Take Not A Life Lightly

By now, the tumult has swept over the nation from corner to corner: a Republican Presidential candidate stands before a room as states he has had no trouble exercising the death penalty, and is lauded by the crowd with applause. For a moment, one might have noted the exuberant and keening voices of the Colosseum amid the clapping, for it was a spectacle best suited to that forgotten time when fighting men and condemned souls were made to dance in death for the approval of the crowd, and their Emperor dispensed his own brand of "justice," by making it a sport of blood.

You might think your author hyperbolic, but I report only what sensation comes to me when events transpire before my eyes and ears. It was a singular moment, like so few I have witnessed, that horrified and enraged me. Were I not better prepared for it from the commentary I read prior to watching it, apoplexy might have welled up from within me. For this moment, unlike many of late, sets the tale of this country in the starkest relief, casting a shadow across a nation that prides itself on equality, integrity, faith, and justice.

Debatable

What could possess a couple to decide that the decision to continue a pregnancy or not was best left in the hands of millions of people on the Internet? Whatever the reason, the decision reeks of moral turpitude; one would have to examine their competence to have and care for children in the first place, given this turn of events. It would seem however, when we would look past the first blush, that there is more to this than meets the eye. Pete Arnold – with or without the tacit consent of his wife Alisha – seems to be playing a trick on the world. His explanations are hollow, filled with bullet points that sound vaguely contrived, as if handed to them from somewhere else. The whole episode smacks of a desperate attempt to put the abortion debate back in the spotlight after a contentious election season.

Any political playing aside, what would possess anyone to do it, for any reason?

The Uncivil War

Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina probably feels pretty bad right now.

It is safe to say that his outburst during President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress, will go down infamy, and the ignominy of that moment will dog him now and for the rest of his life.

As it should.

When the President of the United States petitions Congress for the right to address both houses, it is usually a serious event: the State of the Union address, a declaration of war, or the announcement of a wide and sweeping change in national policy. The President does not do this lightly. He seeks audience with the Legislative branch, to make clear what the course of the nation must be. As such, he is accorded the honor of addressing both houses in joint session, and with that, is granted a level of decorum that is unheralded in the usual course of politics in Washington, D.C.

Representative Wilson violated that decorum.

As such, he is to be, rightly, condemned for his impertinence. He has apologized, saying the moment got the better of him, but even so, we expect our elected representatives to carry themselves with honor and with respect at these times. His outburst, live, for all America to see, brings a stain on the honor of South Carolina which it did not need. He represents the people of his district, and no matter what they may think of the President, I am certain they do not think he should be treated in such a manner.

The opprobrium raised by this moment of indiscretion began almost immediately, surging over the Internet like a nuclear shock wave, raising the ire of people everywhere, not just in South Carolina, or even the United States. But in this tsunami of outrage, was expressed the dark side of human nature, for condemnation was indeed called for, but the quality and tone of the condemnation was in many ways just as disturbing as the event itself. It was also, perhaps, representative of our society's loss of civility and rectitude.

It is one thing to call a person into account for their mistake; personal responsibility must take the day. It is another, for those calling the person into account, to use language that signifies an intemperance or a self-righteousness that smacks of hypocrisy. Condemnation of an obvious wrong is not a license to let forth with obscenity, profanity, or intolerance. Those who stand against the common good, who do not see the world as we do, who have their own beliefs, and are allowed to hold them thanks to the Constitution, will never be swayed by reason, nor will they be swayed by being treated as lunatics.

This moment is one where we can take a long, hard look into our own comportment, those of us who believe we know what is best. While we must stand against willful ignorance, base intolerance, rank prevarication, and the perpetuation of fear, we cannot do so at the risk of becoming the very things we abhor. We cannot treat our opponents like foes to be crushed by the power of our reason or the force of our logic. We cannot treat them as petulant children. We cannot treat them as lost causes. We cannot see them as "the enemy." We must accept that they do not see things as we do, that we may not be able to reason with them, but that they, too, are part of the America we seek to protect. We must give them ample opportunity to engage in civil discourse, and where they will, be reasonable and not dismissive. If they will not engage us so, we can condemn them, but must not excoriate them, as they would us. We must not play their game.

So let us cry foul for what has happened, but let us learn from it as well. It will require that we swallow our pride and hold our tongue. It will be difficult, at times, to tolerate what we clearly see as fear-mongering and hypocrisy, but if we are true to our belief that the greater good must carry the day, then no amount of such demagoguery can hurt us. In the end, we may not sway our opponents, but we may show them that a measured voice carries more weight than shouted words.

