Louisiana Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell refused to issue a marriage license a recently for an interracial couple (a white woman and a black man, in case you’re interested). I'm not aware of any law against harboring racist feelings, even under the guise of “I’m worried about their children,” but the issue of concern is his refusal to render services to a taxpaying couple he’s obliged to serve. No law degree is required in order to be elected or appointed as a J.P., but one hopes, at the very least, that these individuals possess good judgment. Yes, the couple did go elsewhere to get legally hitched, but letting Bardwell dictate the terms of his employment, even in his limited jurisdiction, is tacitly sanctioning racial discrimination, and that’s unacceptable. Bardwell said he came to the conclusion that most black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society. “Yet, the children are innocent. They had nothing to do with that,” he said. “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.” How touching…and laughable. Bardwell’s wife, who answered the initial phone call from the couple, even asked which of them was white before refusing services and referring them to another J.P. Much as I hate to speculate on the machinations of a mind like Bardwell’s, I’ll bet he’d also refuse to marry an interracial couple beyond the age of having a child naturally or who may consider adopting the orphaned or abandoned offspring of other interracial couples. Even more illogical than Bardwell?—continuing to pay him when he won’t perform one of the services he’s paid to deliver.
In addition to being terminated immediately, Bardwell should be required to repay any salary and benefits he received from the time he refused to fully perform his duties as a J.P. There are lots of intelligent Louisiana citizens who are jobless, probably many who are willing to abide by the statutes of their state. I’m sure Bardwell’s position wouldn’t be vacant for long.
Showing posts with label Kvetch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kvetch. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER ORDAINED AS A MINISTER
9/14/09
There's not enough whiskey in Texas to make me forget what I heard today -- the most sickening released sex offender story I've heard in over a week. Sad that I have to say "the most sickening", since we have so many of his type released into society these days, and they inevitably offend again. The only silver lining to this story is that Mark Hourigan and his mentor have gotten their mugs on TV, so maybe his neighbors (I mean those outside his church) will recognize him.
Hourigan, a convicted sex offender, has “served his time” and been ordained as a Christian minister at the City of Refuge Church in Germantown, Kentucky. He's giving TV interviews, eyes welling up on cue, recounting how he changed his ways, paid his debt to society, and is now ready to serve God as a minister, thanks to the "forgiveness" of many good people (he didn't mention his only known victim, a boy just 11 years old at the time). Hourigan says he aims to "give hope" to other criminals (sufferers of pedophilia?) and make them see that there is forgiveness for their sins. I wish I could personally explain the meaning of "suffering" to this self-deluding jackass, but someone bigger and angrier (maybe the victim himself, if grown by now) will surely beat me to it.
Someone needs to remind Hourigan (and any psychobabbling idiot defending him) that pedophilia isn’t an affliction like cancer. Some people with that perversion manage to resist their urges, and it’s only a crime if you act on them, as he did. Getting caught—now that’s what he’s sorry for. He didn't claim to be insane when he did it, so what was he, exactly? Mistaken? No, he did it knowing it was wrong, and was sane enough to conceal it, and probably other offenses we'll never know of. So, why did he get credit for "good behavior" in prison, where his victim of choice was simply unavailable? Smokers aren't "cured" when they don't have access to tobacco, so what makes anyone think that incarceration cures sickos like Hourigan? If anything, it probably makes them yearn for their victims even more.
As we approach the highest holy day of Judaism, Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), I am obliged to examine my conscience and ask myself if I have done anything, consciously or unconsciously, to hurt anyone—and to ask forgiveness for it in person, if possible. I was taught that true atonement entails much more than this, though. And, there may indeed be some wrongs, as in Hourigan's case, for which no adequate repair is really possible.
Mark Hourigan shouldn’t even dream of forgiveness until he atones, by 1. taking Responsibility for his deeds (not blame it on his “illness”), 2. Repenting (genuinely), 3. Repairing the harm he did (as if that’s even possible) and 4. Returning to a state of grace (impossible without the preceding three). Has he attempted any of this? Doubtful. Shopping his story to the media with the all the modesty of a lingerie model on a catwalk is the only evidence I need that he isn't contrite...and hasn’t repented.
