redemption

redemption is a powerful word and is a powerful concept. i have a question about it tonight though. can redemption exist in a society that has nearly perfected the storage and access of information? i mean forgive and forget is a phrase that meant something in the past. think about the things we do for a minute. we're inundated right now with video clips and photos and sound bites of princess diana on this, the ten year anniversary of her death. her kids see her on tv or on the front pages of newspapers on a very regular basis. what must it be like to be bombarded with images of your mother constantly? we used to be ABLE to forget. i never thought it would be a luxury to be able to forget something or someone. photos will fade with time. you can even forget the sound of someone's voice with time. can you ever get to a place of peace or do you just become desensitized?

what does that mean for people in the public (most notably, most recently, michael vick) who screw up? can they ever redeem themselves in the public eye when anyone with an ax to grind can set up a website splashing their crimes all over the public discourse? jail in america is not meant to be therapeutic. we don't send people to jail here to cure them of addictions or compulsions. we don't send people to jail to give them an opportunity to better their lives. it is pure punishment. but, i thought that part of the deal with punishment is that once you do suffer the consequences of your actions that was it. you're done. your slate is wiped clean (except that you can't vote, can't get a decent job, don't have much of a shot to get into college unless you lie on your application...but set all of that aside), and you start again.

wait, i'm mixing topics. i don't want to talk about the penal code in america and how we treat those who transgress against us. i want to talk about the persistence of information and what that does to us.

um, right...splashing their crimes all over the public discourse? this line of thought started weeks ago when the vick story broke, but it really applies to anyone who (for whatever reason) draws a great deal of media attention to themselves--actor, athlete, politician, whatever. there are some things that are unforgivable, sure. lying about the reasons for starting a war. that's unforgivable. i don't mean to be...disingenuous? is that the word i want? i guess...i don't mean to denigrate the things that dumb celebrities do by comparing them to what i think the bush administration did. i don't mean that. i just mean we should collectively apply some perspective.

*sigh* off track again.

i just would like for us to take a minute and think about what it means that a person can't leave the past in the past. what does it mean for the concept of redemption when a person literally cannot ever again enjoy the luxury of simply forgetting the dumb shit they did in the past? i think that it means we leave the idea of redemption behind and shift to the control of information and who has access to it. recently, walmart was burned for editing it's own wikipedia entries. not that they don't have the right to edit factual content about them in a public forum. they had walmart employees posing as unaffiliated denizens of the net leaving positive remarks on their wikipedia entry (to combat the thousands of negative rants that had been posted). instead of seeking to REDEEM themselves in the public eye, they simply go about trying to change information. they (and others like them) are stuck in this absolutely EVIL catch22 situation--they can't redeem themselves because of the persistence of information (perhaps justified in this case), but if they're caught pursuing the one avenue left open--the manipulation of information--then they are vilified as a corrupt entity.

how often do we see this on talking head shows on TV? i heard some shit the other day on the sean hannity radio show that almost made me total the car. i don't think that i am misrepresenting his position when i say that sean hannity is a STAUNCH supporter of the bush administration...and, it's policies, including the use of torture in the interrogation of suspected (not proven, suspected) terrorists or those linked to terroism. we can quibble over what he meant by the word 'torture,' but he did say it. i actually listen to his show more than i should. so, bear all of that in mind. he's talking on the radio the other day about the soon to be ex-senator craig because apparently, the police release a tape of his interrogation. hannity talks about the ALLEGED (his words) crime despite the fact that craig plead guilty in a court of law. hannity says, and i quote, "i'm uncomfortable with the aggressiveness of the interrogation..." implying that the senator was bullied into pleading guilty to a crime he didn't commit? obviously, the officer conducting the interrogation was standing far too close for comfort. how ridiculous is it for hannity to sincerely make this argument when his record on related issues is clearly right-wing? hell, his stance helps define the right-wing.

i say all of that to make this point. there isn't the possibility of redemption in this case. there is no possibility that craig is going to come out and say, "yep. i did it. i'll pay the fine and do some community service. what i do in my bedroom is my business. butt out." there's no way he is going to admit that he did anything wrong because that is yielding in the battle to control information or at least the perception of information--which is what hannity was doing a fine job of on his radio show on that almost fateful day. they are waging word-war over our perception of the facts.

so, true spiritual transformation and redemption or cynical (and not even a little bit subtle) manipulation of the public's perception of factual information. *shrug* who can say?