Shout Out

The easiest way for consensus on an issue to be reached is through discussion and debate, a laying out of facts and a critical examination of the effects of changing systems to alter those facts. The idea, is to reach a solution to a particular problem by incorporating the ideas of all parties in such a way that, no matter the outcome, all parties feel they have had their say and can agree to compromises on their position. It was this process, adopted by the Founding Fathers, that led to the formation of the United States, the layout of its government, and the process through which problems affecting the citizenry were to be solved.

Was the system perfect? No. The founders chose to leave the issue of slavery for another day, codified it in the Constitution, and thus, in the end, a civil war had to be fought to iron it out. It did, however, lay out a perfectly effective groundwork for solving problems moving forward, if you were willing to live with the occasional flaw.

The founders would not recognize their system now, mainly because it has been co-opted by partisanship. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, conservative, fanatical religionists, secularists, men, women, young, old... rather than debating issues, battle lines are more often drawn. Each side has their say, but at a distance, through the media, or the Internet. Groups talk at each other, not to each other. Rhetoric, vitriol, and spin are orders of the day. It is far easier to call names than to call for hashing out problems. Each side in every "debate" has become so entrenched, that any issue takes on the characteristics of the Somme or Verdun, where shells are lobbed, skirmishes are fought, but in the end, no ground is gained or lost.

Stalemate.

Currently, this is exemplified by the current problem of health care reform. "Current" is the wrong word, for the health care system in our country has been broken since probably the early 1980's, and no one has been in a rush to fix it. It has gone from being a necessity of life to a free-market big business. It has also become so entwined with employment, that economic downturns only swell the ranks of those unable to afford quality health care, causing them to utilize emergency services for even the most routine medical complaints. And this goes around and around, swirling and twisting as the economy writhes in pain form the short-sightedness of Wall Street barons.

If you are lucky to have a job, be independently wealthy, or be part of some organization, then you no doubt have access to quality health care. If you are poor, destitute, or perhaps have a chronic condition, you don't. The vast majority, as with anything, lie in the middle, swinging between having health insurance and not, between good health and sickness, between simple co-pays and staggering bills. There is no solid ground to stand upon -- one day you have a job with excellent benefits, the next you don't, and while they offer you the ability to take your health benefits with you when you go, the premiums are astronomical for someone now on unemployment insurance.

And so, our government is trying to change that. Well, some in our government. There are those, bolstered by market forces, the pharmaceutical industry, health insurance providers, and their own inability to see the forest for the trees, who oppose changing the system, who have fallen back on the cant of "let the free-market handle it." The free-market has been handling it for some time now -- and that's how we got into this mess. Remember all those foreclosures and bank failures?

The preamble to the Constitution states that part of its intended purpose is to "provide for the general Welfare." Tied to the ideas laid out in the Declaration of Independence, about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," this would seem to indicate that the founders thought it important that the Federal government ensure that everyone who is a citizen was cared for, not just in the fact of having established rights, but having available those services which would further the lives of Americans as a whole.

This frightens some people.

This idea, that everyone should have general access to quality health care scares big business, which is making it's living off the lives of Americans. Medical care is essential to the health and well-being of every person, but people have now been reduced to statistics and actuarial tables. People are a risk; if we insure you, you might get sick, that would cost money, and we need to maintain our profit margins. It scares conservatives, who see it as socialism, a system whereby the State treats all citizens as equals, when we all know that some are more equal than others. It also scares ordinary citizens, not because they understand the problem, but because they have been told it should scare them. Fear-mongering has generated irrationality in the citizenry.

So now, when we should be coming together, to discuss our concerns, discuss our needs, discuss the costs (both human and financial) of leaving so many without health care, we find movements to shout down those who are for change. Rather than engage in honest debate, hear all sides, build consensus, there are those urging thuggery and mob tactics, to disrupt the discussion rather than take part in it. It has gotten so bad, that meetings have been cancelled, and elected representatives have received death threats.

Irrationality carries the day.

A wise man once said, "all we have to fear, is fear itself." At this time, those words ring truer than they have in a long time, not because there is normal fear of the loss of jobs, homes, health care, dignity, but because there are those who would use abject fear to stall, delay, diminish, and derail the ability of the American system to tackle a problem and solve it, as we have so many times in our nation's brief history. Fear has become the new coin of the realm, and those forces who would deny the average citizen their right to a peaceful, prosperous, and healthy life are spending it. They do not want discussion, debate, or consensus, for if the light of truth is shone on their prevarications and obfuscations, then the American people will see for themselves, that the Emperor truly has no clothes.

