Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Dec
5
First, this Plain Dealer follow up article on this PD Openers’ blog item provides more opinion about the fear engendered by State Rep. Tim Grendell’s interest in a personal sex offender radar system that would detect when someone wearing an ankle monitor could be detected in your vicinity:
…David Singleton, executive director of the Ohio Justice & Policy Center, said the system plays on fears in the community while penalizing people who have already served time in prison for their crimes.
Singleton called Offendar “utterly ridiculous and absurd.”
“What are we trying to do, make it impossible for people to get on their feet again and be productive citizens?” he said. “This is crazy, and I’m outraged by it, because it doesn’t make my daughter any safer.”
Lindsay Fello-Sharpe, of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, said 90 percent of sex crime victims are assaulted by a person they know or trust.
“This just plays on the great myths out there, such as the stranger-danger myth that’s not true,” said Fello-Sharpe. “It’s sending the wrong message and setting people up with a false sense of security.”
Has anyone checked to see if Grendell or anyone in his circle has stock or other interests in the company? From the PD:
The company, which is trying to patent its system and won’t divulge the specific technology behind it, would need up to 18 months to further develop it. It’s not used anywhere, so no one is certain how well it really will work. And cost estimates are still fluctuating. The company expects that a personal alert device would cost between $15 and $45 a year.
Also, other companies out there might want to pitch their own monitoring systems to try to win a private contract with the state.
Finally, you don’t think the ACLU would stay silent, now did you:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio said Grendell shouldn’t waste state taxpayers’ time or money on such a system.
“The assumption that someone once did something bad and is still a danger to everyone else is simply false,” said Jeffrey Gamso of the ACLU. “It’s going to keep people scared, when the majority of these people are unlikely to ever offend again.”
Fear. Gotta love it.
Sick, just sick.
Meantime, analyses of President Bush’s reaction to the news that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 show that he could not stop himself from describing Iran as a danger or dangerous.
Of course the halting of a nuclear program does not make Iran “not dangerous” or “not a danger.” Do not misconstrue or misread or otherwise twist what I’ve written here.
But what the U.S. intelligence report (by 16 agencies by the way) that Iran halted its program in 2003 does tell us is that we must look at an array of information – as we always should. This is all about risk assessment, not one single element about a country or culture or group or individual, and looking at multiple factors.
In May 2002, the Plain Dealer published an op-ed I wrote that drew an analogy between the mental health duty to warn and the government’s duty to warn. I noted how mental health professionals have to do a risk assessment before they can say, we must break confidentiality and tell the police or potential third party victim.
At a minimum, our government should be doing the same, now. We have 9/11 to show why, as if common sense wasn’t enough, which it seems not to be with this administration.
This matter of what is a “danger” and “dangerous” is also about language. It is about why conclusory statements, represented by a single label, are powerful and, themselves, dangerous: because they tag someone or something with what the speaker hopes will be an indelible image or feeling – in this case, fear – rather than take the extra words or space to tell the listener – us – the facts upon which that conclusion of an existing danger or the presence of something dangerous is based.
So let’s hear it, President Bush: if you want to assert that Iran continues to be a danger, you’ve got plenty of us who are willing, maybe even wanting to believe you. Show us the money – show us the proof – show us the risk assessment.
Why? Why is it still dangerous?
This question probably isn’t that difficult to answer. So do it. Credibly and thoroughly.
Otherwise, there is simply no way we will be, or should be fooled again. And if we are, shame, shame, shame – and all the other consequences – on us.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:31 am December 5th, 2007 in Elections, Foreign Affairs, Government, Media, Ohio, Politics, Social Issues, Statehouse
Comments
17 Responses to “For the love of fear: Grendell and Bush”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Bummer. When I saw the title I thought you were making a reference to Beowulf.
I don’t know if you know, but Grendel is the monster in Beowulf who attacks the mead hall and devours Beowulf’s men. Beowulf slays him, then has to contend with Grendel’s mother. And a sea monster.
But this isn’t the same thing. Never mind.
I’m sure Tim Grendell gets that all the time.
Yes, I know the story – haven’t seen the movie. 