Hourigan's victim will surely be re-victimized by seeing his abuser on TV, and his suffering is worse than any prison sentence Hourigan could have served. In this case, the offender can't fix what he broke, even if he paid for his victim's therapy by busting rocks in prison for the rest of his miserable life.
But, with the respectable mantle of the ministry, he’ll have better opportunities to abuse kids, with nothing but an ineffective sex offender registry policy to hinder him. Our prison system often returns a worse sex offender to society than the one initially incarcerated. They are (for the most part) incurable, but they could be quarantined to protect us and our children. We do that much with lepers and imported livestock.
Since that won’t happen to “Reverend” Hourigan, unless he gets caught again, let me unofficially declare "open season" on him. Some ancient tribes had an effective way of dealing with such an evildoer — if allowed to live at all, he’d be "shunned"—cut off from anyone who would offer him assistance, shelter, food, tools or weapons. He might even be forced into the desert to meet his demise. In Hourigan’s case, the press could (in a similar vein) hound this "church" relentlessly until it was forced to shun him. Hourigan's type of criminal usually abuses more than one child, on more than one occasion, before getting caught. If that doesn’t put a person beyond the pale, folks, nothing does.
Members of the church that condoned this unspeakable idiocy should resign from it, unless and until it turns this monster out. I doubt that their Savior would require them to accept the false repentance of this smirking scumbag, who has been merely spit-shined to appear respectable. If a convicted felon can't even hold elected office in this country, shouldn't he be universally ineligible for the clergy, where he might have unquestioned access to more victims?
I count many good Christians among my friends and family, and I don’t think any of them hold the belief that "forgiveness" means ignoring the past deeds of a criminal who remains a serious threat to any child within his grasp. This type of criminal even makes me long for the (sometimes) draconian justice of some middle-eastern Muslim communities. If they'd cut off the hand of a thief, just imagine what swift and apt justice they'd mete out to the likes of Hourigan.
Ignoring what we know about sex offenders, and allowing them any chance to repeat their crimes, especially against children, is far worse than withholding "forgiveness" from someone who hasn't earned it. Any tribunal—whether political, military or ecumenical—that doesn't expose and effectively punish proven sex offenders immediately, shares their guilt.
Mark Hourigan would get no attention at all without his type of crime. He'd be merely one more conman who found salvation behind bars. But, because of the particularly heinous nature of his crimes, he should get the "shunning" he’s due–and be swiftly kicked off the media train before he can secure a book deal–or even a paycheck for his "ministry".
I think Abraham, Jesus and Mohammad would all agree on that.
There's not enough whiskey in Texas to make me forget what I heard today -- the most sickening released sex offender story I've heard in over a week. Sad that I have to say "the most sickening", since we have so many of his type released into society these days, and they inevitably offend again. The only silver lining to this story is that Mark Hourigan and his mentor have gotten their mugs on TV, so maybe his neighbors (I mean those outside his church) will recognize him.
Hourigan, a convicted sex offender, has “served his time” and been ordained as a Christian minister at the City of Refuge Church in Germantown, Kentucky. He's giving TV interviews, eyes welling up on cue, recounting how he changed his ways, paid his debt to society, and is now ready to serve God as a minister, thanks to the "forgiveness" of many good people (he didn't mention his only known victim, a boy just 11 years old at the time). Hourigan says he aims to "give hope" to other criminals (sufferers of pedophilia?) and make them see that there is forgiveness for their sins. I wish I could personally explain the meaning of "suffering" to this self-deluding jackass, but someone bigger and angrier (maybe the victim himself, if grown by now) will surely beat me to it.
