Captial Punishment is Wrong

Hola Everybody,
The following is in reference to the case of Troy Davis, an unfairly convicted human being who is scheduled to be executed in two weeks… If you’re not familiar with the story, Troy Davis was convicted of murdering a Georgia police officer in 1991. Nearly twenty years later, Davis remains on death row -- even though the case against him has fallen apart.

The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. Since then, all but two of the state’s non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony.

Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.

In addition, nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles, the leading alternative suspect.

* * *

-=[ Capital Punishment: Immoral and Ineffective ]=-

The other night, during the GOP debate, the biggest applause line came when Texas Governor Rick Perry, a man who has sanctioned the deaths of 234 people (more than any other governor in US history), admitted he has never lost a wink of sleep over the matter. There was a couple of telling moments. Earlier in the debate a question about 9/11, and President Obama's decision to attack and execute Osama bin Laden drew not a single clap. The other occurred the following night during President Obama's speech on a proposed jobs bill, when not one single conservative applauded for teachers, firemen, policemen, and collective bargaining.

I can’t say I am surprised by such reactions, since it is well-known that the conservative mindset tends toward authoritarianism. Still, these reactions, I thought to myself, make it entirely possible that today’s conservatives was what Shirley Jackson envisioned when she wrote The Lottery.

Today I am not going into details about the Troy Davis case, though, whatever your feelings about state-sanctioned murder, his case should worry you because it’s likely we’re murdering an innocent man for a crime he didn’t commit. I think we might disagree on the pros and cons of capital punishment, but we should all be in agreement that justice should be, well, just. His case is almost lost but if you care, please sign a petition for the Georgia Board of pardons to consider (click here)

Not long ago, I witnessed a frustrated mother physically punishing one child for hitting his sibling. “You. Don’t. Hit. Your. Bro-ther,” she railed loudly, punctuating each syllable with a hard slap to the head, hand, and butt. It amazes me how many parents, claiming to teach respect and dignity, make no connection to the fact that by hitting a child, you’re also teaching them that the way to get your way is through physical aggression and dominance. I’m not surprised these two children fought incessantly for their mother was reinforcing their behavior.

Since as far back as the nineteenth century, evidence has shown that there is no relationship between severity of punishment and crime rate. Would Americans do the same today if it were demonstrated to them that killing criminals doesn’t make the streets any safer? It’s hard to say, but I seriously doubt it. We’re a vengeful group that worships a vengeful god.

To be sure, many support capital punishment for other reasons. For example, many individuals support electrocuting, poisoning, or shooting people who fail to respect the sacredness of human life. Because you killed someone, we will kill you seems to be the rationale. This is somewhat analogous to the mother teaching her children non-violence by demonstrating violent behavior.

The United States is nearly alone developed nations: Most industrialized nations have come to regard death penalty in the same most regard slavery: it’s morally wrong.

Opponents against the death penalty have more than morality on their side as arguments, however. For example, there is the very real possibility of executing someone innocent and the fact that race (of both convicted and victim) and class is a deciding factor in who actually gets executed. One Texas defendant was executed though his legal counsel fell asleep numerous times during the proceedings. Overwhelmingly, the color of one’s skin is the leading factor in who gets executed (click here). Two of the country’s foremost researchers on race and capital punishment, law professor David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth, along with colleagues in Philadelphia, conducted a careful analysis of race and the death penalty in Philadelphia, for example, which revealed that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times (3.9) higher if the defendant is black. These results were obtained after analyzing and controlling for case differences such as the severity of the crime and the background of the defendant. The data were subjected to various forms of analysis, but the conclusion was clear: blacks were being sentenced to death far in excess of other defendants for similar crimes (click here).

But that’s a topic I won’t get into at this moment. Right now, let’s just look at capital punishment’s effects on crime. The question I’m putting forth here is whether capital punishment is a better deterrent than life imprisonment. The answer, according to the evidence, is that the two penalties are both equally ineffective.

At first glance, it seems like common sense that the looming threat of losing one’s life would keep would-be criminals in line. However, a closer, more intelligent, look reveals the majority of murders are committed 1) during a moment of rage, 2) under the influence of drugs and alcohol, or 3) unexpectedly, in the course of committing another crime, such as a robbery. In any of these cases, the killer doesn’t sit down and rationally weigh the pros and cons of what will happen when he is apprehended, so a consideration of the death penalty isn’t going to stop him.

