This article is simply too priceless to be allowed to die in obscurity. And yet, I cannot summon words to respond to it. Perhaps it simply speaks for itself.
"I'm the Ali of today. I'm the Marvin Gaye of today. I'm the Bob Marley of today. I'm the Martin Luther King, or all the other greats that have come before us. And a lot of people are starting to realize that now."
the death penalty
My feelings on the death penalty are conflicted. It's impossible to ignore the fact that a substantial aim of our judicial system is revenge -- and rightfully so. It is only just that somebody who inflicts pain and suffering on others receives a taste of their own medicine. I can say, in no uncertain terms, that if a member of my family or somebody relatively close to me was raped, murdered, etc. I would want to see them dead.
I'm not particularly troubled with the principle that the state can terminate human life. After all, our country has fought numerous wars in which our country has been willing to see astronomical death on our side and the side of the enemy. And retribution is an understandable and necessary motivation.
That said, I cannot support the death penalty for one crucial reason. There is no way that the state can guarantee, with 100 percent certainty, that every inmate on death row has received a perfectly fair trial with the best possible legal representation available. Death is the end. There is no greater punishment a person can receive. So if it is hypothetically possible, even in an abstract, theoretical sense, that even the worst of the worst monster criminals could have received a better legal defense and given 10 life terms without probation (as opposed to the death penalty), how can we justify killing that person? The fact is that every legal defense and trial is not perfectly fair. Even if the defense attorney is not grossly negligent, how can you guarantee that the attorney didn't provide the best possible defense? How can we guarantee that every single member of the jury wasn't at least, even to a miniscule degree, bias? How can we be sure police officers followed all protocol with perfection?
I think of the plethora of arguments made for and against the death penalty, but the argument made above is all that matters to me. Our fundamentally imperfect judicial system makes killing our own citizens unambiguously unjust.
I'm not particularly troubled with the principle that the state can terminate human life. After all, our country has fought numerous wars in which our country has been willing to see astronomical death on our side and the side of the enemy. And retribution is an understandable and necessary motivation.
That said, I cannot support the death penalty for one crucial reason. There is no way that the state can guarantee, with 100 percent certainty, that every inmate on death row has received a perfectly fair trial with the best possible legal representation available. Death is the end. There is no greater punishment a person can receive. So if it is hypothetically possible, even in an abstract, theoretical sense, that even the worst of the worst monster criminals could have received a better legal defense and given 10 life terms without probation (as opposed to the death penalty), how can we justify killing that person? The fact is that every legal defense and trial is not perfectly fair. Even if the defense attorney is not grossly negligent, how can you guarantee that the attorney didn't provide the best possible defense? How can we guarantee that every single member of the jury wasn't at least, even to a miniscule degree, bias? How can we be sure police officers followed all protocol with perfection?
I think of the plethora of arguments made for and against the death penalty, but the argument made above is all that matters to me. Our fundamentally imperfect judicial system makes killing our own citizens unambiguously unjust.
The Veto
The bill is unacceptable because it “substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military commanders,” the president said in a nationally televised address to explain why he was vetoing a bill that would also provide more than $100 billion in emergency spending for the war.
Remember when Bush used to claim that he based his decisions on the Iraq war on the judgement of the military commanders on the ground? That the war would not be run from Washington DC? The only problem was that General Casey disagreed with Bush's escalation strategy. Instead of following the advice of the military commander on the ground, Bush removed him and put Patreaus in his place -- a general who agreed with Bush's new Iraq strategy. It's all up to the generals... until they stop following orders from Washington. But it's the Democrats who aren't listening to the generals... or the rest of the world... or the American people.
Bush blamed Democrats for trying to send an empty political statement and added: “They’ve sent their message, and now it’s time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds.”
The executive branch and the legislative branch are two equal branches of government, but it's the fault of the Democrats, again, who just sent Bush the money he asked for. The Democrats are playing politics when they disagree with Bush and they must automatically defer to the executive when it concerns Iraq (and presumably anything else.) Bush has vetoed funding for our troops because the bill contained a provision he disagreed with. He has denied funding for the troops. This must be repeated over and over and over -- that Bush is holding up funds for troops on the battlefield.