Someone needs to remind Hourigan (and any psychobabbling idiot defending him) that pedophilia isn’t an affliction like cancer. Some people with that perversion manage to resist their urges, and it’s only a crime if you act on them, as he did. Getting caught—now that’s what he’s sorry for. He didn't claim to be insane when he did it, so what was he, exactly? Mistaken? No, he did it knowing it was wrong, and was sane enough to conceal it, and probably other offenses we'll never know of. So, why did he get credit for "good behavior" in prison, where his victim of choice was simply unavailable? Smokers aren't "cured" when they don't have access to tobacco, so what makes anyone think that incarceration cures sickos like Hourigan? If anything, it probably makes them yearn for their victims even more.
As we approach the highest holy day of Judaism, Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), I am obliged to examine my conscience and ask myself if I have done anything, consciously or unconsciously, to hurt anyone—and to ask forgiveness for it in person, if possible. I was taught that true atonement entails much more than this, though. And, there may indeed be some wrongs, as in Hourigan's case, for which no adequate repair is really possible.
Mark Hourigan shouldn’t even dream of forgiveness until he atones, by 1. taking Responsibility for his deeds (not blame it on his “illness”), 2. Repenting (genuinely), 3. Repairing the harm he did (as if that’s even possible) and 4. Returning to a state of grace (impossible without the preceding three). Has he attempted any of this? Doubtful. Shopping his story to the media with the all the modesty of a lingerie model on a catwalk is the only evidence I need that he isn't contrite...and hasn’t repented.
Hourigan's victim will surely be re-victimized by seeing his abuser on TV, and his suffering is worse than any prison sentence Hourigan could have served. In this case, the offender can't fix what he broke, even if he paid for his victim's therapy by busting rocks in prison for the rest of his miserable life.
But, with the respectable mantle of the ministry, he’ll have better opportunities to abuse kids, with nothing but an ineffective sex offender registry policy to hinder him. Our prison system often returns a worse sex offender to society than the one initially incarcerated. They are (for the most part) incurable, but they could be quarantined to protect us and our children. We do that much with lepers and imported livestock.
Since that won’t happen to “Reverend” Hourigan, unless he gets caught again, let me unofficially declare "open season" on him. Some ancient tribes had an effective way of dealing with such an evildoer — if allowed to live at all, he’d be "shunned"—cut off from anyone who would offer him assistance, shelter, food, tools or weapons. He might even be forced into the desert to meet his demise. In Hourigan’s case, the press could (in a similar vein) hound this "church" relentlessly until it was forced to shun him. Hourigan's type of criminal usually abuses more than one child, on more than one occasion, before getting caught. If that doesn’t put a person beyond the pale, folks, nothing does.
Members of the church that condoned this unspeakable idiocy should resign from it, unless and until it turns this monster out. I doubt that their Savior would require them to accept the false repentance of this smirking scumbag, who has been merely spit-shined to appear respectable. If a convicted felon can't even hold elected office in this country, shouldn't he be universally ineligible for the clergy, where he might have unquestioned access to more victims?
I count many good Christians among my friends and family, and I don’t think any of them hold the belief that "forgiveness" means ignoring the past deeds of a criminal who remains a serious threat to any child within his grasp. This type of criminal even makes me long for the (sometimes) draconian justice of some middle-eastern Muslim communities. If they'd cut off the hand of a thief, just imagine what swift and apt justice they'd mete out to the likes of Hourigan.
Ignoring what we know about sex offenders, and allowing them any chance to repeat their crimes, especially against children, is far worse than withholding "forgiveness" from someone who hasn't earned it. Any tribunal—whether political, military or ecumenical—that doesn't expose and effectively punish proven sex offenders immediately, shares their guilt.
Mark Hourigan would get no attention at all without his type of crime. He'd be merely one more conman who found salvation behind bars. But, because of the particularly heinous nature of his crimes, he should get the "shunning" he’s due–and be swiftly kicked off the media train before he can secure a book deal–or even a paycheck for his "ministry".