Just Whose Life Is It, Anyway?

In human sexual reproduction, it takes a male sperm and a female egg uniting to begin the process that eventually leads to the birth of a child. Male and female contribute copies of their personal genome, they are stirred together, and out comes a related but different genetic code, which takes the best (and sometimes the worst) of the parental code, to create a unique new life. It is an amazing process, that ensures the continuation of the human species by diversifying and extending it, creating new features and new facilities in the process. The continuation of human life is beautiful.

As beautiful as it is, the events leading up to human sexual reproduction have become problematic. Humans seem to have developed a sexual schizophrenia, at one time impelled by instinct and hormonal desire to engage in sexual union, while at the same time seeking to implore ourselves to avoid sexual congress and placing limitations on what is considered "proper." Some segments of society have freed themselves from the clinging mores of puritanical belief, while others indulge in the desire to control all aspects of sexuality and its by-products, to ensure it only occurs in alignment with their moral code. Rules have been written, cruelly enforced, then cast off in bursts of societal frenzy, as men and women tried to cope with changes to their world.

Inevitably, this has led to clashes on so many fronts. It has wound its way into so many aspects of human society, from marriage to child-rearing, into religion, and even politics. In the end, our inability to compromise, to let each person choose, as they may, how they will express their sexuality, has led to some of the greatest "debate" in our modern times. It pits state against citizen, family against congregation, child against parent.

Our nation was conceived as a place where its citizens could fulfill their dreams of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," without the undue influence of government. While some regulation must be made, to provide for the safety of all, how the individual chooses to explore and ultimately express their sexuality should not become a battleground for morality. Like so much of life, belief and how one lives one's life is up to the individual, and while society has a right to expect that members of certain groups will not be allowed to force their way of life onto others, such it is that society cannot arbitrarily decide to impress itself on certain groups. Our government was given a mandate by the Founders, expressed through the Bill of Rights, that the individual should be protected at all costs, even to the extent of overriding the desire of the majority of citizens.

This treading of the fine line between individual liberty and American society is starkly silhouetted in the debate over the right of gays to marry. Marriage, which started as a religious bonding ceremony, became a state-sponsored means of generating revenue, and has now become it's own industry, stands as the bulwark from behind which, the forces of intolerance seek to reduce gays from citizens into stereotypes. Religious leaders, politicians, and their teeming masses of followers continue a pernicious campaign of trying to convince the bulk of the American citizenry that while equal rights are fine for for everyone else, those with an "improper" sexual orientation should not fall under that umbrella. Somehow, because the result of the union of a man with a man or a woman with a woman cannot lead naturally to children, that makes the idea of gays being bonded in mutual love abhorrent.

Such beliefs show that human society is still mired in its past, even as it surges into the Information Age. Dragging along the dead weight of outdated concepts slows our progress, forces us to relive and re-fight battles that should no longer need to be fought. Every few decades, we are forced to endure a new revolution, a new birth of conflict, as those who continue to sow the bitter fruit of conformity to the dead ideas of the past make war on the new enlightenment of the day. Human society looks to break free of its past, but there are those bent on chaining it down, forcing it accede to their dusty, moldy thoughts.

It is not enough to see people as they are, but that they are defined, and in so being, channeled into the appropriate paths, even if those paths take them away from society as a whole, to strand them in backwater slums, where they can go about their business without having to be seen. Let them do what they will, but let them do it out of sight, where "decent" people do not have to be exposed to it.

To allow homosexuals to marry would be an indignity, in the eyes of some. It would mean the State endorses their way of life, by providing them equal rights and equal protection. It would lessen the meaning of marriage, turn it from prized possession to common commodity, even though that turn happened long ago, in the birth of the "wedding-industrial complex," wherein weddings were made into expensive and lavish affairs, though little thought was given to the actual health of the relationship.

There is no actual harm to "marriage," either as actuality or concept. If homosexuals can marry, then there are new markets for suppliers, new fees to be collected by the State, and potentially homes for children who have no one to care for them. Why should it be so hard to accept that love can exist between people of the same gender, when love is a function of the brain and not the body? And is not marriage the ultimate expression of love between two people? Doesn't the world need more love, not less?

