Putting Back What You Took
A "despicable asshole" makes amends.
I got an e-mail I found pretty amazing:
Hi, I enjoy your column very much. You seem to me to be one of the more sensible folks offering their 2 cents.30+ years ago I did a really despicable thing that most certainly caused a group of folks considerable pain, embarrassment and financial hardship.
There is no way I can make amends to the specific folks I harmed, who happened to be musicians.
But by making a significant contribution to a local non-profit music academy it seems to me I can atone a little bit for being such an asshole.
So I'm thinking an anonymous contribution to the scholarship fund would be the way to go. No one but me knows what I did and some kids benefit.
But a BIG part of me doesn't want to just mail that check or just hand the envelope to the secretary with a terse "For your scholarship fund."
I want to say to some living person, "I behaved really badly and I'm really sorry for that. I'd like to help someone to try to make up for having harmed someone. Please accept this in that spirit."
Your thoughts, please.
My response:
I think you sound like a great person. This is exactly the sort of thing I advise people and do myself. You can't always make it up to the exact people you've harmed, but you can try to be a part of putting some nice into the world instead of more of the mean that so many people do. Congrats on being the sort of person who not only feels compelled to make amends, but does so.And about what you're saying, that you want to say, "I behaved really badly," etc., I actually think that might be a good thing. I think it helps people to know that other people not only make mistakes but make amends for them. We're all human. I'm rude, same as everyone. I behave badly, speak sharply, and do other things I shouldn't. If people know that you're making amends like this, maybe they'll be inspired to do the same.
In short, you rock. All the best,-Amy
UPDATE - The person writes back:
Thought I'd give you some follow-up and my, my, the comments on your blog!!I go to the CU, get a cashier's check and toddle off to the music academy.
Walking down the main corridor I spy an administrative outpost wherefrom an admin. asst. sort immediately makes eye contact and asks if she may help.
I reply "Can you accept a donation to your scholarship fund?"
She replies, "Of course."
And I reply, "May I take a few moments of your time to tell you a story?"
She agrees and I start into my tale and after a moment her eyes sort of change and she says, "You must want the MUSIC academy!"
I confirm that, yes, indeed, the MUSIC academy is exactly what I want.
Amy, I'm dying. Amused at fate's whimsy, but dying.So she leads me off down the hall and I say, "Man, I've gotta start this confession all over."
She says, "I'm 'fraid so and I'm gonna have to ask the director to tell me how it ends."
"No, that's cool. Stick around."
on the music academy's director's door and in we go. "Bob, this gentleman would like to make a donation to the scholarship fund."
I hand Bob the envelope and begin my tale again.
She takes off, he invites me to share the specifics which I do (I doubt blog commentator Crid would have been mollified) and he thanks me and kindly and graciously acknowledges my intentions. Furthermore he offers to help introduce me to the local musical community when I am ready to start playing again.
So, there it is.
My supporters and detractors aside, I'M convinced I did the best I could and that is quite enough for me.
Best regards...
Thanks for proving that people can change dude! You made my morning with this. You are a great example of why people deserve second chances. I think Karma is going to turn around in a good way for you.
Sabrina at March 11, 2010 4:47 AM
The Micah Wright scandal a few years ago brought me a new word: Allocute. (It was pointed out by some blogger than Wright never did; soldiers guys get really, really upset when people falsely allege military service.)
The reason we all have so much fun talking about karma is that we know it's not real. When suffering slights and bruises for no reason but the unanswerable clumsiness of others, we're soothed to think some kind of payback is in the offing...
Not that it could be enough. All of us have suffered genuine incompetence or even cruelty from close people who should have done better, and we know how unsatisfying –or further wounding– an incompetent apology can be. Maybe it's from the wrong person, it's privately offered for a public offense, or it's late, or it manipulates and continues the assault ('I'm sorry you feel that way about it, but...').
And this apology is TO the wrong people. He's told you little of his earlier victims; he may tell the (smiling, grateful) beneficiaries of his largesse even less. You specifically don't know why he CAN'T apologize and compensate the earlier party... For all we know, he's constrained by abject shame.
