I watched with interest as Anthony Weiner accepted responsibility for his inappropriate use of social media (Facebook and Twitter). Over a period of three years he had on line relationships of a sexual nature with six women.
Although it's unfortunate that Weiner decided to engage in these inappropriate relationships, he serves as a model of how to accept responsibility for his actions. He made it clear in his news conference that his actions were wrong and that he and he alone was responsible. He did not attempt to deflect blame onto the women or any one else who might serve to distract attention from his bad behavior. He made no excuses.
All of us are guilty of mistakes, poor judgement, etc. Christians call it sin. Weiner did not use that word for his actions. Some may criticize that, but I think he was right to say that he had made mistakes, used poor judgement, and done some deeply regrettable things. The word "sin" is laden with connotations that make some people immediately close their minds to whatever is said next (perhaps Jimmy Swaggart's teary confession coming to mind).
Weiner's demeanor was one of contrite seriousness. He understands that he let people down: his wife, friends, and constituents, and is not looking for sympathy. Perhaps that's why I find my heart going out to him. He was humble, accountable, and has had a change of mind about behaviors that he originally did not believe to be as hurtful as they really are (the Greek word for repentance is "metanoia"- a change of mind.
Hopefully you don't have something like this to own up to. But if you do, Weiner offers a great example of how to respond. Own up to what you've done. Blame no one else. Be honest. It may be tempting to deflect attention off of yourself, but in the end no one is fooled. Accountability and honesty is the road back to health and trust.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
A Slippery Slope
I was reading the news this morning when I saw the headline "Global War on Drugs Has Failed." The Global Commission on Drug Policy states that the war on drugs has not and cannot be won. It recommends that governments should end the criminalization of drug use and experiment with legal models that would undermine organized crime syndicates. Drug users, after all only harm themselves, right?
This sort of reasoning is an alarming slippery slope. We also have not (and probably will not) win the war on human trafficking or pornography. Should we also give up on those battles and attempt to "regulate" how people are sold or exploited? People are still killing each other too. Should murder be legalized? How about robbery? One may argue the above points by saying, "Well, these are not victimless crimes. Drug use is...."
So, drug users only harm themselves? I'm wondering what percentage of crimes are committed under the influence of drugs. I don't know the answer, but everyone has heard of crime (often violent) committed by someone who was high. Drug use takes a toll on families (just as alcohol abuse does). The drug user harms himself, his family, and sometimes others. There is no such thing as a victimless crime.
The commission states that governments have spent too much time and money hunting down criminals and incarcerating them. Drug addicts are a financial drain on governments regardless. Treatment facilities cost money too. Not to mention that most drug addicts are not productive members of society.
How about the organized crime angle? If drugs are legalized, won't that hurt organized crime? Last time I checked, garbage collection is perfectly legal, but that hasn't stopped organized crime from being involved...
I usually try to stay away from anything remotely political, but when I read a news story like this it's hard not to comment. Hopefully we'll decide to hold the line against illegal drugs, human trafficking, pornography (which no matter how you feel about your right to view it, often involves the exploitation of someone), and everything else that harms people. Just because we haven't won - and perhaps will not win, doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep fighting.
This sort of reasoning is an alarming slippery slope. We also have not (and probably will not) win the war on human trafficking or pornography. Should we also give up on those battles and attempt to "regulate" how people are sold or exploited? People are still killing each other too. Should murder be legalized? How about robbery? One may argue the above points by saying, "Well, these are not victimless crimes. Drug use is...."
So, drug users only harm themselves? I'm wondering what percentage of crimes are committed under the influence of drugs. I don't know the answer, but everyone has heard of crime (often violent) committed by someone who was high. Drug use takes a toll on families (just as alcohol abuse does). The drug user harms himself, his family, and sometimes others. There is no such thing as a victimless crime.
The commission states that governments have spent too much time and money hunting down criminals and incarcerating them. Drug addicts are a financial drain on governments regardless. Treatment facilities cost money too. Not to mention that most drug addicts are not productive members of society.
How about the organized crime angle? If drugs are legalized, won't that hurt organized crime? Last time I checked, garbage collection is perfectly legal, but that hasn't stopped organized crime from being involved...
I usually try to stay away from anything remotely political, but when I read a news story like this it's hard not to comment. Hopefully we'll decide to hold the line against illegal drugs, human trafficking, pornography (which no matter how you feel about your right to view it, often involves the exploitation of someone), and everything else that harms people. Just because we haven't won - and perhaps will not win, doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep fighting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)