Yes, I own a Blackberry, as do many individuals for personal and professional use. Because the cell-phone business is highly competitive, the fact that numberless people—allegedly ninety percent of the U.S. population—own a cell phone is a bad market reality for the makers of the smartphones, Research in Motion (RIM). Why? Since there is such a glut, a surfeit, of phones in this country, RIM is compelled to go to new markets so that the company can continue to grow, make profits, and stay in front of the competition. It is a necessity to do this expansion in a capitalist economy that is cutthroat, dog-eat-dog, and based on the logic of greed.
Hence, when countries such as Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, and others, including China and Russia, balk at some of the impregnable security RIM has installed in its devices, the art of compromise comes into play. So much so, that the company must resolve the issues these countries have with the encrypted services while still having the go-ahead to enter their telecommunications electronic gadgetry industry.
We in the United States might point the finger at these countries by saying they are too conservative, repressive, and unsophisticated, but we must remember the adage that three fingers are pointing back at us. The nature of the capitalist game is to corner as much of the market niche that is possible and to work indefatigably to that end. In essence, it is to become a monopoly, like Microsoft, Wal-Mart, the former American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T), and Google, to name a few.
A monopoly can be looked at both positively and negatively. On the one hand, cornering a market or being primarily associated with a particular product is usually a marker of success. You have arrived! On the other hand, such “success” stifles competition and enslaves consumers. John Sherman, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and others are figuratively rolling around in their graves!
One aspect of the ordeal that is admirable, in this blogger’s opinion, is the power demonstrated by the threat of a ban or a boycott. In the commercial world, such threats are anathema and they usually result in repressive actions or compromise battles. At bottom, they are designed to attack sales and profits, and no company chiefs want to stare the potential of losing business and capital based on a disagreement that could be resolved. Would that peoples in the United States utilized the economic boycott in creative ways to encourage more livable wages and fairer employment practices!
In the final analysis, protection smartphone owners with doubly encrypted messaging are something worth keeping. Encroaching upon the expansionistic desires of a market giant is one thing; prohibiting placing a premium on privacy is quite another—especially when the rubric of national security is used. If governments want to spy upon their own people, not to mention other persons in their countries, through cell phones, then they should use their hired help to find ways to outsmart the manufacturers and not try to force these company leaders to deny citizenship rights and liberties to their own citizens.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
HIP, HIP, HOORAY! NOW THERE ARE THREE!
As a pacifist, I appreciated the boldness of the dean of Harvard Law School when she challenged free and full access of U.S. military recruiters on campus because of the unconstitutional “don’t ask, don’t tell” decree. She had guts, and I relished her taking the U.S. Solicitor General position as the mentor for whom she clerked, Thurgood Marshall, had filled more than four decades earlier.
She will definitely add strength to the liberal, i.e., progressive, wing of the U.S. Supreme Court and, at the age of 50, will eventually take the vanguard in the quest finally, to paraphrase a biblical quotation, “to let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24). The fact that Elena Kagan has not served as a judge in the past is, in my opinion, somewhat of an asset, for she will add fresh approaches to debates about issues that are currently quite prosaic in their judicial followership of thinly-veiled ideological stances. It appears also that she will not be so confined to the letter of the law that she will forget the spirit of the law.
What is simply grand about Kagan’s confirmation is that in October of this year, she will sit with two other women—Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor—on the bench, the largest number of that gender ever to serve on the highest court in the land!
Apart from not being a judge in the past, Kagan’s credentials are superb and speak for themselves: Princeton and Oxford Universities and Harvard Law School; clerk for Washington appeals court judge Abner Mikva and Justice Marshall; law professor at University of Chicago; special counsel to then-Sen. Joe Biden; associate counsel to Pres. Bill Clinton; and U.S. Solicitor General. Any remarks about fitness, qualifications, or unpreparedness are sheer poppycock.
She will definitely add strength to the liberal, i.e., progressive, wing of the U.S. Supreme Court and, at the age of 50, will eventually take the vanguard in the quest finally, to paraphrase a biblical quotation, “to let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24). The fact that Elena Kagan has not served as a judge in the past is, in my opinion, somewhat of an asset, for she will add fresh approaches to debates about issues that are currently quite prosaic in their judicial followership of thinly-veiled ideological stances. It appears also that she will not be so confined to the letter of the law that she will forget the spirit of the law.