In fact, critical, careful thought about why people break the law not only leads us to question the effectiveness of capital punishment in particular, but also presents a challenge to the idea that incarcerating more people for longer periods of time is a rational response to crime in general. Want proof? Well, put this in your pipe and smoke it for a bit: Despite the fact that the US already incarcerates more people per capita than any other nation in the world, crimes rates are far higher than in most other countries. The conservative/ neoconservative assumption that crime rates were rising because the “costs” of crime in America were too low, is simply put, wrong. In fact, there is credible evidence that shows that too much incarceration serves to destabilize communities, therefore making those communities less safe (click here)

But I digress, the question at hand is whether capital punishment is a better deterrent than life imprisonment. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that capital punishment isn’t a deterrent since criminologists have never found any crime-reducing advantage correlated to capital punishment. Actually, there was one (much-celebrated) study by an economist, Isaac Ehrlich, that claimed to find support for the “fact” that each additional execution resulted in eight prevented homicides. The problem was Ehrlich's study was seriously flawed. It hinged on the on the fact that more murders were committed in the 1960s, when fewer executions were taking place. Of course, he ignored regional differences in the murder rate and other possible reasons for the increase in homicides (the easier availability of guns, for one). In addition, it turns out that other crimes of violence -- the kind that had never been punishable by death -- increased even more rapidly than homicides. Hmmmm...

In any case, other researchers have since tried to look for and failed to find the effects that Ehrlich arrived at. This makes sense considering the fact that economists have a long-standing poor record in research, and this particular study contradicted everything done before then. In 1978, the National Academy of Sciences studied and rejected Ehrlich's methodology (he used a technique known as regression analysis) and concluded that there was no useful evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment. In other words, we don’t know. And surely a practice as drastic as killing someone should be considered only if we do know that it makes our lives better and our communities safer.

But researchers being the dense people they are, two leading criminologists decided that just in case regression analyses did make sense in this context, it was worth giving it another shot. They studied homicides and executions in New York State from every month from 1907 to 1963 and found that the death penalty not only failed to reduce the murder rate but actually seemed to increase it. On average, two additional murders occurred during the month following the execution. These researchers extrapolated that the death penalty had what they termed a “brutalizing effect” that was most likely due to criminals taking their cue from the state and imitating its violence. Sounds like parents who beat their children to me!

The researchers summarized, “The lesson of the execution, then, may be to devalue life [and to teach] that it is correct and appropriate to kill those who have gravely offended us.” Another writer put it more succinctly in the Journal of Law and Criminology, “Use of the death penalty by the state, despite an intention to convey the message that killing is unacceptable, may convey the opposite message to the public.” In other words (and as all parents should already know): action speaks louder than words.

Of course, the methodology used by these researchers is as equally debatable as it was when Ehrlich used it. However, it still follows that, using the same methodology, the conclusion remains the same: the death penalty does not act as a deterrent against homicides. In fact, there has never been a case where homicides went up after a state abolished capital punishment. In addition, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be those where the death penalty is used. Other research has found that the same is true globally. One study combed through old crime records to what happened in twelve countries that had abolished capital punishment between 1890 and 1968 and found that “abolition was followed more often than not by absolute decreases in homicide rates.” [emphasis added]

Anyone seriously concerned in making our cities safer would do better to look into the real root causes of crime. The consensus among those who have looked at this issue is that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. Anyone claiming to be pro death under the guise of being pro “law and order,” should probably reconsider their beliefs. And any human being who states they can sleep peacefully after ordering the murder of another human being is quite possibly a sociopath. But we seem to like to elect those into office.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization… Love,

Resources

If you would like to experience a compelling look at the issue moral of capital punishment, check out the film, The Exonerated (click here)

If you're interested in studying crime and punishment without the academic jargon, check out Elliott Currie's Crime and Punishment in America (click here). Prepare to have your opinions, biases, and assumptions challenged.

Not too long ago, the NY Times published an article on how exonerations through the use of DNA are forcing state lawmakers across to the country to change laws (click here).

Ball of Confusion (Madness)

¡Hola! Everybody...
What can I say? There’s sooooo much going on in the world today it’s hard to figure out where to start... (lots of links!)

* * *

-=[ It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad World ]=-

It is bad enough that people are dying of AIDS, but no one should die of ignorance.