So how is this conflict between Congress and Bush resolved? A compromise? A "compromise" in the eyes of Bush will be removing the provision for troops to be out in '08. It will mean receiving the same type of rubberstamped bill he has received in years past from the Republican Congress. So if Democrats remove the provision, their power in Congress will be rendered useless. There might as well be 100 Republicans in the Senate.
Congress is not "defying" (as the media repeatedly suggests) Bush. The Constitution has granted them equal power. I predict, however, that the Democrats will send Bush a generic bill with no timetables and the war will continue unabated. Expect no meaningful change until '09 at the earliest.
Remember when Bush used to claim that he based his decisions on the Iraq war on the judgement of the military commanders on the ground? That the war would not be run from Washington DC? The only problem was that General Casey disagreed with Bush's escalation strategy. Instead of following the advice of the military commander on the ground, Bush removed him and put Patreaus in his place -- a general who agreed with Bush's new Iraq strategy. It's all up to the generals... until they stop following orders from Washington. But it's the Democrats who aren't listening to the generals... or the rest of the world... or the American people.
Bush blamed Democrats for trying to send an empty political statement and added: “They’ve sent their message, and now it’s time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds.”
The executive branch and the legislative branch are two equal branches of government, but it's the fault of the Democrats, again, who just sent Bush the money he asked for. The Democrats are playing politics when they disagree with Bush and they must automatically defer to the executive when it concerns Iraq (and presumably anything else.) Bush has vetoed funding for our troops because the bill contained a provision he disagreed with. He has denied funding for the troops. This must be repeated over and over and over -- that Bush is holding up funds for troops on the battlefield.
So how is this conflict between Congress and Bush resolved? A compromise? A "compromise" in the eyes of Bush will be removing the provision for troops to be out in '08. It will mean receiving the same type of rubberstamped bill he has received in years past from the Republican Congress. So if Democrats remove the provision, their power in Congress will be rendered useless. There might as well be 100 Republicans in the Senate.
Congress is not "defying" (as the media repeatedly suggests) Bush. The Constitution has granted them equal power. I predict, however, that the Democrats will send Bush a generic bill with no timetables and the war will continue unabated. Expect no meaningful change until '09 at the earliest.
Moolade and Ebertfest
My wife and I were in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois over the weekend for Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival, and we had an absolutely wonderful time. We've been fans of Ebert's work for many years, and we wanted to pay our respects, particularly given Ebert's poor health. We saw some amazing movies on the big screen, including a beautiful print of Fellini's La Dolce Vita and a restored version of Sadie Thompson, a silent film starring Gloria Swanson that was accompanied by a live orchestra.
The most important movie we saw, however, was Ousmane Sambene's Moolade, a 2004 film about female genital mutilation. The film is rich, detailed, and literate, and it provides one of the most striking portraits of human courage that I've ever seen in a movie.
Anyway, in the panel discussion after the film, the head of U.S. distribution said that the movie was intended primarily for African audiences. Sambene wanted African moviegoers to appreciate the harm that the procedure causes, and to recognize that a woman's capacity as a wife, mother, and head of the family does not depend on whether she has been "purified." He made a movie to promote a social goal. Unfortunately, the film has only been screened three times on the African continent to this point, largely because Sambene is a pariah to many African political leaders.
Another comment the speaker made was that Sambene wanted to portray Africa in an honest way. Many people have no idea what life in Africa really looks like; one anecdote I heard was that a young child, after visiting Africa with her American mother said on the plane home: "Mom, when are we going to get to Africa?" Her images of what African life really looks like were so deeply formed by television cliches that she had no idea of the reality she saw with her own eyes.
This got me thinking about American movies. It is so profoundly rare that our movies present an accurate portrait of what American life is really like. Most of us get married, have a job, children, and treasure the weekends. Our life is about enjoying the moment, and working toward long-term goals we define for ourselves. Yet our films portray sex and violence with a nihilism that doesn't reflect our daily experience, and the demands of film narrative seem to turn the focus from a realistic portrayal of the American experience to an emphasis on the unusual and uncommon. As many foreign observers have noted about our movies, they are like "dreams." We present ourselves not as we are, but how we would like to be or how me might be under different circumstances.
So, what I'm wondering about is this: since Americans are now hated around the world as a result of our foreign policies, do filmmakers have a new responsibility to present American life as it actually is? Of course, many of them already do, but their work is rarely shown at the multiplexes. Or is it in the nature of things that our cinema is destined to focus on our occasional serial killers, police shoot-outs, and drunken orgies? I suppose these things are rather appealing to audiences in a commercial medium, but given our new circumstances I wonder if American cinema could do better P.R. for American life.
