ON POVERTY

Just as Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny, in a very real sense poverty regresses thinking from gazing into a distant future, to taking comfort in the concept that nothing bad is expected to happen today. One's temporal view contracts to a day, leaving little time to consider much beyond survival. It was the overcoming of this obstacle that began the long march of Man from our hunter-gatherer ancestors to become builders of civilizations and aspiring to the stars. Poverty erases most of the best things about our society, and leaves little more than primal fears and a realization that there really is nothing more than surviving until tomorrow. The glories of our society are revealed to be merely a venire worn over our naked skin.

We have spend generations discussing the elimination of poverty, homelessness, and despair, but have never realized that these evils are not merely wrong, or the diseased soil from which crime grows but, perhaps, the single thing that can change our leaning from the stars, back to the jungle. We will make no real progress as a society until we spend out resources eliminating these last vestiges of our primeval beginnings. Until then, we can make no real claim to civilization, only architecture and technology.

Thou Shalt Not Kill . . .

Throughout history, every society, every religion, every culture has espoused the axiom, "thou shalt not kill," in one way or another. There have always been exceptions, of course. No one faults someone for killing in their own defense, or in defense of others. We award medals for wholesale slaughter in war, and we are increasingly accepting of killing in the name of humanity, to end personal suffering. Still, we all seem to agree that killing is the ultimate wrong.

We, in the United States have based our society, from its inception, upon the premise that we govern by the consent of the governed. Justice is not to be left in the hands of individuals. In fact, even when people file a private criminal complaint, it is up to the government prosecutor to decide whether to proceed. We are not merely the governed, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

If I see someone commit murder, I am not permitted by law to unilaterally execute the perpetrator after the fact. This does not change if there are two of us, three of us, or a hundred of us. If we are the government, and if the form of that government consists of representatives elected to carry out the will of the people, then that government should have no greater right to take a life than any individual or group of individuals in our society. We have assumed the right to incarcerate people in order to protect ourselves from the acts of those whom we deem criminals, but incarceration is more than enough protection without killing. We are one of the few civilized societies to maintain capital punishment which, numerous studies have shown to have no deterrent effect, and be more expensive than mere incarceration. Why then do we still allow it?

When the arguments are presented, the one that nearly every death penalty proponent falls back upon is, "you wouldn't be against the death penalty if he/she killed someone you love." Our laws, though ought not to be based upon personal emotion. If someone killed someone I loved, I might get a gun and kill them myself. While it would be satisfying, though, it would not be legal; nor should it be.

The time has come to pass beyond our medieval heritage of execution (which was once meted out for everything from theft to heresy) to humanity. There is no way that we can ever be 100% sure that every person convicted of a capital offense is guilty. Hundreds have been released from death row based upon DNA evidence, and who knows what technology will release even more in the future? If we incarcerate someone, and find out later that we were wrong, we can let them out. All we can do if we murder them is the feel sorry we made a mistake and hope we don't do it again, while knowing that another mistake is inevitable.

Let's finally follow our own moral code, and those of our ancestors, and enter upon the 21st century as a society that has finally decided that murder is wrong, whether carried out by an individual, or society. Let's remember, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL!"

Is this for real?

In the 1940's it was Quisling; now, it's Bush.

Let's see. On September 11, 2001, we were attacked by Arab Islamic fundamentalists. Since then, out troops have fought and died in Afghanistan, Iraq, and numerous other places around the globe to punish those responsible, and prevent further attacks.

Now, our president has decided to turn control of our busiest ports, though which oil as well as most consumer goods pass, to the United Arab Emirates. Now, call me crazy, but isn't this the equivalent of turning the same ports over to Austria during World War II? Is President Bush so incredibly naïve that he believes this is a good idea, or is he simply so uncaring about the security of the United States that he is willing to turn our security over to a state whose relationship to terrorism is questionable, just to ensure a higher income for his corporate buddies?

President Bush, you took an oath, twice, to "preserve, protect and defend . . ." Either live up to that oath or resign. If you do neither, then perhaps a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate your own relationship to the Saudis, Dubai, and various other countries and their rulers to see if your actions have been influence by personal gain or simply incompetence.