What is simply grand about Kagan’s confirmation is that in October of this year, she will sit with two other women—Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor—on the bench, the largest number of that gender ever to serve on the highest court in the land!
Apart from not being a judge in the past, Kagan’s credentials are superb and speak for themselves: Princeton and Oxford Universities and Harvard Law School; clerk for Washington appeals court judge Abner Mikva and Justice Marshall; law professor at University of Chicago; special counsel to then-Sen. Joe Biden; associate counsel to Pres. Bill Clinton; and U.S. Solicitor General. Any remarks about fitness, qualifications, or unpreparedness are sheer poppycock.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
EQUITY IN SENTENCING: IT'S ABOUT TIME!
Certainly, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 is a step in the right direction! The crackdown on crack cocaine that eventuated in the maltreatment and disparate sentencing of persons of color compared with users of powder cocaine was prima facie racist from its inception. That is why the Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project is correct in exhorting the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama to make this new law have retroactive effect. There are countless numbers of African Americans who are in prison for nonviolent offenses because of the presence of crack cocaine in their sentencing. This law is couched in terms of the future, but it should have reparative scope.
The marvelous thing about this new law, if signed by the President, is that it eliminates, for simple possession, mandatory minimums, which have forced the hands of judges who might have given lesser sentences to offenders if they had had the discretion to do so! Judges and juries can look at offenders as individuals and determine what alternatives to incarceration are available and suitable to each case. No longer is being caught possessing equivalent to a prison sentence! Of course, there are a number of drug abusers and traffickers who need to sit behind prison bars for a while, and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not the old law, but the new law about to be signed by Obama.
This pending change is a true picture of democracy in action! Individuals, organizations, and institutions have repeatedly argued for the unconstitutionality and racist nature of the double standard with respect to powder and crack cocaine. The debating, petitioning, protesting, and so forth have finally paid off.
However, there are still some problems. The law significantly reduces the disparity between the two forms of cocaine, but it does not eradicate it completely. Furthermore, the law does not get rid of mandatory minimums altogether; rather, it raises the amount of possession that compels judges to levy a five- or ten-year minimum. This quantity disparity notwithstanding, the new law has the potential of reducing the prison population by 3,800, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
With caution, I submit a new day might be coming for the criminal justice system. The attempt to reduce the racial and ethnic minority disparities in sentencing will definitely have a ramifying effect upon law enforcement and indictments as well as on sentencing. The beloved community is not around the corner, so to speak, but finally some justice, fairness, and equity have found their way into the body politic. It’s about time!
The marvelous thing about this new law, if signed by the President, is that it eliminates, for simple possession, mandatory minimums, which have forced the hands of judges who might have given lesser sentences to offenders if they had had the discretion to do so! Judges and juries can look at offenders as individuals and determine what alternatives to incarceration are available and suitable to each case. No longer is being caught possessing equivalent to a prison sentence! Of course, there are a number of drug abusers and traffickers who need to sit behind prison bars for a while, and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not the old law, but the new law about to be signed by Obama.
This pending change is a true picture of democracy in action! Individuals, organizations, and institutions have repeatedly argued for the unconstitutionality and racist nature of the double standard with respect to powder and crack cocaine. The debating, petitioning, protesting, and so forth have finally paid off.
However, there are still some problems. The law significantly reduces the disparity between the two forms of cocaine, but it does not eradicate it completely. Furthermore, the law does not get rid of mandatory minimums altogether; rather, it raises the amount of possession that compels judges to levy a five- or ten-year minimum. This quantity disparity notwithstanding, the new law has the potential of reducing the prison population by 3,800, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
With caution, I submit a new day might be coming for the criminal justice system. The attempt to reduce the racial and ethnic minority disparities in sentencing will definitely have a ramifying effect upon law enforcement and indictments as well as on sentencing. The beloved community is not around the corner, so to speak, but finally some justice, fairness, and equity have found their way into the body politic. It’s about time!
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
AFGHANIZATION
Some folks seem to be under the impression that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are synonymous. That cannot be further from the truth! The Taliban are Afghan natives, and the members of al-Qaeda are insurgents of various national or cultural stripes. The United States should not be warring against the Taliban; rather, it should diplomatically support the Afghan government to control the cities in the southern and eastern regions so that al-Qaeda will not be able to find succor in those areas.