These specifics are not fungible. Specifically, musicians don't meet in a bourse every night to exchange pains and pleasures and debts and rewards to make sure everybody ends their day as they started it. If your ex-husband used to beat you and harshly ridicule your parents, what's it supposed to mean to you when he tells you he's kind and respectful to his new girlfriend? And what is she supposed to do with your pain?
Giving a proper apology is a pain in the ass, because you know it doesn't make anyone truly happy.
This guy's got some rocking yet to do.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 11, 2010 5:04 AM
I agree with you, Crid, but paying it forward isn't a bad idea either. I'm thinking this guy might have been a club manager at one time, and maybe stiffed the musicians he mentions their pay for a gig. Which sucks, but it's happened to countless musicians and bands (mine included). Back in the day, we dealt with some really shitty people. What would make it better would be if the guy actually paid the guys he stiffed, I think. But maybe a couple of them are dead or long gone or whatever. I knew a guy who was a manager of a band that was one of the bands playing at an all day concert. Jackass pulled the plug on my band because he thought we were playing too long and he wanted his band to go on, because they had another gig later that day. IIRC, we got stiffed on our pay that day too.
Flynne at March 11, 2010 6:30 AM
I disagree that karma isn't real. I think it's the empitome of "what goes around comes around". I absolutely believe that when you treat people and yourself well, you will also be treated well, and when you treat people and yourself badly, you will also be treated badly. Is this the case 100% of the time? No. Shit happens. People get treated badly for no reason at all, and some assholes seem to get all the lucky breaks. It is how you react on those situations that makes the difference. I think karma isn't just about give and get in life, sometimes, karma's also about the legacy you leave behind when you die.
"And this apology is TO the wrong people. He's told you little of his earlier victims; he may tell the (smiling, grateful) beneficiaries of his largesse even less. You specifically don't know why he CAN'T apologize and compensate the earlier party... For all we know, he's constrained by abject shame."
Perhaps he tried to make ammends and they did not accept it. Perhaps he has no way of getting in touch with them. Perhaps they have passed on. Who knows why? Taking the letter at face value...He said that he CAN'T make ammends to those people, which to me means that he has tried to do just that. If he can't actually apologize to the people he hurt, he can pay it forward as a way to make ammends to the universe so to speak. It is a gesture that signifies his promise to himself to be a better person. It's a second chance for him. He shouldn't have to suffer the rest of his life because he made a mistake in his youth. If this is the only way he can "make ammends" and relieve some of the guilt so he can get on with his life, then I say he is free to rock.
Sabrina at March 11, 2010 6:56 AM
Just speculating here, but there are theft rings that specialize in stealing gear from musicians. They'll do stuff like hang around recording studios and clubs, waiting for someone who's unloading a car to go inside and leave stuff unattended. Another tactic is to find clubs where a band is playing a multi-night stand and break in overnight, hoping that the band will have left their gear set up. If our LW was part of such a ring, it's quite possible that he doesn't actually know who he victimized.
Cousin Dave at March 11, 2010 7:10 AM
> I disagree that karma isn't real.
Counting on it will disappoint you.
> He said that he CAN'T make ammends to
> those people, which to me means that he
> has tried to do just that.
To me it means 'who knows'. If you wanna believe, that's fine, but the forgiveness he seeks isn't ours to give, and it's certainly not the possession of the new musicians.
> Perhaps he tried to make ammends and
> they did not accept it.
Then I'd be surprised by this wording to Amy; he'd almost certainly mention that. And he didn't. But amends might have been rejected as incomplete, insincere, or too late... This (imaginary) judgment call is not ours to make, but that of the injured party.
Your last paragraph has three "perhaps", which is too many for sturdy calculation of righteousness. We shouldn't let our own eagerness for a cheerful outcome cheat the truth.
Yeah, he should be nice to people. But it won't wipe the slate. Even if the original musicians were drummers for Spinal Tap and had all died years earlier in a tragic gardening accident, giving money to this new group will not lesson his guilt. And if the old musicians (or their descendants) turn up later and demand compensation, he won't be able to say "Sorry dudes, but I gave money to these other smiley people, and they were really glad to see me, even though you're still angry and frown-y. Even-Steven."