The most important movie we saw, however, was Ousmane Sambene's Moolade, a 2004 film about female genital mutilation. The film is rich, detailed, and literate, and it provides one of the most striking portraits of human courage that I've ever seen in a movie.
Anyway, in the panel discussion after the film, the head of U.S. distribution said that the movie was intended primarily for African audiences. Sambene wanted African moviegoers to appreciate the harm that the procedure causes, and to recognize that a woman's capacity as a wife, mother, and head of the family does not depend on whether she has been "purified." He made a movie to promote a social goal. Unfortunately, the film has only been screened three times on the African continent to this point, largely because Sambene is a pariah to many African political leaders.
Another comment the speaker made was that Sambene wanted to portray Africa in an honest way. Many people have no idea what life in Africa really looks like; one anecdote I heard was that a young child, after visiting Africa with her American mother said on the plane home: "Mom, when are we going to get to Africa?" Her images of what African life really looks like were so deeply formed by television cliches that she had no idea of the reality she saw with her own eyes.
This got me thinking about American movies. It is so profoundly rare that our movies present an accurate portrait of what American life is really like. Most of us get married, have a job, children, and treasure the weekends. Our life is about enjoying the moment, and working toward long-term goals we define for ourselves. Yet our films portray sex and violence with a nihilism that doesn't reflect our daily experience, and the demands of film narrative seem to turn the focus from a realistic portrayal of the American experience to an emphasis on the unusual and uncommon. As many foreign observers have noted about our movies, they are like "dreams." We present ourselves not as we are, but how we would like to be or how me might be under different circumstances.
So, what I'm wondering about is this: since Americans are now hated around the world as a result of our foreign policies, do filmmakers have a new responsibility to present American life as it actually is? Of course, many of them already do, but their work is rarely shown at the multiplexes. Or is it in the nature of things that our cinema is destined to focus on our occasional serial killers, police shoot-outs, and drunken orgies? I suppose these things are rather appealing to audiences in a commercial medium, but given our new circumstances I wonder if American cinema could do better P.R. for American life.
High speed pursuits
I don't understand why police are permitted to engage in high speed pursuits with suspected criminals. Is it really that difficult to write down the plate number, set up a check point down the road, or notify surrounding municipalities' police departments of the suspected vehicle? I understand these things are sensational and exciting and we want to get the bad guy, but people actually get killed with these things.
Discomfort with some pro-abortion arguments
I've been finding lately that a lot of the pro-choice talking points are extreme, unreasonable, and frankly, inhumane. While I support a woman's right to abortion during the first trimester, I'm troubled by some of the arguments advocating the right to choose:
1. "The child would have lived a miserable life anyway"
We frequently hear the argument that had the fetus not been terminated and had the mother carried out the pregnancy, the child would have lived in a broken home or a foster home, suffered from abuse and neglect, and a general life of misery. This may or may not be true. There is ample evidence of children who were raised by terrible parents who overcame adversity and lived incredible lives. There is also plenty of evidence that these types of kids turned into criminals and monsters. Either way, it doesn't seem ethical to support the termination of this hypothetical kid's existence simply because his or her life looked like it was going to be difficult. Though life can be hard, I am glad to be alive rather than dead.
I really don't think I'm going too far by saying that the "child would have lived a miserable life anyway" argument implies that all children living in broken homes, foster homes, etc. might as well not be alive.
2. "Old men on the bench shouldn't be deciding what women can do with their bodies"
I particularly hate this argument. My sister says this all the time. As long as America continues to be a democracy, we maintain our constitution, and men are permitted to sit on the Supreme Court, men will have a voice on the abortion debate. There are issues in society that predominantly effect women. There are issues that predominantly effect men. The American people elect representatives who appoint judges who make rulings on many of these issues. Until a Constitutional amendment is passed which prohibits the male gender from ruling on abortion, proponents of this argument will not be satisfied.
This argument also ignores the fact that men on the bench authorized abortion with Roe v. Wade. White men also passed civil rights legislation in the 1960s, passed legislation to protect women from sexual discrimination in the workplace, etc. etc. Of course, minorities pressured white men to enact these laws. That's exactly the point of our democracy. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more minorities in positions of power, but our system generally forces representatives to be held accountable to the people who vote them into power.
