|
“Those were good kids who were in the boy scouts together, went to church together,” a distressed woman crooned.
In a recent dinner-hour news segment, creatively designed to sensationalize through the ‘right’ slant, I heard the following statement in reference to teens who had admitted to abusing prescription drugs. “Those were good kids who were in the boy scouts together, went to church together,” a distressed woman crooned. They had stolen these drugs from their medicine cabinets at home, from the homes of others, ordered them through the Internet, or bought them on the street from others who had stolen or received them under false pretenses. The program billed this prescription drug abuse among teens as a horrendous new problem.
My first question is, where were these journalists during the sixties, seventies, eighties, and nineties. Prescription drug abuse was rampant in my 1971 high school graduating class, and the abusers copped their highs and lows through the same deceptive practices as described in this 2005 breaking news flash. Most of the abusers had been in the scouts together and still attended church together. The difference is, not many people thought they were good; tried to insinuate they were victims of the non-scout, non-church people who had ruined their society by removing the ten commandments and prayer from their schools; or campaigned to make it more difficult for the ailing to obtain their prescriptions because it was too much trouble for parents to admit their kids had a problem and deal with it.
My next question is whose dictionary are these journalists using. When I look up the definition of good, I find the following: of a favorable character or tendency, sound, whole, salutary, wholesome, true , legally valid, adequate, satisfactory, conforming to a standard, commendable, virtuous, well. Are we to believe the scouts and churches now condone stealing prescription drugs from those for whom they were prescribed?
Whose morals are these journalists, and the network that chose to air this program promoting? Mine, the ones by which I raised my children outside the scouts and churches, tell me that it is not good to steal, lie, sneak, or deny a sick person the use of the drugs they bought and need. They also tell me it is wrong to mislead children or the public with sensationalized, false reporting.
It appears the Christian soldiers have hijacked and twisted yet another good word.
Sandy Knauer ã2005
|
I also think that misuse of "good" has a racist tinge to it. Sentences are less harsh for whites for identical crimes--the "Runaway Bride" served no jail time for repeated shoplifting, but there are people serving life sentences under the "Three Strikes You're Out" law for theft. There are people who end up in jail the first time they steal a tube of lipstick--people suffering from depression who go to minimum security prisons, get no treatment there, and end up committing suicide.
With the racism, case in point: A fifteen year old (black)kid in D.C. was part of a burglary a few months ago, along with older kids. As they sped away in a van an older kid was driving, there was a auto collision in which the driver of the other vehicle died. Prosecutors planned to charge the fifteen year old as an adult for first degree murder--murder committed in the commission of a robbery--because he was in the back seat of the van involved in the fatal auto collision. Thus--even though the only death involved in the crime was not intentional, and even though this kid wasn't even the driver of the van that caused the collision--they wished to call the crime "first degree murder" instead of "burglary".
Another case in point: A death row convict in Missouri was executed for supposedly murdering a prison guard, even though one witness who had testified against him admitted he was lying, and another said he wasn't anywhere near the scene of the crime. Though the guard died by stabbing, he had no blood on his clothes. And to make matters worse, another man confessed to the crime for which this man was originally incarcerated--robbery. He was known and well-liked--and is missed--by family and friends. Makes me wonder--why isn't there more outrage about this? The police encourage witnesses to believe that the person who committed the crime is standing there in the line up--even if they never actually arrested the right man. DNA evidence uncovers their mistake after a person has lost 20 years of life or more to prison--and that's if they're lucky.
There was a law passed a few years ago depriving incarcerated persons from the right to file civil rights law suits--makes me wonder what kind of torture/harassment/etc. goes on there.
Also, since it's normal for a wrongly incarcerated person to be compensated by the state--often with millions for a long sentence--it makes me wonder if that was their motive for framing this person who was executed for supposedly murdering a prison guard while in jail for a crime somebody else confessed to.
Which all goes to show--for the police and the media, it doesn't matter who actually is "good", it matters what stereotypical face the public will be willing to accept as "good". I don't know the details of the prescription drug case.
Bob H
Good write with valid points well made and a strong argument made for each, good article Sandy but more important good to see your smiling face again.
Felix