There was a nice, heartwarming photo yesterday of George H.W. Bush’s service dog lying by his casket. This was accorded the usual sniffling interpretation, which is fine: the image is moving. Nonetheless, Slate felt it necessary to publish “Don’t Spend Your Emotional Energy on Sully H.W. Bush/He’s a service dog who had been with the president for six months, not his lifelong companion.”
“It’s wonderful for Bush that he had a trained service animal like Sully available to him [for 6] months. It’s a good thing that the dog is moving on to another gig where he can be helpful to other people (rather than becoming another Bush family pet). But it’s a bit demented to project soul-wrenching grief onto a dog’s decision to lie down in front of a casket. Is Sully “heroic” for learning to obey the human beings who taught him to perform certain tasks? Does the photo say anything special about this dog’s particular loyalty or judgment, or is he just … there? Also, if dogs are subject to praise for obeying their masters, what do we do about the pets who eat their owners’ dead (or even just passed-out) bodies?…”
Oh, thank you, thank you SO much for that lovely image.
Of course the dog doesn’t understand that Bush is dead, or that he’s in the casket, or anything. So what? Anyone who knows anything about dogs can figure that out. Why was this snark necessary? Continue reading
Comment of the Day: “Unethical Blog Post of the Week: ‘But What About Caylee?”’
As comments, accusations and retorts featuring the Ethics Alarms All-Stars were flying around on the blog in reaction to the Casey Anthony verdict and my reaction to some of those reactions (here, here, here, and here), Lianne Best came through with an especially measured take, one that was immediately cheered by other commenters.
There is nothing wrong with feeling deeply, and emotions are important; after all, Mr. Spock had limitations as a leader. When emotion rather than analysis drives public opinion, however, there is a risk of real harm: those attempting objective analysis may be vilified, marginalized or ignored, and rash, reckless decisions and consequences can result. (I could, but won’t, argue that the 2008 presidential election was a classic case in point.) Lianne cuts to the real issue deftly. Here is her Comment of the Day:
“I too often find myself embroiled in emotional opinion, with no basis in facts. It’s easy here: an adorable and completely innocent, dependent little girl was killed. Virtually every human, particularly parents, want to see that vindicated, justice found and brought. That somehow makes it better. But you know what? It doesn’t make it better to go racing off on just a blazing gut reaction, not when people’s lives are affected by our lack of thought and analysis. I was a juror in a kidnapping and murder trial. It was an immensely difficult two weeks, and the decision was agonizing. Luckily, it was also popular; it would have been awful to suffer through loud, manic public criticism of our reasoned decision on top of the process … loud, manic public criticism by people who weren’t there, who knew less (or at least differently) than we did. We have a jury system for a reason, 12 people found Casey Anthony not guilty (13 if you count the alternate juror) and we have to trust them.
“Personally, I appreciate Jack’s cooler head prevailing when my mother’s heart is shrieking.”
Share this:
6 Comments
Filed under Comment of the Day, Law & Law Enforcement, Love, U.S. Society
Tagged as "slap on the wrists", bloggers, blogging, Casey Anthony trial, Caylee Anthony, celebrities, cognitive dissonance, courage, criminal defense, criminal justice system. justice, duty of juries, evidence, fairness, guilt, ignorance, innocence, integrity, justice, misinformation, misrepresentations, mothers, Nancy Grace, opinion, responsibility, sentiment