-- Elizabeth Taylor

First, while the mostly conservative US media and political class assure us that toxic sludge (or at least “safe nuclear reactors”) are good for us, you’d better not drink the water (or milk) in Japan, cuz, you know, the radiation levels are kinda/ sorta above levels. Shit, I live about 25 miles from a steaming mess of nuke that’s more dangerous than the Japanese glow-in-the-dark one. Imagine trying to evacuate about 22,232,494 (more or less) people from the NY Metro area? We’re not very polite... LOL

I find it ironic that the same people who were after the Village Idiot’s head (on a platter) for waging war under false pretexts and redistributing wealth (upwards), now applaud Obama as he does the same. In fact, we’re fighting three wars right now. Teachers are being fired, jobs (and record profits) continue to be outsourced, republican state governors are trying to bring us back to the days of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire tragedy, and we just ejaculated 131 Tomahawk missiles at $1 million a pop.

Hold on while I sneeze:

::ACHOOO-HYPOCRITES::

Sorry, but I’m allergic to moral cowardice.

On the entertainment front, raging beauty, talented actor, compassionate activist, Elizabeth Taylor passed away. The first time I saw The Last time I saw Paris, I was so struck by her beauty, it felt as if her image was burned into my brain synapses. What a gorgeous freak of nature! IMNSO, Taylor was matched in beauty and talent only by the as sublime Dorothy Dandridge (who, unfortunately, wasn’t allowed to shine). Taylor also cared, she left the world a little better than she found it, AFAIC.

I spent all day yesterday meeting with lawmakers and attempting to sway their positions regarding criminal justice policy. The event was part of a coalition of organizations that included a group from the Juvenile Justice movement. Right now NY State, which is facing a so-called budget deficit, is maintaining several empty prisons at the cost of more than $200 million per year. In addition, we’re closing schools at a time when we’re sending juveniles to prisons deemed inhumane by federal investigators. The cost of keeping one child in prison per year in New York state? Over $100,000. Some researchers put the actual cost at over $200,000 per bed, per year!

The good news? For me it was hanging out with a great bunch of very young activists, who were well-versed on the issues and who, in passionate terms and an informed manner, schooled members of our state legislature on the foolishness of incarceration as a panacea for all social ills. Even legislators hostile to our agenda seemed genuinely impressed by the young people in my group. I’ll be writing little bit more about this process later on this week. For those of you who like to beat up on our youth, I am compelled to ask: what the fuck are you doing to make this world a better place?

So, there you have it: there’s the mess, the message, and there’s also solutions to the mess. Which part did you play today? Are you making this a better world?

Just sayin...

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery form civilization...

Don't Drink the Kool Aid!

¡Hola! Everybody…
Dang! The Neocon Zombies are back again. I swear! You can’t kill this plague of failed ideas no matter how many time they fail. Who's next? Milton Friedman making a comeback?!! LOL!

Today, perhaps emboldened by the recent elections, the goobers, with the help of some very powerful people, are spreading misinformation about one of the most successful government programs ever (and not just in the US, but globally) in order to scare people into passively accepting benefit cuts. Even so-called “liberals” such as Lawrence O'Donnell (who calls himself a socialist ::cough::) and Dylan Ratigan, are framing the social security debate in a way that makes it a foregone conclusion that cuts must be sustained. Truth be told, O'Donnell is a dyed-in-the-wool corporate democrat cut from the same Rahm Emmanuel (and now Obama) cloth.

The assumption that SS must be cut/ taken apart/ given as a gift to Wall St. to mangle is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Don't be a sheeple (<-- same as teabagger). Check out this list of Social Security myths and share it with your friends, family and coworkers.

Stop. Look. Listen...

(h/t EPI, CEPR and Moveon.org)

* * *

-=[ Top Social Security Myths ]=-

(Links are italicized)

Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever. After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago. What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly -- since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income (like the rest of us), Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market -- which would have been disastrous -- but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.

* * *

So please, the next time some goober muthafucka / teabagger/ conspiracy theorist/ looneytarian/ “independent” tries to shill some of this Kool Aid your way, put him/ her in their place with facts…

Love,

Eddie

The 3,000 Mile Wide Bubble

¡Hola! Everybody…
Today… we take a glimpse behind the veil. Just a little.

* * *

-=[ Orphans of the Bubble ]=-

Once as a child my class was taken on a school trip. One morning, we all boarded the yellow school bus and headed to the Aquarium. I was fascinated by the menacing shark with the predatory smile. But even as a child, I understood that the shark lived in a world of its own, with its own reality.

