Insult To Injury

[Guest thaiworthy]

Warning: This article is deeply disturbing.

 

I'm trying real hard to figure out why this author has written this horribly graphic detail except as retribution. It's sad and tragic, true, but this only makes people angrier. The justice system has done its job. Let's move on. You can't go back and un-do what has been done. Reliving the past from this point-of-view is gut-wrenching. Will the victims and families be aided by this article? Can healing progress? Will there ever be an end to their suffering?

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/they-can-never-take-away-my-memories,29877/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

 

They Can Never Take Away My Memories

by Jerry Sandusky

 

Sitting here in Camp Hill state penitentiary just outside of Harrisburg, PA, I begin a new chapter of my life, one in which I am completely cut off from the outside world, with virtually all my personal freedoms stripped away. Well, I may have lost my career, the support of my friends and family, and my worldly possessions, but there is one important thing I will have for the rest of my life: all my happy memories of molesting defenseless little boys over the past 35 years.

[kokopelli]

Kuhn Worthy, I believe this article was a lampoon by the Onion, a news satire organization.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion

[Bob]

Khun Thaiworthy surely knows the article isn't "real" and he questions why anybody would write such a piece of trash. I wholeheartedly agree.

 

I too have a very difficult time trying to figure out why anybody would write such a piece. You mention "lampoon" but I see neither any light-hearted satire nor any serious ridicule. Was the article supposed to be funny, serious, thought-provoking, or what? I can't figure it out.

 

Regardless, given the subject matter - basically Sandusky getting off as he visualizes in his brain how he molested young boys - its simply very sick. And, as Khun TW somewhat notes, I sure as hell hope that none of the victims or their family members or friends every have the misfortune of reading it.

 

[To avoid misinterpretation, Khun Koko was attempting (I believe) to explain the nature of the article and wasn't supporting it himself. My comments are only aimed at whoever thought it would be funny or whatever to write such a thing.]

[Guest thaiworthy]

I found The Onion article linked on Facebook yesterday. One of the comments after mine read:

 

Why can't we take away his memories? Neuroscince(sic) knows how. Let's make him really suffer.

 

It is clear to me now what the author is trying to say. I doubt any kind of neuroscience could ever have been implemented since there is probably no legal precedent for it. The sentence he has been given means he will spend the rest of his life in prison. Depending on whether or not he is housed with the general population, his life expectancy may be drastically shortened, considering what happens to many such offenders in prisons these days. The author has been trying to say one thing and one thing only. There is only one way to prevent a person for having memories, malicious or otherwise, and there is a precedent for that. I can sum the entire article in one sentence:

 

Jerry Sandusky should have gotten the death penalty.

 

And he has plenty of supporters with him, I'll bet. It's a shameful and sorry world.

[bkkguy]

Depending on whether or not he is housed with the general population, his life expectancy may be drastically shortened, considering what happens to many such offenders in prisons these days. The author has been trying to say one thing and one thing only. There is only one way to prevent a person for having memories, malicious or otherwise, and there is a precedent for that. I can sum the entire article in one sentence:

 

Jerry Sandusky should have gotten the death penalty.

 

I must admit I am more disturbed by your conclusion than by the Onion satirical piece!

 

you seem to see only two acceptable outcomes - the offender is subject to extra-judicial killing in prision (never an acceptable option in a mature reasonable society) or is given the death penalty (again I think never an acceptable option in a mature reasonable society).

 

I think the whole point of this satirical piece is to challenge our feeling of "comfort" that this "monster" has been handled in the best possible way

 

bkkguy

[kokopelli]

Actually there is a means, with certain meds, to erase some memories. I read of this recently and will have to research it further. However the suggested use was for victims of mental trauma so rather than Jerry S, it would be for those others who were subjects of various forms of abuse or trauma. For instance it could be used to erase memories incurred by soldiers in battle; accident victims; crime victims, etc. Where the truth lies in this particular matter is unknown; lots of money is riding on the outcome of civil litigation against Penn State and the other organization involved.

 

Death is rarely an option except in the most extreme cases and even that is doubtful as many wrongly convicted people have been executed.

[Rogie]

This is certainly breaking new ground as far as I am concerned. Being a Brit, I don't read the Onion although I had heard of it before. I assumed it was satire along the lines of Britain's Private Eye (a fortnightly magazine). Satire has a long history, probably as long as early man's first use of language, although it would have been more like teasing.

 

The wikipedia page has a good intro:

 

Satire, is primarily a literary genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.

 

Just as we have black humour, so my impression just at the moment of this piece in The Onion is that it's black satire. I would be interested to read what other's think as does strike me as quite disturbing. The satirist is either very brave or very foolish, and as I'm still trying to absorb its impact, I'm not sure which.