The sending of more troops to Afghanistan sustains an old policy that historically made little sense and continues to be foolhardy. The United States seeks to be deterministic in world affairs, and the control of the Afghan government has become the goal, it seems, rather than rooting out al-Qaeda and making sure that group does not wreak havoc upon Afghans and others in the area and among our allies. There is much confusion over what to do in the Obama Administration, and this kind of inept handling of complex issues harks back to our involvement in Vietnam.
There is something to be said about participating in conflicts from civil to international wars. What role should the United States play in helping a nation deal with internal strife or supporting one nation against another? When conflicts affect our national security directly, we certainly should be about the business of resolving the crises. However, when the linkages are not that distinct, then we have to evaluate thoroughly whether or not involvement by the United States can be singularly addressed diplomatically and without military utilization. We have such a long history of depending on the military-industrial complex to keep our economy going, and that easy reliance has a way of presaging what we will do in foreign affairs. This fallacious reasoning assails our attending to what is necessary and encourages our nation to continue disproportionately to be amassing arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, to find theaters of war to use them, and to export them while deepening our national debt.
The United States and its allies have done a fine job of disrespecting President Hamid Karzai and trying to make him a puppet of Western hegemony. The people of Afghanistan have shown signs of growing disapproval of our relations with their president, and this feeling, if not fixed, can only lead to the intensification of any disaffection with our presence there. After all, we are occupiers, in a very real sense—believing that the tragedy of September 11, 2001, justifies any military escapade in which we engage.
The U.S. population must express its belief that the people of Afghanistan ought to solve their own problems. We cannot police the whole world! Besides, our oxymoronic “war on terror” is diversionary, at best, for what was required after 9/11 was certainly not declared warfare—whether it’d be in Iraq or Afghanistan—but expert police and intelligence action to thwart any future attempts at symbolic humiliation.
The hope many had for the new Obama Administration was that the failed and feckless policies of the President Bush and his cronies would be superseded by a significantly more thoughtful and effective approach. That some of the same people are surrounding Obama as surrounded Bush is far from consoling. Their hopes are not completely dashed, but how can they be realized when that tired, old adage remains true: “The more things change, the more they stay the same”?
The sending of more troops to Afghanistan sustains an old policy that historically made little sense and continues to be foolhardy. The United States seeks to be deterministic in world affairs, and the control of the Afghan government has become the goal, it seems, rather than rooting out al-Qaeda and making sure that group does not wreak havoc upon Afghans and others in the area and among our allies. There is much confusion over what to do in the Obama Administration, and this kind of inept handling of complex issues harks back to our involvement in Vietnam.
There is something to be said about participating in conflicts from civil to international wars. What role should the United States play in helping a nation deal with internal strife or supporting one nation against another? When conflicts affect our national security directly, we certainly should be about the business of resolving the crises. However, when the linkages are not that distinct, then we have to evaluate thoroughly whether or not involvement by the United States can be singularly addressed diplomatically and without military utilization. We have such a long history of depending on the military-industrial complex to keep our economy going, and that easy reliance has a way of presaging what we will do in foreign affairs. This fallacious reasoning assails our attending to what is necessary and encourages our nation to continue disproportionately to be amassing arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, to find theaters of war to use them, and to export them while deepening our national debt.
The United States and its allies have done a fine job of disrespecting President Hamid Karzai and trying to make him a puppet of Western hegemony. The people of Afghanistan have shown signs of growing disapproval of our relations with their president, and this feeling, if not fixed, can only lead to the intensification of any disaffection with our presence there. After all, we are occupiers, in a very real sense—believing that the tragedy of September 11, 2001, justifies any military escapade in which we engage.
The U.S. population must express its belief that the people of Afghanistan ought to solve their own problems. We cannot police the whole world! Besides, our oxymoronic “war on terror” is diversionary, at best, for what was required after 9/11 was certainly not declared warfare—whether it’d be in Iraq or Afghanistan—but expert police and intelligence action to thwart any future attempts at symbolic humiliation.
The hope many had for the new Obama Administration was that the failed and feckless policies of the President Bush and his cronies would be superseded by a significantly more thoughtful and effective approach. That some of the same people are surrounding Obama as surrounded Bush is far from consoling. Their hopes are not completely dashed, but how can they be realized when that tired, old adage remains true: “The more things change, the more they stay the same”?
VILSACK, JEALOUS, OBAMA: LEADERS?