Americans are a lot like that old shark -- they don’t see the people outside the glass. It’s as if America is a gigantic terrarium, and immense biosphere or bubble which has cut it off from the rest of the world. How else can we explain the characterization of a center-right, pro-corporate, pro-war president as a “socialist” a “communist” and a bone-the-nose bootleg video-selling Nigerian fascist? Only in the insular bubble of contemporary America could such a conservative president be deemed “radical” in any sense of the word. And I won’t even get into the whole “Iraq as menace” meme, which everyone else dismissed, but which we swallowed whole.

It seems to me that the only explanation for gap between reality and America’s perception of it comes from the film, The Truman Show. The plot of the movie revolves around the affable but naïve protagonist who goes about his daily activities without being aware that he is, in fact, in a gigantic soap opera. His hometown is actually a set for a TV show and from birth, he has been manipulated and controlled by the producer and the director. The gullibility of the American public would be better understood if we were all living on a stage set in a town called Freedom Fries and threatened by a roving hoard called Evil Brown People.

Not too long ago, it was the “Axis of Evil.” Americans believed, as they often do when instructed by their elected leaders the Television Machine, almost every scary reason cooked up by the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell. The rest of the world laughed. Their amateurish attempts at mass deception contained awkward truths that were surprisingly childish for a group that had access to the most massive propaganda machine the world has ever known. But they only had to utter their latest lie to be cheered by their subjects and disbelieved by non-Americans everywhere.

As a former con man, I can appreciate a good scam. I know how hard it is to pull off the Big Con. Rationalizing a war can’t be easy and takes a lot of skillful finessing and this one was complicated. There was the bait (“terrist”), then the switch (weapons of mass destruction), then another switch (kill the despot, make the world safer), and yet another (regime change).

Whew! That’s a whole stack of lying right there!

But these amateurs failed and they failed miserably. If you going to pull off the Big Con, the lie must be simple and it must repeated -- often. These neocons, already having proven their incompetence in matters economic (and almost everything else), fumbled, and their build up to the Iraqi invasion broke every rule in the con man’s game. Bush and his handlers fell into the trap of elaborating, backtracking, and adding on. Instead of the Big Con, simple and effective, their lies grew more and more elaborate and complicated. The result being that instead of one good reason to go to war, piles of bad reasons were offered, which gave the skeptics in other countries the opportunity to unmask the fables.

The other option for a good con is to refuse to offer evidence (where there is no evidence, there can be no refutation). Bush offered shit piles of it. He asserted that he had proof of warehouses full of evidence. Of course this evidence consisted of tons of soiled toilet paper and used Kleenex. Once exposed, the smoking gun was really a dribbling water gun. Most embarrassingly, there was the spectacle of Colin Powell, who a year earlier had said that Saddam was not a threat and “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction,” explain to the security council that a photograph of what looked like a trailer park trailers were actually mobile war germ factories. These trailers he told the world (most of whom were probably pissing in their pants from laughter) were making biological weapons of mass destruction.

Adding insult to injury, he pulled out another photograph of what he said was an Iraqi airplane bearing Saddam’s deadly germs and lethal chemicals. To every non-American in his audience the object looked like the balsa wood model airplane boys glue together and fly in the park. After that came the aluminum tubes for non-existent nuclear factories, forged documents out of Africa, and fables of spies meeting in Viennese cafes. The more Bush and his handlers piled it on, the less the world believed them.

Americans, however, deep-throated the whole smear…

You might say this is old news and in our attention-span-challenged society, you are probably correct. But I mention all this because, like bad porn, the construction of American social policy is predictable. Last summer it was that Obama was going to kill granny, and “drill, baby, drill.” This summer Mexican immigrants are the new “terrists.” The weapons of mass destruction this year are brown people who come here to spread their infections and “drop” litters of future cop-killing, sex-crazed, drug-addicted sociopaths. But if one looks past the bubble even a little, you become aware that the hype about immigration is really today’s version of the Iraqi invasion, which, by the way, we’re still borrowing from the Chinese in order to fund it.

Americans can’t see past the bubble and it will be our undoing.

