I'll say this here . . .

instead of Facebook, and there is a strong possibility that this post may disappear because, really, I'm not up for any kind of controversy.

That said, I find all the posts lambasting the organizers of the Grammys for asking Chris Brown to perform and the Grammy voters (who are the Grammy voters anyway?) a bit troubling.  Yes, he was convicted of battery.  Yes, he has admitted to beating the crap out of Rhiannon.  But, he served his time (probation, I think), attended court appointed counseling, and took anger management classes.  In our system, doesn't that mean he gets a second chance?  And given that he gets a second chance, doesn't that mean he gets the right to pursue his chosen career and, thus, succeed at it?

I do not think having him perform or even awarding him a Grammy is akin to saying his behavior was acceptable or that the Grammys (which is, apparently, some monolithic institution that influences every aspect of our society) condones his past behavior.  He did a terrible thing--a really, really terrible thing.  He was tried and convicted in a court of law, and as far as I know (and no, I'm not expert on the situation), he adhered to his sentence and fulfilled the terms of his punishment.  He deserves a second chance, at least in my opinion.  Why?  Well, I'm a big believer in therapy and anger management education, provided that one is working with a good therapist, is committed to therapy, and truly wants to learn how to control hir temper.  Why am I such a believer?  Well, it worked for my father.

*Edited on Feb. 15, 2012 to add: And clearly therapy doesn't work for everyone, as Chris Brown has demonstrated earlier this week.  Despite the obvious arrogance and just plain ignorance of this individual, I do believe that people, who make an honest effort to improve themselves, do deserve a second chance.