3. "illegalizing abortion will result in many women dying from back alley abortions"
This might be true, but if the government passed a law, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to obey that law. If an individual chooses to resort to an obviously dangerous practice to abort their child, it is exclusively their fault for the harm they bring to themselves -- not the government.
It is not difficult to brainstorm a plethora of stupid laws the government has passed and how the laws have created more harm than good. Of course, different people agree and disagree on what constitutes a "stupid law." That's why we have three branches of government and rules of the game to sort out whose opinion prevails. Not everybody can win. With abortion, two sides fundamentally disagree with one another and there really is no compromise to be made. Either the practice is permitted or it is not and thus criminalized. Basically, if abortion is criminalized, women will be responsible for carrying out their pregnancies and, for those who disagree with the law, operating through the appropriate channels to change the law.
It is very easy for each side to become carried away in this debate. It is easy to make extremist and unreasonable arguments in support of a cause one passionately believes in. But it's important not to lose sight of why we are in favor of a certain policy. I, myself, support abortion because a pregnancy will ruin the life of some women. At the age of 20, pursuing a college degree with lots of goals in life, a child would be utterly unnacceptable at this point for me. I believe individuals should have the freedom to terminate unwanted pregnancies that could literally destroy their lives.
1. "The child would have lived a miserable life anyway"
We frequently hear the argument that had the fetus not been terminated and had the mother carried out the pregnancy, the child would have lived in a broken home or a foster home, suffered from abuse and neglect, and a general life of misery. This may or may not be true. There is ample evidence of children who were raised by terrible parents who overcame adversity and lived incredible lives. There is also plenty of evidence that these types of kids turned into criminals and monsters. Either way, it doesn't seem ethical to support the termination of this hypothetical kid's existence simply because his or her life looked like it was going to be difficult. Though life can be hard, I am glad to be alive rather than dead.
I really don't think I'm going too far by saying that the "child would have lived a miserable life anyway" argument implies that all children living in broken homes, foster homes, etc. might as well not be alive.
2. "Old men on the bench shouldn't be deciding what women can do with their bodies"
I particularly hate this argument. My sister says this all the time. As long as America continues to be a democracy, we maintain our constitution, and men are permitted to sit on the Supreme Court, men will have a voice on the abortion debate. There are issues in society that predominantly effect women. There are issues that predominantly effect men. The American people elect representatives who appoint judges who make rulings on many of these issues. Until a Constitutional amendment is passed which prohibits the male gender from ruling on abortion, proponents of this argument will not be satisfied.
This argument also ignores the fact that men on the bench authorized abortion with Roe v. Wade. White men also passed civil rights legislation in the 1960s, passed legislation to protect women from sexual discrimination in the workplace, etc. etc. Of course, minorities pressured white men to enact these laws. That's exactly the point of our democracy. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more minorities in positions of power, but our system generally forces representatives to be held accountable to the people who vote them into power.
3. "illegalizing abortion will result in many women dying from back alley abortions"
This might be true, but if the government passed a law, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to obey that law. If an individual chooses to resort to an obviously dangerous practice to abort their child, it is exclusively their fault for the harm they bring to themselves -- not the government.
It is not difficult to brainstorm a plethora of stupid laws the government has passed and how the laws have created more harm than good. Of course, different people agree and disagree on what constitutes a "stupid law." That's why we have three branches of government and rules of the game to sort out whose opinion prevails. Not everybody can win. With abortion, two sides fundamentally disagree with one another and there really is no compromise to be made. Either the practice is permitted or it is not and thus criminalized. Basically, if abortion is criminalized, women will be responsible for carrying out their pregnancies and, for those who disagree with the law, operating through the appropriate channels to change the law.
It is very easy for each side to become carried away in this debate. It is easy to make extremist and unreasonable arguments in support of a cause one passionately believes in. But it's important not to lose sight of why we are in favor of a certain policy. I, myself, support abortion because a pregnancy will ruin the life of some women. At the age of 20, pursuing a college degree with lots of goals in life, a child would be utterly unnacceptable at this point for me. I believe individuals should have the freedom to terminate unwanted pregnancies that could literally destroy their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