-- Eddie

Morality and Social Policy

¡Hola! Everybody...
I have said it before and I’ll say it again: the fRight-Wing Morans really pose a profound challenge to my spiritual practice. It’s hard for me to muster compassion for bullies. Case in point is the historic health reform bill passed last night. Among the immediate impacts: Children can remain on their parents’ HMO until age 26; small business can get up to 50% of their insurance premiums as tax credits; people who have been denied coverage by their insurance company can appeal to the government; seniors not covered by Medicare Part D drug benefit will get $250 to pay for scripts; Insurance companies will not be allowed to set coverage caps for major illnesses. Put simply, lives will be saved -- literally.

Yet, visit any fRight-Wing site, or talk to that goober right wing friend/ relative and you are immediately bombarded with ridiculously unbelievable hatred and ignorance...

* * *

-=[ Reason, Morality, Social Policy ]=-

I don't give a damn about semi-radicals... This is not a time of gentleness. It is not a time for lukewarm feelings. It is a time for open speech and fearless thinking.
-- Helen Keller

For some people society’s ultimate reason for existence is to serve the individual. Government, religion, and everything else is filtered according to where you stand in terms of personal growth.

Let’s take moral development as a starting off point. Let’s assume for the sake of argument moral development has three distinct stages. An infant at birth hasn’t been socialized into its culture’s ethics, standards, and conventions; let’s call this the preconventional stage. It’s also known as egocentric, in that the individual’s awareness is largely concerned (consumed) with self -- self-absorbed. As the child begins to assimilate culture’s rules and norms, it grows into the conventional stage of morals. This stage is also known as ethnocentric, in that this level of moral reasoning is focused on the individual’s particular group, tribe, clan, or nation, and it therefore tends to exclude those not of its group. At the next major stage of moral development, the post-conventional stage, the individual’s identity expands to include care and concern for all peoples, regardless of race, color, sex, or creed, which is why this stage is also known as worldcentric.

If you’re still with me, you can see that moral development tends to move from “me” (egocentric) to “us” (ethnocentric) to “all of us” (worldcentric). This is an example of unfolding waves of consciousness.

Using this consciousness “map” one can see how a vision of society will manifest itself differently in a person who’s at the egocentric stage than a person who’s at a worldcentric stage. Both people can be “nice” people, but their vision will manifest itself in accordance to their level of moral development. In addition, their worldview has divergent consequences.

Imagine a society from an egocentric or ethnocentric perspective. Society from a lower level stage perspective resembles much of the world today. It certainly conforms to what America looks like. Such a society would be concerned with the individual at the expense of the larger society. It’s the same with almost anything you look at in life: it changes according to what level you’re able to engage the world. Religion from an egocentric perspective probably resembles the scary wave of fundamentalism currently threatening our existence. And I mention fundamentalism in all its manifestations -- including our own home-grown Christian fundamentalism.

I find all this quite interesting because a lot of my work involves helping people move from one stage to another. But it’s also interesting because it helps me tease out the idiosyncrasies when someone speaks about civil liberties. Freedom, from an egocentric perspective, looks a lot different from freedom from a worldcentric level of moral reasoning, for example.

Last night, the US legislature did more than pass a lukewarm health reform bill. Yes the bill is an ugly stepchild of too much compromise and too little real reform. To say it needs work is an understatement. But more important than the actual law, is the shift from seeing health as a privilege to recognizing it as a fundamental human right. It’s something even some third world nations take for granted. We’re not there yet, but this legislation is a first step toward moving from an egocentric/ ethnocentric level of moral reasoning to developing a collective and enlightened view that care and concern for all peoples, regardless of race, color, gender, sexual orientation, or creed is what is needed if we’re going to survive as a species.

And in a real way, that is what happened last night as you were distracted by something else on TV.

Love,

Eddie

Truth or Consequences

¡Hola! Everybody...
I am a day late with this, but if you care about living in a just society I would suggest you go here, read the particulars, or watch the two-minute video, and sign the petition. Troy Davis, a 42-year-old man who has spent the last eighteen years of life on death row, will most likely be executed for a crime he very likely didn’t commit. No physical evidence. No murder weapon. Another man implicated.

Yet we’re (yes that’s “we” as in you and I) are going to kill this man. That’s me with an event volunteer for yesterday’s NYC rally for Troy Davis.

Which brings me to today’s post...

* * *

-=[ Consequences ]=-

“Complexity is the destiny of thoughtful individuals, from which they will never be rescued.”