> gesture that signifies his promise to himself
His interior life isn't ours to judge or repair. The problem isn't his feelings or ours, it's his conduct. This is just one reason why it's bad to cheat others, because stuff can haunt you. (And maybe his victims.) That's nature's justice, and you'll notice that it's lame and unreliable: Real justice comes from decent people. I get the feeling he's not a very connected guy anyway, or he wouldn't be reaching out to Amy and the young players for this kind of resolution.
> If our LW was part of such a ring...
Well, note the word "humiliation". We've all known musicians who've lost a guitar or something to thieves. They were pissed, but humiliation doesn't describe it. Something bigger than that went down. But what?
He hasn't come clean to us, there's no reason to think he's come clean to his victims, and he's specifically said he's NOT coming clean to the new musicians:
> I want to say to some living person, "I behaved
> really badly and I'm really sorry...
> ...Please accept this in that spirit."
"Some living person." It's all about miscellaneous, uninvolved faces from the ghostly "spirit" world.
No go. Wiki: "In law, [allocution] is generally meant to state specifically and in detail what one did and for what reason" [my emphasis].
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 11, 2010 10:49 AM
"There is no way I can make amends to the specific folks I harmed, who happened to be musicians."
I think some of you folks are being a tad too harsh.
There are several reasons (and several 12 step programs) to recommend exactly what this guy is doing here.
There may not be any way he can contact them - yet perhaps has tried. They could have died. Or in a face to face amends, might cost him jail time. And before we get all quixotic about how he shouldn't care about that, (because he done wrong!) jail sentences are meant to enforce consequences to create change in a person - something that appears to have already happened. Also, his decision to make direct amends may not just involve him.
What if he has a family to provide for and support? Would we all feel better if doing the right thing when he is willing to also costs him his job or reputation and puts him on the unemployment payroll?
He's doing the best he can but it would appear any forgiveness he seeks he should find with himself. I think in doing this he may get that, and I see no reason he shouldn't.
Feebie at March 11, 2010 11:31 AM
Please excuse the grammatical, disjointed mess of a post above. I am typing on a minimized screen...and well, hit send too soon.
Feebie at March 11, 2010 11:34 AM
Well, if face-to-face amends send him to jail, are we certain he shouldn't go? Does he want resolution of this or not?
> jail sentences are meant to enforce consequences
> to create change in a person - something that
> appears to have already happened
They're also meant to give satisfaction to the aggrieved, and to let an absence in the community be recorded... It's not all about this guy's feelings. He tells us a change has already been created, but who knows how any third party might judge it, especially a judge, in person? Maybe a single question or moment of smirking eye contact might change your trust in him. And yeah, I'd feel sorry for his family. But making babies doesn't wash the slate either.
I'm not a twelve-stepper (yet), but from what I know of it, allocution is essential. You gotta cop to your crimes, and cop hard if not shamelessly. Taking your lumps is kind of the point.
When I've been troubled by things that might be guilt and gone to friends for advice, they've not let me pussy-foot around: "Dude, what exactly are you talking about? Did you steal Jerry's Porsche, or didn't you?" And even then, they can't say "Relax, it's cool" if there's an extra car in my garage... Even if we know Jerry's got another one.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 11, 2010 12:37 PM
>I disagree that karma isn't real.
>Counting on it will disappoint you.
I never said I counted on it.I just said I believed in it. I also believe in justice and self accountability. But counting on those also dissapoint. Does that mean I should stop believing in those?
Crid,
Are you suggesting that he should punish himself for this act he committed against the musicians forever then since he cannot actually get it from the hurt parties?
I don't think he is seeking forgiveness from US anyway. We don't matter. I think he is just looking for a way to express his remourse in an outwardly fashion since he cannot actually express it to the people he hurt for whatever reason. He will most likely carry around that guilt forever and I think that is a good thing. Guilt and shame make people behave better, which it seems to have done for this guy.
I don't think it matters if he "comes clean" to a bunch of annoymous people on the internet or the new musicians. We and they are not the ones who were hurt. His sin is between him and his God (if that is what he believes) and those who were hurt by it. It's none of our business. He said he CAN'T atone to the people he hurt, not that he WON'T. I assume that means he doesn't know how to contact them or they are dead. Just because he can't actually atone to the hurt parties, doesn't mean that he isn't truly sorry and it doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to forgive himself for it. And why should he confess to the new musicians? What difference will it make? He still is not able to atone to the victims and now has to rehash the details again for another group of strangers? What purpose does that serve? (The person collecting the check will not care anyway and likely look at him like he has three heads.) Now, if he wanted to share his story with the new musicians to use his experiance as a way to inspire them to do better, I think that would be a great idea, but that was not the question at hand.