Old prejudices dies hard. It far easier to stay within the confines of the rickety house that is Old World belief, than to step into the sunlight that bathes those who walk among the hills and valleys of tolerance and reason. It is more comforting to stay steadfastly wedded to beliefs that cannot withstand the touch of logic, than to admit that reality is far easier to understand and tolerate when it is accepted as a natural phenomenon. Why see things through new eyes, when the dull and dirty glasses of ignorance fit so well?

Eventually, the forces of intolerance, those whose beliefs will yield only to death, are passed by, swept out by the tide of change. Human society has broken free of its chains many times before, and even now, strains against its newest restraints, which groan under the load and weaken imperceptibly every second, until one day they will snap. The gay community cannot and will not be denied their right forever, and one can only hope when the day comes that enlightened society installs them forever in their rightful place, that it will be the last time we allow ourselves to be tied to ignorance and prejudice.

Compassion, Not Inquisition

Abortion. If it can be said that there is one issue that polarizes us, it is this. It pits science, reproductive health, politics, and religion against each other, in a cage match that is a continuous ball of fury, with no clear victor, but many losers. If it can be said that abolition was a major causative factor in The Civil War, in that is was the call for the abolition of slavery that drew a line between the North and the South, and ignited the fuse which led to Fort Sumter, then abortion carries the hallmarks of the next great divisive split in American society. The problem in this interpretation, is that the battle lines are not so clearly drawn, as the battle is waged across the length and breadth of the nation, in small hamlets and large cities, every single day.

The problem with the "debate" (a term used very loosely) is that there is no common language, no agreed upon mutual framework to allow for rational discussion. On one side, stand those who believe ardently in a "right to life"; on the other, the "pro-choice" forces. Right there is the initial contradiction -- each side approaches the question of pregnancy and abortion from its own ground, by labeling their cause for their fundamental belief. The "right to life" group can be better termed the "anti-choice" group; despite the range of individual beliefs held by members of the group, they are united by their desire to see the ability to "choose" abortion as a reproductive health option completely removed. On the other side, it is hard to see the "pro-choice" movement as "anti-life"; the group does not advocate the utter destruction of living things.

If we decide to use roughly comparable terms for the groups (pro-choice/anti-choice), we are not out of the woods. The anti-choice group has taken to calling those who perform abortions "baby killers" or "child murderers"; their position is that from the moment of conception, when sperm meets egg, a "baby" exists, a living being which has a soul, and which is the subject of the depredations of abortion providers. The pro-choice group aligns more with the definitions delineated by science, where gametes meet to form a zygote, which begins a long process of division that forms a fetus, which eventually reaches a stage where it is as developed as it can be in the womb, and must be expelled to live on its own, independently of the mother. The stages of development are well-defined, and it is possible to say how developed the fetus is at any stage in the process.

The gulf between both sides broadens and deepens as you take the debate outward, until, as during The Civil War, you have two sides, poised behind their barriers, shouting, harrumphing, but not communicating. Battle cries uttered, shots fired, and in the end, mindless casualties.

To a woman who has become pregnant unexpectedly, it is like being trapped in the No Man's Land between both sides, as they fire fusillade after fusillade of invective ordinance. It is not enough that she suffers from her own doubt and uncertainty about the life growing inside her, but now she is assailed by voices professing her doom if she "kills that baby" or telling her that "she is in good hands." What right has anyone, outside of her deity or her own conscience, to tell her the fate of her soul? And while abortion, when done legally and under proper conditions, might be a safe and effective medical procedure, where is the assuaging of doubt or guilt? Can it be so clinical or cold, so easy to do? And how can someone else tell her it will be all right, when she does not know if she should be doing it in the first place?

Lost in the cacophony of the fight, is the piteous cry of a woman who does not know, in her heart, what is best. Perhaps it easier for some women, for what woman would wish to carry to term the seed of a rape, or a child that will definitively be shouldered with some horrible malady that will lead to early death? For many, it is not so clear cut. For many, while they understand the mechanics of abortion and know the risks of pregnancy, there is a sense that there is something larger at stake. Whether they are afraid of their own guilt, frightened by the thought of losing the support of friends and loved ones, scared of being cast out of their chosen belief system, or even simply muddled by the glow of potential motherhood, they carry with them an angst not so easily dealt with, or assuaged by reason and logic. It is they, who are ultimately the casualties, souls wrenched by the gravity of the decision they know they must make. In a time of confusion, when the answer is not clear, they need to know that there is no right or wrong answer, only what they feel is best for them. In the end, compassion should rule the day.