When the Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, was Governor of Iowa, he supported making English the official language of the state. He was not adept at addressing issues of race with sensitivity and sophistication, and this inadequacy has reared its ugly head with regards to the remarks made by Ms. Shirley Sherrod, a staffer at the USDA whom Vilsack fired for alleged racism.
Sherrod was discussing an encounter she had with a white farmer twenty-five years ago and what she learned from that experience. A conservative leader of the Tea Party campaign edited the tape and put the corrupted one on YouTube for the world to see. It made it appear Sherrod was discussing a recent episode and making racist decisions from her position of power and authority.
It’s disappointing that Vilsack was not alone in his hasty dismissal without any effort to investigate the matter. Mr. Benjamin Jealous, head of the NAACP, who’s waged battles against the Tea Party movement, initially concurred with Vilsack and the Obama Administration’s demand for Sherrod’s resignation. However, Jealous eventually acquired the presence of mind to recant that support and encourage Vilsack to reconsider his ridiculous peremptory action. After some embarrassment and concomitant resistance, Vilsack indicated he would investigate the matter further.
This sort of acting before thinking, judging a book only by its cover or deciding without research is the type of anathema that has plagued politics forever. It appears President Obama took lessons from President Clinton, who could not deal circumspectly with the issue of gays in the military, the crackdown on crack cocaine, and the criticisms of his nominee for the Civil Rights Commission, Ms. Lani Guinier, and Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. Obama fired Val Jones for past comments that had nothing to do with his position fostering environmental justice and placed in administrative advisory posts a number of individuals with whom he theoretically disagrees because it makes him appear more moderate. This drive to accommodate to the opposition rather than work diligently to persuade to one’s own side ineluctably leads to overly compromising and to challenging one’s integrity. Like Clinton, Vilsack, Jealous, and Obama have ventured down that road and must do yeoman work for restoration and redemption.
Sherrod’s remarks will in no wise reduce her ability to perform her duties, unless we allow the shenanigans of Fox News and Andrew Breitbart of the Tea Party to infect us with their routine vitriol. The USDA can use in its rural development director position a person of the caliber of Sherrod, who recognized a problem she had nearly three decades ago and learned from that experience to teach others to be inclusive and anti-racist. In all of this, she is the true leader!
Sherrod was discussing an encounter she had with a white farmer twenty-five years ago and what she learned from that experience. A conservative leader of the Tea Party campaign edited the tape and put the corrupted one on YouTube for the world to see. It made it appear Sherrod was discussing a recent episode and making racist decisions from her position of power and authority.
It’s disappointing that Vilsack was not alone in his hasty dismissal without any effort to investigate the matter. Mr. Benjamin Jealous, head of the NAACP, who’s waged battles against the Tea Party movement, initially concurred with Vilsack and the Obama Administration’s demand for Sherrod’s resignation. However, Jealous eventually acquired the presence of mind to recant that support and encourage Vilsack to reconsider his ridiculous peremptory action. After some embarrassment and concomitant resistance, Vilsack indicated he would investigate the matter further.
This sort of acting before thinking, judging a book only by its cover or deciding without research is the type of anathema that has plagued politics forever. It appears President Obama took lessons from President Clinton, who could not deal circumspectly with the issue of gays in the military, the crackdown on crack cocaine, and the criticisms of his nominee for the Civil Rights Commission, Ms. Lani Guinier, and Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. Obama fired Val Jones for past comments that had nothing to do with his position fostering environmental justice and placed in administrative advisory posts a number of individuals with whom he theoretically disagrees because it makes him appear more moderate. This drive to accommodate to the opposition rather than work diligently to persuade to one’s own side ineluctably leads to overly compromising and to challenging one’s integrity. Like Clinton, Vilsack, Jealous, and Obama have ventured down that road and must do yeoman work for restoration and redemption.
Sherrod’s remarks will in no wise reduce her ability to perform her duties, unless we allow the shenanigans of Fox News and Andrew Breitbart of the Tea Party to infect us with their routine vitriol. The USDA can use in its rural development director position a person of the caliber of Sherrod, who recognized a problem she had nearly three decades ago and learned from that experience to teach others to be inclusive and anti-racist. In all of this, she is the true leader!
Monday, July 12, 2010
ARROGANT DELAYS!