[bkkguy]

The satirist is either very brave or very foolish, and as I'm still trying to absorb its impact, I'm not sure which.

 

this is often the case with satire - if it is blatently directed against your beliefs it is easily dismissed as foolish, if it is consistent with your beliefs it is easily considered acceptable, but if it challenges you to think ...

 

bkkguy

[Guest thaiworthy]

you seem to see only two acceptable outcomes - the offender is subject to extra-judicial killing in prision (never an acceptable option in a mature reasonable society) or is given the death penalty (again I think never an acceptable option in a mature reasonable society).

 

I think the whole point of this satirical piece is to challenge our feeling of "comfort" that this "monster" has been handled in the best possible way

 

I can see I need to explain something that I thought was already understood: we don't live in a mature, reasonable society!

 

I am certain the family and victims will enjoy having their "comfort" challenged after reading this satirical piece.

[Bob]

I would be interested to read what other's think as does strike me as quite disturbing. The satirist is either very brave or very foolish, and as I'm still trying to absorb its impact, I'm not sure which.

 

Similar in part to my comments before but I concluded the negatives (sick subject, clear harm to all those victimized by the offender, etc.) outweighed by far any positives (none that I could discern) of the piece.

 

If anybody actually reads anything pointed, positive, or instructional, I'd also be interested to hear about it. I don't question the outfit's free speech rights to say something this sick but I simply don't see at all what point they were trying to make. Can anybody actually point out what point, satire, lampoon, or whatever that the writer was attempting to achieve?

 

[i would note that I don't agree at all with the death penalty sentiment but, then again, I view the death penalty as simply state-sanctioned murder. My home state (Michigan) thankfully outlawed that procedure in 1847 (except for a period of time for treason) and has never executed anybody since statehood in 1837.]

[Guest fountainhall]

Rogie mentions Private Eye, a veritable British institution by now. But the satire boom that was to sweep the UK and hold it in its thrall for a few short years had started a year earlier in 1960 when four young men stepped on to a small stage at the Edinburgh International Festival and changed the face of British comedy.

 

The satirical revue Beyond the Fringe not only created a huge fashion for satire, it heralded the movement that would soon be named as the ‘Swinging Sixties’. It also created mega-stars out of four Oxbridge graduates – Alan Bennett, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore and Jonathan Miller.

 

From these unlikely beginnings, Private Eye appeared, soon to be followed by the BBC television series which launched the career of David Frost – That Was the Week That Was (or TW3 as it was popularly referred to). TW3 became enormously popular (it transferred across the Atlantic for 2 seasons on NBC in 1964 and 65 thus building Frost’s reputation there), largely because it blew away many of the remaining sacred cobwebs of postwar Britain. The establishment and government propaganda served out to Britons on a daily basis up till then is typified by an article in the Daily Herald of October 1954 which grovelingly reported –

 

“Prince Charles, six next month, may have boxing lessons when the Royal Family returns from Balmoral next week – the Duke of Edinburgh wants him to, but the Queen has not made up her mind.”

 

TW3 quite literally changed a nation. It had Britons rushing out of the pubs to get home on a Saturday night. It lampooned the establishment, it launched satirical arrows at bumbling government ministers – even the Church was ripe for comment with its more archaic practices and pronouncements being called into question.

 

Whilst the man in the street quickly became aware that sacred cows need no longer be venerated with unquestioning belief, the establishment itself took quite some time to realise they were being lampooned. On a visit to the BBC’s headquarters, the haughty, patriarchal Prime Minster of the day, Harold MacMillan, famously commented: “I hear you have some sort of saturnalia out here on Saturdays!”

 

Poking fun at the world around you was not invented in 1960, though. Its roots go back to Greek playwrights and carry on through writers like Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, the British Victorian publication Punch – even to Charlie Chaplin and The Great Dictator, that wonderful satire on the rise of Hitler.

 

The definition of satire has no doubt changed a bit over the years, but the wikipedia entry quoted by Rogie – “its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon” – is surely key. When Addison and Steele founded The Spectator in London in 1711, its aim was “to enliven morality with wit, and to temper wit with morality.” Again the use of wit is key.

 

And it is this which I find missing from The Onion article. I assume it is meant to be funny, yet it is far from satirical. It is merely a story of a sad, depraved man with absolutely no element of wit about it. All it does is comment on a particularly dreadful episode in a nasty and somewhat vindictive way. The author would have done well to remember Noel Coward’s aphorism: “Wit ought to be a glorious treat like caviar; never spread it around like marmalade.”

[bkkguy]

I can see I need to explain something that I thought was already understood: we don't live in a mature, reasonable society!

 

strange - most of my US friends would argue that the USA is both a mature and a reasonable society and extra-judicial killings in prision are not acceptable - but the death penalty disappointingly still seems to be divisive!