Debate Prep 3: Return of the Democrats

Tonight (10/15) is the final Presidential Debate for the 2008 election. The format is kind of a "sit down at the lunch table" talk, with Obama and McCain seated side-by-side across from Bob Schieffer. It is considered by many to be the last gasp for McCain; only a good showing here will keep his campaign alive.

The tenor of the McCain campaign has rubbed many people the wrong way, Democrat and Republican. Failing to address racist comments at rallies in a timely fashion, trying to use William Ayers and ACORN as bogeymen to show how unfit Obama is to be President, and Sarah Palin's apparent inability to read a report that condemns here ethical lapses as "no evidence of wrongdoing" -- these are the kinds of things that make it increasingly clear that the McCain camp has lost its way. As their poll numbers trend downward further, the attacks ramp up, become less substantive but more vicious. If you cannot win on merit, win through fear. Karl Rove must be proud.

So what to expect?

From Obama, more of the same. Through the debates and the slew of negative ads, he has maintained his cool demeanor, showing no signs of allowing the needles and arrows of his foes to penetrate. He stands his ground with utter confidence in his message and his destiny. He will deflect each blow as it comes, pressing back with the surety of a fighter who knows how to allow his opponent to expend his energy fruitlessly, all the while unaware of being backed into a corner.

From McCain, more of the same rhetoric, but with a plethora of new "facts" to throw into the fight. He will stick to his guns on Iraq and the economy, and attempt to paint his opponent as out of touch, as someone who cannot be trusted because he consorts with "bad people." McCain will lunge, and lunge, striking with everything he has in his arsenal because he can leave nothing back. This will be his last opportunity and he will push and press. Ultimately, it will leave him vulnerable, because in his haste to bring down Obama, he will reveal parts of his true self which will paint a bleak picture of a McCain presidency.

Ultimately, I doubt that even if McCain brings his "A-game" he will enough strength to wrestle Obama down over any particular topic. He will resort to the low arts, hurling innuendo like hand grenades in the hope it will do enough damage to keep Obama in striking distance. But if he does this, it will have the opposite effect, highlighting the weaknesses in his current character that have been all too evident of late.

John McCain knows in his heart that this is the last battle. If he fails now, there will be no Presidency in his future. He has reached the zenith of his political career and when he loses the election, the plunge to the nadir will be swift and frightening. That thought will no doubt weigh heavily on his mind as the debate begins.

Debate Prep

For all of you out there who feel like tonight (10/02) will be Sarah Palin's comeuppance as Republican Vice Presidential candidate, I have bad news for you: don't count on it. I know, I know, the interviews do not lie -- she is pretty clueless about things most of us have at least a passing knowledge of and is counting on her 10th grade debate skills to get her through. And it will be live -- no rocks to hide behind or Straight Talk Express to hop into and lock the door. Which is why she is being as well prepared as the McCain camp can make her.

And the preparation will probably pay off, if they concentrated not on what she would say but how she would say it. I think they might have programmed her to keep the answers simple and straight-forward and to not flounce around too much verbally if caught off-guard. There's literally no way they could pump enough foreign policy information into her to allow her to take on Joe Biden on even close to equal footing.

No, I see this as a less-is-more kind of debate, because as many of us know, Joe Biden has a gaffe problem of his own. I don't see him going at her tooth-and-nail the whole debate, but letting her stand there and talk, then get in and make his own cogent remarks. I think he will every so often needle her with something he knows she can't possibly pull out of her hairdo, but over all will not want to come off as being too aggressive. Biden stands to lose as much from this debate as Palin.

And in the end, I very much doubt, unless there is a major flub, that this debate will change much. Vice Presidential debates seldom do. They're pretty much having this debate to give the main contenders a breather and to generate new ad material. If Palin does poorly, it will be blamed on sunspots, the "liberal media," Vladimir Putin, anything but Palin herself. If she does well, she will do no more than match Biden, and as such won't look bad, but won't look overly impressive either, given that Joe won't be going after her full bore. I honestly think Joe Biden may just coast through this, to avoid being seen as attacking Palin "because she's a woman."

So look for it to be pretty boring, with occasional moments that will either make you scratch your head or laugh out loud. In the end, there will be no massive bump for either Obama or McCain, only a breather between the Wall Street meltdown and their next debate.