-- Leon Wieseltier

[Note: I’m rambling a bit today... ]

Recently two women, unaware I could hear them, were talking about me . The first woman, a Latina, said, “He thinks he’s so fuckin’ smart!” My crime? I suggested that a statement she made (in front of large gathering) was incorrect (it was). Her friend, a white woman, chimed in, “Yeah, who the hell does he thing he is talking like that? Using those big words?!!” My crime? Speaking as I do in everyday life. The issue at hand? A public forum on children, education, and policy at City Hall.

I could care less what these women thought of me, this is about our children, get your shit together, or get the fuck off the pot. Secondly (and this happens a lot), if I say or write something that you think is “smart,” that is your estimation, not mine. In other words, it’s your shit, not mine.

It’s called projection, click the fuckin' link. I get that a lot: “You think you’re so smart!” Translation? What you wrote/ said made me feel inadequate; therefore, I’m going to project my feelings of inadequacy on to you.

I don’t suffer fools easily -- now that’s one crime you can rightfully pin on me. “Thinking” I’m smart? How the fuck do you know what’s inside my head. LOL!

OK! I got that out the way! LOL BTW, if you think this is about you, it isn’t.

Back to my post...

Not too long ago, I wrote about a mindset that dominates our approach to social policies. Bluntly put, we live in a culture of blame:

Poor? It’s your fault!

Functionally illiterate? It’s your fault and your parents’!

Racism and classism don’t exist because we all know that there’s no relationship between individual motivation and larger oppressive societal forces.

The state of education has everything to do with the stupid little meanies -- the over-sexed, willfully ignorant children of today. It has nothing to do with the adults that don’t have the will, nor care for a coherent education policy.

We all know it’s all on the individual, therefore, if individuals from your family/ community are going to prison at higher rates than others, it’s, yup, your fault. It has nothing to do with systems.

Yup, the new (and improved racism) is clothed in the language and myth of rugged individualism. If we made it without any "handouts," some seem to be saying, then you're inability to break into the mainstream is your fault and your fault alone. I guess the irony of a nation built on land stolen and then freely given away is lost on such people. Or the fact that the vast portion of social giveaways, go to the middle and upper classes.

But logic has no place at the core of a social movement marked by a resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, as well as some common psychological factors such as: fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of uncertainty, among others.

Do you believe that a microscopic clump of cells in a Petri dish possesses the same rights you possess?

I first became interested in public policy during an undergraduate course in Metro Studies. I had the kind of teacher we all love: passionate, knowledgeable about his subject, and able to communicate complex concepts in ways that were both enlightening and easily understandable.

I was immediately drawn to the issue of consequences and public policy. As with everything, there are intended and unintended consequences to the public policies we implement. For example, declaring a “drug war” and taking a punitive approach as a response to addiction/ drug problem had the unintended (?) consequence of exploding our prison population to the extent that we now incarcerate more people per capita than any other nation in the world.

The drug war also had the unintended consequence of draining resources away from programs such as education (there’s a direct correlation between increased prison spending and decreased education spending), and early enrichment programs, after school programs, etc. In fact, we went from a nation seeking a Great Society to a nation of prisons.

Do you believe public schools should actively teach children to doubt the scientific theory of evolution?

The point being that while it may sound nice to get up on your cyber soap box and yell out stupidity such as “tough on crime!” these sentiments, so prevalent today, hold dire consequences for all of us. I think we like to stand apart from others and pass judgment. We de-fund education and then stand apart to chastise our young. We make it almost impossible to for poor single mothers to get ahead and then pass moral judgment on them. We sit back apathetically, while a right-wing religious fringe movement advocates “abstinence-only” programs that empirical research has shown to be at best ineffective, and then pass judgment on the resulting mess -- rates of teen pregnancy and abortions rates that are lead all developed nations.

Do you believe legally available contraception is producing a “culture of death” in the United States?

It’s as if we all have decided to live not as a society, but as millions separated nuclear entities, where the rule is the law of the jungle: get yours and fuck the rest.

Our social policies are the result of a nation of people who have been hoodwinked into choosing the very policies that do them the most harm, because, as global warming shows us, we’re all inextricably connected. What happens to you and to me and everyone else, affects us as individuals and as a society.

Do you believe that the United States should be a Christian nation?

As for the questions in italics? The answer is yes for many, many people. And that, not the fake bogeyman on CNN or MSNBC, should scare you...

Love,

Eddie