Also, with that "come clean" thinking, do you feel he should also have to confess it to everyone he encounters in his life for the sake of "coming clean"? Let's assume this guy was your friend IRL Crid. What if he confessed one day that he did a horrible thing in the past and felt guilty, but was not specific on the details? Would you demand that he "come clean"? And if he did, would you stop being friends with him because of it? I would imagine not. It is possible to be friends with someone without condoning their past. We cannot always hold a persons past against them. People can change.
Now, having said all that, I do not however believe that forgiving a person means that we have to automatically let those who have harmed us back into our life. "Sorry" isn't a get out of jail free card. But, we can let go of the anger we feel for them by forgiving them, even if we never see them again.
Crid, I am not attacking you. Your arguments are sound and I enjoy your posts. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from because it sounds like you aren't even willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
Sabrina at March 11, 2010 12:43 PM
"You gotta cop to your crimes, and cop hard if not shamelessly. Taking your lumps is kind of the point."
There is a special caveat to this "and make direct amends wherever possible unless to do so would injure them or others". Other's probably meaning family and loved ones - why should they have to suffer now for his past? That would be pretty selfish of him to clean his own conscious at the expense of everyone around him, no?
Where coming clean has it's unintended consequences involving others, and could cause harm worse than the original offense - I don't believe one need make amends directly.
Now of course, if this guy is just being ball-less... that's something else all together.
Feebie at March 11, 2010 1:03 PM
> I also believe in justice and self
> accountability. But counting on
> those also dissapoint
Not as readily. And because they're practical enterprises, you can measure and adjust them when they do, which isn't possible with with mystical Karma.
> should punish himself for this
> act he committed against the
> musicians forever
No. But he shouldn't trust his own judgment about what's appropriate.
And he shouldn't trust us (meaning Amy) when he won't tell us what went down or why. "I did a bad thing" is not a confession.
> Guilt and shame make people
> behave better, which it seems to
> have done for this guy.
But they didn't make him behave better... Certainly not to the people who he hurt and humiliated.
> It's none of our business.
So what does he want from us (/Amy?)
> He said he CAN'T atone to the
> people he hurt, not that he WON'T.
He didn't say so specifically. I have questions.
> What if he confessed one day
> that he did a horrible thing in
> the past and felt guilty, but
> was not specific on the details?
I'd insist he share or not, no half-steps (this per the example of my own better friends, as described above).
> Would you demand that he "come
> clean"? And if he did, would you
> stop being friends with him
> because of it? I would imagine not.
Maybe. Depends on the crime.
> We cannot always hold a persons past
> against them.
I'm not interested in being a hard ass, I want people to be as good as they can, and to fulfill their debts.
> I am not attacking you.
You can if you want, it's an anonymous blog.
> it sounds like you aren't even
> willing to give this guy the
> benefit of the doubt.
He asks for too much of that benefit, and he asks it of people who aren't present to make informed judgements. Doubt is a precious resource in an exchange like this, and we need to get value for it. Not comfort; not lovey feelings of gracious forgiveness; value. The guy's writing to ask what the right thing to do.
Why doesn't he tell the new musicians what he did, in a plain sentence, with eye contact, while giving them the money? He didn't suggest that, did he? Why not? He told us exactly what he wants: The most nebulous, faceless expression of his guilt that he can offer that still makes the pain go away.
That's cowardly.
_____________
> Other's probably meaning family
> and loved ones - why should they
> have to suffer now for his past?
Because he did something wrong. He hurt people. Babies don't wipe the slate clean, or we'd encourage prisoners to impregnate women. He shouldn't have started a family knowing such a debt was still on his calendar. We don't know how heinous this crime was; we might well prefer that the guy's sons see clearly that society punishes it harshly.
> Now of course, if this guy is
> just being ball-less... that's
> something else all
> together.
Exactly. And we don't know, do we?
