rather than face their own personal responsibility. They are not being asked how can they change themselves, but putting the onus for who they are on others. One may properly ask how these women can become useful members of society if they don’t confront their own faults.
I’m not sure what exactly is my point in all of this is, except perhaps that it is hard to find someone to “root” for out of this damned human race.
No comments:
Post a Comment