 

are you claiming that the USA ia not a "mature, reasonable society" becaue there are still psychopaths commiting crimes and we don't know how to deal with them or because you support extra-judicial killing and the death penalty?

 

bkkguy

[Guest thaiworthy]

are you claiming that the USA ia not a "mature, reasonable society" becaue there are still psychopaths commiting crimes and we don't know how to deal with them or because you support extra-judicial killing and the death penalty?

 

You have completely misunderstood my original post. I never claimed to support extra-judicial killing or the death penalty.

 

Everyone else seems to get it, why can't you? Let me try and put it more simply for you: My only claim is that the anonymous author of the article seems to be in favor of somehow erasing the memory of Jerry Sandusky. (The article is even titled They Can't Take Away My Memories.) I don't know how that could be done in practical, real-world terms. The only way would be capital punishment, that would very effectively erase not only memory, but life as well. By insinuation, the author seems to imply this. I am far from in favor of it myself and is the whole point of my post. That is why I feel we live in an uncivilized society when people are writing bitter articles under the guise of sarcasm to express their desire for revenge.

 

I can sum the entire article in one sentence:

 

Jerry Sandusky should have gotten the death penalty.

 

Now do you understand? Even if you don't, it doesn't matter, since you'll only have succeeded in embarrassing yourself even more than you already have. But don't let that stop you, dig yourself an even deeper hole. I'm waiting.

[bkkguy]

Now do you understand?

 

you can draw your own conclusions, assumptions, insinuations, etc about the author's intentions to your hearts content and make whatever claims you like about them here, it still does not make them the only correct interpretation - neither you nor I are the final arbiter of what constitutes good satire or social commentary and the author is the final arbiter of his intentions!

 

and if you think that your intentions and meaning are perfectly clear in every post you make then far be it from me to comment!

 

bkkguy

[Guest thaiworthy]

and if you think that your intentions and meaning are perfectly clear in every post you make then far be it from me to comment!

 

Apology accepted.

[Bob]

... it still does not make them the only correct interpretation - neither you nor I are the final arbiter of what constitutes good satire or social commentary and the author is the final arbiter of his intentions!

 

Skipping all tangential matters (relating to the notion that nobody can truly know any given author's intention and your dislike for another poster's interpretation), do you believe this particular author was trying to make a point and, if so, what's your interpretation as to what that might be?

[kokopelli]

For me, after reading other articles on the Onion, I don't think any of their authors are trying to do anything other than make money on their blathering. I suppose similar satire/lampoon etc may appeal to some readers but not to me.

 

That is not to say that I do enjoy and laugh at some well written articles that do employ both satire and lampoon. Often some of the op-ed columns in the New York Times are on target and also some TV shows such as The Colbert Report. Even the mocking on Bangkokbois Blog is quite funny, as long as I am not the target!

[bkkguy]

Skipping all tangential matters (relating to the notion that nobody can truly know any given author's intention and your dislike for another poster's interpretation), do you believe this particular author was trying to make a point and, if so, what's your interpretation as to what that might be?

 

cases like Sandusky's receive a lot of press coverage, often very sensationialised, often very manipulative of public opinion, often swallowed whole without question by the National Inquirer (and facebook) reading masses. Like many other Onion pieces this piece is lampooning this type of press coverage and public reaction. Given the nature of the case it is not surprising that the piece is very black in its satire, perhaps too black for some, but the intent is I think to challenge us to think about how we react to sensationalist press coverage and - perhaps this is a bit of a push, but - how society should cope with complex cases like Sandusky - and no, I don't think the death penalty is the option being pushed by the author

 

I haven't read the actual facebook page thaiworthy picked this up from but have seen a lot of other posts from people "shocked and disgusted" by this Onion article and thaiworthy's simplistic interpretation that we live in "an uncivilized society when people are writing bitter articles under the guise of sarcasm to express their desire for revenge" and indeed your admission that you "have a very difficult time trying to figure out why anybody would write such a piece" perhaps indicates that more such challenging pieces are needed?

 

bkkguy

[bkkguy]

Apology accepted.

 

I didn't think I was apologising - why does this remind me again of The Sound of Muisic?

 

Captain von Trapp: If the Nazis take over Austria, I have no doubt, Herr Zeller, that you will be the entire trumpet section.

Herr Zeller: You flatter me, Captain.

Captain von Trapp: Oh, how clumsy of me - I meant to accuse you.

 

bkkguy

[Bob]

this piece is lampooning this type of press coverage and public reaction.

 

Interesting take but, having read it yet again, I don't see that at all; however, as noted, I can't seem to make anything of what point/humor/lampoon that the writer was attempting to concoct. It's just a pointless and sick piece from my vantage point.

[Guest thaiworthy]

I didn't think I was apologising - why does this remind me again of The Sound of Muisic?