And for the record, this wasn't (apparently/who knows?) about the private emotional dislocations from substance abuse. Somehow (who knows how?) he reached out into the world with sober clarity to cause "a group of folks considerable pain, embarrassment and financial hardship." 12-step, for its indisputable brilliance, may not be the leading light on this one.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 11, 2010 1:30 PM
"Babies don't wipe the slate clean, or we'd encourage prisoners to impregnate women."
Funny, but I think you know that sidesteps the point.
I wish there was a way to shield kids from the impact of their parent's debts - or even, in some cases, from their parent's influences.
~~~
The problem with the idea of karma is that it assumes a clean slate which we sully through choices freely made, or that damage done early on will be brought back to a neutral state by being justly compensated. The idea that everything can be made whole through compensation is a fallacy.
Michelle at March 11, 2010 3:49 PM
> Funny, but I think you know that
> sidesteps the point.
It's as directly on point as I could imagine... I truly have no idea where you're going to go with this.
Listen, it would be better if no child entered the world in poverty. So should a parents' financial debts be wiped away (along with their ethical ones) once baby arrives? Are children to suppose every move before their arrival was perfect?
And if no kid deserves a burden from the history of his parents, does any deserve a blessing from the parent's decency or preparedness?
If you think it's funny, I've definitely missed your point.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 11, 2010 4:10 PM
"> Other's probably meaning family
> and loved ones - why should they
> have to suffer now for his past? -Feebie
Because he did something wrong. He hurt people. Babies don't wipe the slate clean, or we'd encourage prisoners to impregnate women." -Crid
I don't suggest a causal relationship between creating children and wiping the slate clean. Neither, I think, does Feebie. I read her comment to suggest that this man may be responsible for considering how his actions in the present could impact a dependent child.
If that is indeed the case, I would recommend that he find a way to compensate the injured parties without revealing his identity - which would require him to shoulder his guilt as long as necessary to fulfill his responsibilities to his kid(s). I realize this brings us back to the lack of pertinent information.
"Listen, it would be better if no child entered the world in poverty. So should a parents' financial debts be wiped away (along with their ethical ones) once baby arrives?" -Crid
No. Although we do not wipe clean parents' financial debts when a child arrives, we do what we can to have those debts not impoverish the child. We collectively fund and provide to children public education, child protective services, a basic level of health care, some meals, a foster care system, and a variety of other resources designed to help bridge the gap between what a child needs and what their parents can provide. There are countless kids for whom this effort is not enough - yet we do make the effort.
"And if no kid deserves a burden from the history of his parents, does any deserve a blessing from the parent's decency or preparedness?" -Crid
No. "Children are all foreigners." (W. Whitman). Some children are luckier than others.
Michelle at March 11, 2010 5:05 PM
Karma's real. Some people just misunderstand the term. Or misuse it to make a point. But it is the universal law: cause and effect.
Much like gravity and it's opposite: comedy.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 11, 2010 6:14 PM
> I read her comment to suggest that this
> man may be responsible for considering
> how his actions in the present could
> impact a dependent child.
But... But... First of all, I don't know why your heart & imagination immediately ascribe dependent children to this offender instead of to the offended. Hell, for all we know, the original musicians were children themselves. Or they may have had dependent children who were, or continue to be, impacted. You've got your eyes off the ball. WHOEVER the kids belong to, they should see that behaviors have consequences, and those consequences ripple.
> I would recommend that he find a
> way to compensate the injured
> parties without revealing his
> identity
That ain't justice. What you're recommending is irresponsibility, and if he's a father, he'll be glad to hear that from you.
In the prosecution of almost every crime, much comfort to victims comes from having it said out loud, in a setting protected by the state, "That's the guy who did something bad to me!" People who've been wronged deserve that. They weren't making it up, and they weren't just whining for something that was their own fault... That guy did it. It's not wrong for them to expect that, and it's not inappropriate for them to think his parental status is irrelevant.
> We collectively fund and provide
> to children....
That's a long list. You're describing a socialist paradise. Things you list as "needs" turn out to be a pretty inclusive rundown of human comforts and fulfillments. But that's not what society is about: My kids are mine and yours are yours, and it works like that for very good reasons.