I think Abraham, Jesus and Mohammad would all agree on that.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
A CURRENT TV AD I HATE
It's a slow news day and I am feeling a bit curmudgeonly, so indulge me a bit while I rant about something that has absolutely no ill effect on my general wellbeing. It's the (relatively) new TV ad for Sandals. You know it as the reasonably-priced resort that even most of us still-employed middle-class worker bees can't afford any more. The copy itself isn't that bad. Okay, it is pretty schmaltzy, and obviously meant to trigger our "even in these tough economic times," emotional switch, but it's still not the worst part. It goes something like this:
"What could be more important than the ones we love? The ones who love us? So, if you're asking yourself if it's time to get away..." yadda yadda yadda...
Nope, the script isn't the offensive part. What has the bile half-rising in my throat is the voice talent they hired. The images are of a flawless, way-under-40 couple, nuzzling romantically as the ocean breeze blows their perfect hair and gauzy beach wraps in slo-mo.
Cue the voiceover: It's a smug-sounding twenty-something with a crackling, smartass voice that conjures up mental images of Eddie Haskell trying to sound earnest, and fighting the urge to dissolve in laughter at the copy he's recording. Listen closely. At any moment, you'll expect him to cover the mike and tell his producer, "You kiddin' me? Nobody goes to this place to rekindle a spark. They go there to rub suntan lotion on strangers and lay, blissfully blitzed, on the beach for a week." It's the voice of the fraternity pledgemaster who stole your never-mailed, drunkenly composed love letter to the girl who just dumped you, then read it aloud to the entire brotherhood during hell week. Maybe you still wake up in a cold sweat occasionally, having dreamt this guy (or his son) is your new boss. James Spader launched his career playing this character back in the '80s. You get the idea.
What I want to know is, which ad agency is responsible for this, and did they do any market research at all before settling on this particular voice talent? Granted, nobody wants Wilford Brimley doing a voiceover that's supposed to be both family-friendly and sexy, but neither do we want to envision our neighbor's teenager spying over the backyard fence as we cuddle in the hammock with our spouse.
Sandals, if you really want this ad to work, tell your agency to hire a grownup to re-do the voice bit. One that makes women think of a straight Marlboro Man, all weather-beaten and macho, holding a glass of good Scotch. And while you're at it, get a real couple, with just a few battle scars, too, for the visual. One that you can picture having a passle of rebellious kids at home, and having to choose between a week at Sandals, or replacing the roof.
Bet your sales go waaaay up.
"What could be more important than the ones we love? The ones who love us? So, if you're asking yourself if it's time to get away..." yadda yadda yadda...
Nope, the script isn't the offensive part. What has the bile half-rising in my throat is the voice talent they hired. The images are of a flawless, way-under-40 couple, nuzzling romantically as the ocean breeze blows their perfect hair and gauzy beach wraps in slo-mo.
Cue the voiceover: It's a smug-sounding twenty-something with a crackling, smartass voice that conjures up mental images of Eddie Haskell trying to sound earnest, and fighting the urge to dissolve in laughter at the copy he's recording. Listen closely. At any moment, you'll expect him to cover the mike and tell his producer, "You kiddin' me? Nobody goes to this place to rekindle a spark. They go there to rub suntan lotion on strangers and lay, blissfully blitzed, on the beach for a week." It's the voice of the fraternity pledgemaster who stole your never-mailed, drunkenly composed love letter to the girl who just dumped you, then read it aloud to the entire brotherhood during hell week. Maybe you still wake up in a cold sweat occasionally, having dreamt this guy (or his son) is your new boss. James Spader launched his career playing this character back in the '80s. You get the idea.
What I want to know is, which ad agency is responsible for this, and did they do any market research at all before settling on this particular voice talent? Granted, nobody wants Wilford Brimley doing a voiceover that's supposed to be both family-friendly and sexy, but neither do we want to envision our neighbor's teenager spying over the backyard fence as we cuddle in the hammock with our spouse.
Sandals, if you really want this ad to work, tell your agency to hire a grownup to re-do the voice bit. One that makes women think of a straight Marlboro Man, all weather-beaten and macho, holding a glass of good Scotch. And while you're at it, get a real couple, with just a few battle scars, too, for the visual. One that you can picture having a passle of rebellious kids at home, and having to choose between a week at Sandals, or replacing the roof.
Bet your sales go waaaay up.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)