Agreed by the way… all of this fear mongering has to stop. So many politicians are addicted to this “get tough” model of leadership that it seems to be the only way they know of to deal with a problem. One reason why I like Strickland, he seems to be taking a very hands on and practical approach to problem solving.
Exactly. Look at what it took to get us into WWII, when so much we supposedly abhor was going on. And then look at what now meets muster to get us into military action.
There must be books I’ve just never read that analyze the decisions to go to war. I’ve read a couple of Vietnam, but not on earlier wars.
And the place of fear – I need to read up on that in a more academic way.
See Jill, the great fear debate continues, never fear, I guess…
Then let’s sentence rapists and child molestors (the worst offenders) to life sentences. They are as bad or worse than murderers because their victims must live with it the rest of their lives. If you beleive that child molestors or rapists can recover than I have a bridge over the Cuyahoga I can sell you. As for the ACLU assuring me that they won’t reoffend, that actually makes me MORE AFRAID.
Joe – I will get back to this thread – I need to try to stay undistracted but remember, I have a social work degree? No way I’ll let that assertion re: no one can recover stand. Then that law degree thingy? Tells us to look at how we define child molestors and rapists. Then there’s the pregnancy issue – if rapist is so bad that he gets locked up for life, why must the woman give birth to a child born of that individual if she doesn’t want to? Then, the sentencing thing – what does that make us? That makes us a society that places the potentiality of behavior above and beyond everything else.
That is just not right. Humanity requires us to find a better way, Joe.
I understand if you have to wait to post a response…
I honestly do not believe that a child molester or someone that has raped a stranger(s) can be rehabilitated. There is something fundamentally wrong that can not be corrected with Psychotherapy or Medication. I agree that how you define the crime(s) is the real trick, but you can not save everyone.
As for the woman having the baby as the result of a rape, as far as I know rape is steal legal and their is nothing preventing her from having an abortion.
As for the sentencing being based on potentiality, I don’t see it that way. This person has broken the social contract in an egregious way. They should be locked up for life because they have demonstrated an inability to function as a member of society based on norms, morality and the public good.
Um – Joe – you mean, abortion is still legal, right?
Sorry sorry. That is exactly what I meant.
Meaning what JMZ said is exactly what I meant, abortion is still legal. Trying for clarity…
Fear has worked as an effective tool to cover the lying liars tracks for years. Why do you think they would stop now?
The sad thing is the media still prints Bush’s lies despite the fact he has proven time and again that he is nothing but a liar.
“Iran is still a threat” said the front page of the Toledo Blade.
A country that does not have nuclear weapons, has invaded no other country, and actually imports oil despite having some of the world’s largest oil reserves?
Who made Iran a potential threat? Gee, who eliminated their two worst enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein? Thanks GWB!
Meanwhile, Pakistan, a country that recently crushed any semblance of democracy, harbors the Taliban and actually has nuclear weapons is treated as our friend. I’m afraid, all right, but not of Iran.
Hi Joe – thanks – no problem – I was pretty sure I knew what you meant.
Craig – there’s no question that the media, at times, has been very complicit and not the watchdog we hope and expect. I’m convinced that the harmonic convergence of blogs and all the events of this century isn’t an accident – blogs and the Internet allow us to express ourselves and when people feel like they aren’t being listened to – well, there goes another blog. Not all worthwhile for the reader, but you do have to say, sometimes – maybe that just doesn’t matter so much, you know?
JMZ,
Sorry about the rant. The fact that so many refer to MSM as the “liberal” media just gets under my skin.
I think you understate the US media’s complicity in helping to propogate the politics of fear, though. MSM is still the means by which alot of Americans get their news.
I loves me the blogosphere, I hope it can last.
Singleton is dead on about Offendar. BTW.
You could be right, Craig – I could be tougher on the MSM, but really, it’s hard to expect anything else so long as it’s a for-profit venture dependent on ads as well as access to people in their community. It’s not an easy relation – even if it’s one we can easily pick apart.
As for the whole 527 liberal media owned by the Democratic party thing? Yeah – bugs me too.
And I agree about Singleton being right on. I feel the same way as he does.
[...] The article discusses the use of fear to persuade people to vote a certain way. No shit. [...]