And –this is really important– kids whose parents get things right for them aren't just lucky, and it's mistaken and insulting to say that they are. A lot of parents make sacrifices. They plan those sacrifices ahead of time, they forego those pleasures as the moment goes by, and they live with the ache of pleasures untasted for the rest of their lives.... While they work. And they save. And all the rest. And this isn't a policy problem, it's the way things should be.
(I'm spending time with such a family this weekend: I'll see a good man meet his first grandson for the first time. He gave his sons everything good men could want, including humility. And I see this being done now for the grandson, who I've already met, and it's thrilling.)
Years ago I used to listen to this psychotherapist on the radio in LA, and he was a gifted (if flawed) guy. (There was a heydey for this sort of thing, from which Dr. Laura was one of the few survivors.) One time a teen girl called for guidance as her family collapsed. The details are forgotten. But the last line of advice from the doctor was "get out". And she didn't want to: 'But my little sister will still be here, and then she'll have to deal with this!' The doctor made two quick points before the commercial: First, the girl who was calling was essentially his patient, so her well-being was his first concern. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it was only when she was on safe ground that she'd be able to reach back and care for her sister.
In those same years, my oldest friend in the world married into a family where that had happened: The elder of two homeless daughters was adopted, but both were in loving homes in short order.
But the acceptance you offer this guy has no such second act. You're not even asking him, after his kindness to the new group, to follow through with any painful aftermath for his error: You're saying it's OK that he simply go for the smiles and the well-kept secrets.
I've really been surprised by how Amy and you folks have so readily passed your trust and enthusiasm to this guy, ignoring concern from parties who aren't present.
All he had to do was be the first to ask.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 11, 2010 7:16 PM
RE: the update—
> he thanks me and kindly and graciously acknowledges
> my intentions. Furthermore he offers to help introduce
> me to the local musical community when I am ready
> to start playing again.
So the guy who took the check –not of the originally aggreived party– was cool with it?
Good to know, but not precisely on point.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 11, 2010 7:49 PM
Besides, this isn't about me, or the blog, or the recipient of the check. It's about the original musicians.
____________________
> Some people just misunderstand the term.
The cause and effect aren't clear enough, and the comedy's not funny enough. Real justice doesn't happen within single hearts which feel natural guilt, it comes through willful interactions with other people. Justice is man-made and synthetic and artificial and one of the few projects that makes human life worthwhile. Neither God nor Darwin has much to do with it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 11, 2010 7:51 PM
Offtopic-
Woo-hoo!
Memoir City.
Population: Hitch!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 11, 2010 8:04 PM
Re: Update.
Godspeed, brother!
Feebie at March 11, 2010 9:48 PM
Crid,
I think I understand what you (were?) are saying. By going the route this guy went with the donation, it is like a cop out and justice really isn't served. I get it. And I agree to some point.
It probably would be better for him to turn himself in and let the laws of the land do what they should have done a long time ago. But, at the same time, there really isn't enough information for me to judge this guy that way. We don't know what it was that he did and for all we know, it may not have even been illegal. I don't like that we are assuming that what the guy did was a "crime". It very well might not have been. Dispiclable behaviour doesn't = illegal. It could have been as simple as not showing up for a big gig and or giving their spot to someone else if he was a club owner costing them the money and a shot at a record deal or something along those terms. It may not have had to actually do with a gig at all. We are making a lot of assumptions based on the fact that he said they were musicians when in fact, it could have nothing to do with what he actually did. It could also have been a living situation where he and other musicians happend to live together and he skipped town without paying rent and caused them to be evicted. Now, because of the fact they (and I think he) are musicians, he feels that music is where is pentinace could be paid.
I am taking the letter at face value and assuming he hasn't made ammends to the victims for a reason beyond his control. I realize that I don't actually know that and it is probably very naive of me but I am going with it. I see so much negativity, rudeness, greed, and crime everyday that I am willing to cut this one some slack. I don't have to condone his previous act, and I don't have to even prefer his method of ammends, but IMO, it really could be worse.
Sabrina at March 12, 2010 11:03 AM
"It probably would be better for him to turn himself in and let the laws of the land do what they should have done a long time ago."