It takes a lot of gall and moral turpitude to ignore the cries of heads of households and their children for sufficient monies to pay their expenses, keep food on the tables, and maintain their physical and mental health. To filibuster the extension of unemployment benefits during an economic crisis second only to that of the 1930s is antithetical to any code of decency or professional ethics. Couple those misanthropic tendencies with the selfish concern over winning in a political election, and filibustering is downright objectionable!
The economy is not rebounding fast enough, and people are still losing their jobs or had to take jobs, usually part-time ones, in which they are considerably underemployed. This condition does not take into account the many who cannot find work at all as well as those who have become so discouraged that they are not even attempting to look anymore. Rather than search for a solution in some distant tomorrow or completely overlook the dire straits in which people are living, action needs to be taken immediately to ensure these households are getting unemployment benefits to help them to sustain their families and themselves.
I agree with the complaint that government spending is not the only solution to the crisis and that we must assiduously work to find ways to cut the budget. However, when the choice is between increasing our national debt and mollifying the plight of the poor, the favored answer is to relieve the latter’s concerns—hands down! No vaunted or pompous discussion about fiscal responsibility can substitute for the necessity of the country’s attending to the emergent needs of its citizens.
Ultimately, the United States must get out of the business of war and the trillion dollars already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. The funds directed toward such violent endeavors could be utilized to help us get a better grasp on the socioeconomic causes of poverty, generally, and on how to respond proactively to alleviate the crisis in unemployment and lack of income in the short-term.
To paraphrase Martin Luther as he spoke to the national congress in the city of Worms in 1528: “Here we should stand; we cannot do otherwise, so help us God!”
The economy is not rebounding fast enough, and people are still losing their jobs or had to take jobs, usually part-time ones, in which they are considerably underemployed. This condition does not take into account the many who cannot find work at all as well as those who have become so discouraged that they are not even attempting to look anymore. Rather than search for a solution in some distant tomorrow or completely overlook the dire straits in which people are living, action needs to be taken immediately to ensure these households are getting unemployment benefits to help them to sustain their families and themselves.
I agree with the complaint that government spending is not the only solution to the crisis and that we must assiduously work to find ways to cut the budget. However, when the choice is between increasing our national debt and mollifying the plight of the poor, the favored answer is to relieve the latter’s concerns—hands down! No vaunted or pompous discussion about fiscal responsibility can substitute for the necessity of the country’s attending to the emergent needs of its citizens.
Ultimately, the United States must get out of the business of war and the trillion dollars already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. The funds directed toward such violent endeavors could be utilized to help us get a better grasp on the socioeconomic causes of poverty, generally, and on how to respond proactively to alleviate the crisis in unemployment and lack of income in the short-term.
To paraphrase Martin Luther as he spoke to the national congress in the city of Worms in 1528: “Here we should stand; we cannot do otherwise, so help us God!”
Thursday, July 8, 2010
CORRELATIONS: UNEMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL GRACES
When the employment rate goes unchanged for months, and the number of individuals still seeking jobs declines, is it not understandable why there is a recourse to activities that are not wholesome, productive, and life-affirming? How arrogant is it to expect people who are scarcely making ends meet for themselves and their families, if at all, to remain psychologically well-adjusted and socially responsible? Who is really at fault when a person under such duress and in the public or domestic arena behaves in ways that are antinomian, violent, and ostensibly misanthropic? In this particular sitz im leben, if you will, how can we rightfully indict and convict only the individual, while the causes of miscreant conduct relate to inadequate income, perennial political powerlessness, availability of unhealthy substances, poor neighborhood schools, and no remedy in sight? These are societal forces that are virtually out of the control of the individual.
Certainly, it is difficult to ascertain how to hold both the individual and the society accountable for civilian and criminal offenses. Some may argue that the judicial system is unable to make this type of accommodation, but I disagree. In the 1980s, that very system was allowed to engage in racial discrimination by counting possession of crack cocaine as worse than the possession of powder cocaine–causing an intensification of the crackdown, so to speak, on urban blacks and incarcerating them in record disparate numbers. That policy was wrong, but it demonstrates that the courts can be made to consider alternate ways of attributing and distributing blame!
