Some Reflections on Gatherings

Joshua Unseth's article( all links are also provided below) about the civility of debate included some summaries of his point of view on some topics and that got me to thinking about those and some other things and I decided to do a summary article myself.

Starting with Joshua's set:

One: Abortion. Not my business or yours and solely up to the mother until such time as the fetus could survive on its own. Joshua mentioned his wife and what his choice would be in a therapeutic abortion. This brought to mind a concern of mine when I was first contemplating being a father. At that time and place, many of the hospitals were operated by the Catholic Church and their policy was 'if a choice must be made between saving the baby or saving the mother then save the baby.' My (wife and all her siblings) had actually been born in another town away from where they lived because her mother wanted to avoid that mentality in the home town Catholic controlled hospital. I made up my mind that if circumstances forced childbirth in such a place I would warn the doctor before hand that following that retarded policy would cost him his life. The situation never arose.

Two: Gay marriage. Here I disagree with Joshua (and apparently the talking majority). I see no reason the 'state' has any say in marriage at all. The federal government does not under the constitution and frankly I see no reason why it is any legitimate business of any government except as a contract of support for off spring and that role should be (and is more or less) enforced with or without 'marriage'. Most of the various governments in the US tax married people differently than two singles, particularly when only one has significant income and is supporting, wholly or in part, the other. There is logic in this, but why should it matter if it is a man supported by a woman or a woman supported by a man or a man supported by a man or a woman supported by a woman or 3 women and two men supported by one man. Logic says if you are the support of a person you should get whatever tax deduction that is worth. There is no reason for marriage or the lack thereof to enter into the equation.

Three: Iraq War. We were lied to, not just misinformed but flat out lied to by our leaders, including our President. Since there was no need to go there and kill and be killed, the responsible parties should be tried for murder and treated appropriately if convicted. Is it a terrible thing that Americans are dying there? Yes, but not just because they are Americans, but rather because there was no need for Americans to be there at all and the damned 'powers that be' knew it all along.

Four: Immigration. Yes, granting 'immunity' and status to those already here is the same as telling a burglar "You can stay since you are already here." But if we do it, it will not be to make nice or because they have contributed and deserve it. It will be done because it is cheaper than rounding them up and carting them back home. Since simply penalizing the employers of illegals could pretty well cure the problem and there is no real program to do that, it is clear that a real solution is not what is desired by the 'powers that be'. Their real goal would appear to be the establishment of a second-class citizenry called 'guest worker.' Cheap, voiceless and returnable when no longer needed.

In his article about the "Corporate Media and Advocacy Journalism' Norman Solomon seems to be saying that journalists today report the facts of hunger and misfortune around the world but do not seem interested in trying to find the whys and wherefores of these problems. I can't deny that, though I can question whether 'whys and wherefores' are really their purview, which should probably be mainly the 'who, what, where and when' of things. However he makes the following statement with which I totally disagree.

"Across the spectrums of culture, faith and ideologies -- whether remedies might seem to lie in religious charity or governmental action -- heartfelt desire to reduce suffering is very common."

Frankly part of the problem is that the above assumptive statement is simply not true. It would be better stated "Across the spectrums of culture, faith and ideologies -- whether remedies might seem to lie in religious charity or governmental action -- heartfelt desire to reduce suffering is not there." Nobody with a new car, a several hundred dollar TV, or (like all of us on this medium) a few hundred dollar computer, or beer money, or a new pair of jeans, can make any realistic claim to a "heart felt desire to reduce suffering." The very best we can claim is a "heart felt desire to have somebody reduce the suffering."

James Moylan

asks some questions that need to be considered in his article "Is America a Police State? The flip answer is that of course it is. So is Australia, England, China, Canada, you name it. 'Policing the populace' is the only real function of any government. This answer is not false but it is a probably not quite answering the question he meant to be asking. His statistics about the US incarceration rate are disturbing. But one should also keep in mind that we Americans do not follow the Saudi plan of cutting a thief's hand off and letting him go. It would reduce our incarceration rate if we did. We do not follow the Chinese plan of shooting our prisoners for body parts. It would reduce our incarceration rate if we did. And we do not follow the South American plan of putting a bounty on street kids. It would reduce our incarceration rate if we did. We do not follow the Australian plan of almost completely denying immigration to any except those of Northern European decent. It would certainly reduce our numbers of minority members incarcerated if we essentially did not have any significant minorities as is the case in Australia, by deliberate, majority supported, government plan. (Yes I know that this has eased somewhat in recent years)

"Are some of these political prisoners?", he asks. Well sure. Some prisoners in any country are bound to be pure and simple political prisoners, but at least in the U.S. those that are purely political prisoners are not legally held and someone is likely to be held accountable for them sooner or later. Most that would fall into the possible 'political' realm would be better characterized as 'politically expedient' prisoners. It is, for example, considered 'politically expedient' to come down hard on drug offenders no matter how mild their offense might be.

So do the 'crime' and 'incarceration' statistics listed in Mr. Moylan's article indicate a problem? Yes I think they do. We Americans have become too ready to jail and punish and unwilling to rehabilitate. The official response to crimes against property should probably emphasize restitution, not retribution, particularly with juvenile and first offenders. Juvenile offenses should be treated seriously, but with restitution and serious rehabilitation, not retribution. Way too many things are classified as crimes, for example: sexual practices by consenting adults have no business in criminal courts; simple drug possession for personal use should not be a criminal matter generally; and there are other things that tie up police and court time and money for little or no benefit to society.

Is America perfect Mr. Moylan? Far from it! And it is big and powerful and often has leaders with serious 'reality' problems, which can certainly be frightening at times, but it is founded on great principles and peopled by mostly decent folks. So poke it and prod it and ring the wake up bells but be pretty cautious about calling it evil or claiming moral superiority.

Thanks to:

Joshua Unseth

Norman Solomon

James Moylan