I was probably the one that started the whole criminal thing, but really it could be anything - like there is no way in hell he can get in touch with all the people he harmed 30+ years ago...
Feebie at March 12, 2010 1:52 PM
Correction - qoute was Emerson. Sorry.
Michelle at March 12, 2010 3:36 PM
Crid - as you put it, his (fictional) kids are his. If he can financially make amends and wait to allocute until
after said fictional kids are no longer dependant, I see benefit to that. Former child musicians paid in full, child of formerly harmful club manager protected & cared for until majority/ end of dependency. Then watches parent take lumps.
And by "luck," I mean kids don't get to pick the families they're born into. Kids don't get born into nurturing families as opposed to crappy families because they're more deserving. I realize the pro-karma faction may disagree with this assertion.
Michelle at March 12, 2010 4:03 PM
> I don't like that we are assuming that
> what the guy did was a "crime"
Me neither. For all I know he just spilled a cabernet
on their band uniforms and skipped out on the dry cleaning bill... He probably didn't send a busload tumbling down a mountain switchback in a drunk driving incident.
On the other hand, he said "Amy, I'm dying. Amused at fate's whimsy, but dying." Even if the fate's whimsy thing is not distraction: This guy was feeling some shame, and shame makes people do, say, and presume weird things. Two communiques to date: How come he hasn't told us (meaning Amy) why he can't get in touch with the parties he injured, even in part, or even their heirs, or even mutual friends from their shared circle? Are there no parties closer to his error he can consult? Listen, I like Amy.... I've actually communicated with her a few times myself. But what's this got to do with her?
Whelp— it ain't no nevermind to me, y'know? It's an advice blog, and that's the point, to consider this woman's advice. He didn't ask you or me. Maybe this shows why I'm not in the business: I'd have wanted more deets before answering. On planet Cridmo, "it really could be worse" is not the standard for anything, especially things presented as justice and generosity.
> If he can financially make amends and
> wait to allocute until after said fictional kids
> are no longer dependant
Justice delayed is justice denied, etc. Listen, Dear Peoples of the World, I'm sorry that yer kids are a challenging drain on your personal resources: But you don't get to shred your bills or deny your misconduct or benefit from a fraudulent reputation until they're married with grandchildren of their own.
Third time I've said that, maybe the fourth. Can't understand why you won't take the point. He caused people "financial hardship". He owes people stuff. That debt was payable on the first dawn, and kids diminish it not at all.
> I see benefit to that.
Benefit to him and to his kids, not to the people who deserve compensation or their kids. You first want to benefit the bad guy. I've said that before, too. How is it you could turn your attention from justice this way? When it happens to you or your kids –when you suffer "considerable pain, embarrassment and financial hardship" and the instigator turns up years later and starts preening around like Mr. Moneybags for other parties, earning 'you-rocks' from smiling redheads in the alt-weekly– are you going to be cool with it?
> Kids don't get born into nurturing families as
> opposed to crappy families because
> they're more deserving
So everyone's resources –financial, emotional and otherwise– belong to everyone else?
Honestly, I think you're going to get the world you want. The president and almost every government servant (and they're uncountably numerous and unaccountable anyway) are doing their best to make the planet work like you're describing. But on that day, I'll recite my favorite two-word expression, from a favorite book: No tears.
Don't come cryin' to me (certainly not for justice) when it doesn't work out.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 12, 2010 8:49 PM
While I don't like to second-guess people who appear to be seeking to do the right thing, as opposed to attempting to justify doing the wrong thing, there's something about this letter that strikes me as the author begging for acknowledgment of what a /great guy/ he is. Sure, he did this /assholish/, /horrible/ thing--which is not described in any detail beyond vague hints--but look at how penitent he is! Look at how he's trying to make amends!...Except, he's not, at all, to the people he harmed. He wants absolution; I get that. It seems, though, that he's trying to /buy/ his absolution from someone who's in no position to grant it via his donation and a self-indulgent apology. Moreover, he wants to be patted on the head for this gesture, whose very moral significance is undone by the showy way he's going about it.
Sorry, no. I'm sure the money will go to a worthy cause (support the arts!), but it won't undo his selfish act, and the whole affair is tainted by his grandiose expectation that it will.
M at March 17, 2010 10:09 PM
Leave a comment