Black youth between the ages of sixteen and nineteen have been experiencing massive unemployment to the tune of forty-five percent. What type of nation are we that permits pernicious poverty to permeate the core of tomorrow’s adults? The desperation they must feel, the sense of hopelessness and the realization they may not earn a decent living in the foreseeable future, cannot help but incline them towards misadventures antithetical to community and productivity in order barely to survive and sustain their families. A society that is silent and unhelpful when people are experiencing such dire straits is guilty of tyranny and must be held commensurately responsible. After all, it is execrable our nation tolerates this persistent declination of a part of the population, yet responds to their plight by imprisoning a disproportionate number of their young men.
The sheer numbers of people who are poor and who are locked up show that the problem of social dislocation and illegal activity pervades all of human cultures and groupings. Clearly, there is no genetic predisposition here. What is consonant among these categories of people is the interlocking, interdependent nature of economic depression and lawlessness. Because of this mutuality, we as a society must find a way to penalize structures and processes, policies and services, that conspire to alienate people, who resultantly acquit themselves adversely among their neighbors. The violence to which humans in terrible and urgent circumstances resort are symptomatic of the multiple and cumulative causes wrought upon them in systemic ways.
It is a common ethical question whether prisoners of war are generally excused for giving information to the enemy when they are being tortured and tormented by their captors. Many would claim that autonomy is a prerequisite of moral decision-making, and POWs usually have their liberties severely truncated–thereby exculpating them from blame or guilt. Certainly, groups of people such as unemployed African American youth are held hostage by institutionalized racism and the capitalist juggernaut of class separation, so much so that the prosecution of their lives into violence only mirrors the wreckage wrought upon them by the structural and procedural dynamics in which they live. They are similarly constrained as prisoners of war and cannot be expected to maintain a moral compass executed by those whose incomes are stable, habitats are safe, and participation in the body politic unencumbered.
A society worth its mettle assiduously works to eliminate poverty and to provide equitable opportunities for its members to satisfy their existential needs. In this regard, the probity of our country is, metaphorically, insufficiently ironed. And what we promote, we permit!
Certainly, it is difficult to ascertain how to hold both the individual and the society accountable for civilian and criminal offenses. Some may argue that the judicial system is unable to make this type of accommodation, but I disagree. In the 1980s, that very system was allowed to engage in racial discrimination by counting possession of crack cocaine as worse than the possession of powder cocaine–causing an intensification of the crackdown, so to speak, on urban blacks and incarcerating them in record disparate numbers. That policy was wrong, but it demonstrates that the courts can be made to consider alternate ways of attributing and distributing blame!
Black youth between the ages of sixteen and nineteen have been experiencing massive unemployment to the tune of forty-five percent. What type of nation are we that permits pernicious poverty to permeate the core of tomorrow’s adults? The desperation they must feel, the sense of hopelessness and the realization they may not earn a decent living in the foreseeable future, cannot help but incline them towards misadventures antithetical to community and productivity in order barely to survive and sustain their families. A society that is silent and unhelpful when people are experiencing such dire straits is guilty of tyranny and must be held commensurately responsible. After all, it is execrable our nation tolerates this persistent declination of a part of the population, yet responds to their plight by imprisoning a disproportionate number of their young men.
The sheer numbers of people who are poor and who are locked up show that the problem of social dislocation and illegal activity pervades all of human cultures and groupings. Clearly, there is no genetic predisposition here. What is consonant among these categories of people is the interlocking, interdependent nature of economic depression and lawlessness. Because of this mutuality, we as a society must find a way to penalize structures and processes, policies and services, that conspire to alienate people, who resultantly acquit themselves adversely among their neighbors. The violence to which humans in terrible and urgent circumstances resort are symptomatic of the multiple and cumulative causes wrought upon them in systemic ways.
It is a common ethical question whether prisoners of war are generally excused for giving information to the enemy when they are being tortured and tormented by their captors. Many would claim that autonomy is a prerequisite of moral decision-making, and POWs usually have their liberties severely truncated–thereby exculpating them from blame or guilt. Certainly, groups of people such as unemployed African American youth are held hostage by institutionalized racism and the capitalist juggernaut of class separation, so much so that the prosecution of their lives into violence only mirrors the wreckage wrought upon them by the structural and procedural dynamics in which they live. They are similarly constrained as prisoners of war and cannot be expected to maintain a moral compass executed by those whose incomes are stable, habitats are safe, and participation in the body politic unencumbered.
A society worth its mettle assiduously works to eliminate poverty and to provide equitable opportunities for its members to satisfy their existential needs. In this regard, the probity of our country is, metaphorically, insufficiently ironed. And what we promote, we permit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)