Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Memorial Day


Well, we have just passed another Memorial Day and there are some things that need to be said. 

The day went by with all of the usual devotion and honoring of the men and women who have given their lives in service to our country. I have no problem with that. Indeed, there are many who did not give their lives but gave almost everything else. They are veterans who served and came home --- some of them with terrible traumas that haunt them and others with terrible wounds that will affect their lives forever. All of them performed their service through our military organizations and we owe them our praise and our gratitude.

What I do have a problem with --- and it is a very big problem --- is the real-world context in which all of this service was required. Our society has become quite expert at channeling the ways we think. Hence, we spend a great deal of time being devoted to "patriotism" and "heroism" and very little time thinking about the actual mechanics of war. This was impressed upon me quite profoundly about a decade ago when I spent a week in Washington, D.C. I spent the week walking throughout Washington's numerous monuments. Most of them, interestingly enough, are devoted to wars. All of them display patriotic texts of devotion to freedom, liberty, and the like. None of them suggest the dark side of why wars happen. Nor do any of them acknowledge the enormous losses of property and civilian life. Have you ever actually looked at pictures of Europe after the end of World War II?

What it actually comes down to is the fact that governments declare wars and governments conscript their young to serve in their military forces. But who are these governments? Is our own government functioning as we would wish, right now? Are we ready to serve such a dysfunctional government if it comes to that? 

What seems clear is that wealth controls our government --- certainly not "the people" --- so why should the people serve the whims of wealth?

When we think of patriotism, we need to think carefully and clearly about whose interests are really involved in the call to patriotism. There are, of course, the usual slogans of "keeping us free" but what "us" are we really being asked to keep free. More often than not our patriots are dying for the interests of a small minority of billionaires who could actually care less for their "patriots" or the country as a whole. That is the sad truth about war.

In my 77 years, I have know WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the first Iraq War, war in Afganistan, and the Bush Iraq War. Only WWII was a "popular war" in the sense that heroic young people signed up to serve because the freedom of our world had genuinely been threatened by dreadful dictators. The rest have been ideological. Perhaps it is acceptable for people to die in the name of ideologies, but we should definitely check which ideologies are involved first. As we said during the first Iraq War, "if Kuwait 's principal product had been broccoli we would never have gone to war." Why is the whole of the Middle East so "important"? It is oil of course. And what proportion of Americans profit from interests in oil? And in what ways were they connected to the Bush Administration? 

We should put as much attention into researching these questions as we put into praising the heroism of our service personnel. In actuality that is a real way of honoring them.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Rights and Responsibilities


The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution definitively states that citizens have a right to "keep and bear arms." The rationale for this right is, of course, the importance of having an effective militia in case of external threats to the nation. The amendment is unique in its presentation of a rationale, but people are fond of ignoring that, as well as being fond of ignoring the relevance of a militia to the present-day situation of gun ownership. 

What the amendment does not in any way suggest or support is that citizens have a blind right, that is, a right to keep and bear their arms anonymously. Yet that is very much at the heart of the present argument over gun control. When we examine the fate of our several rights, we discover that almost none of them imply a lack of responsibility in the exercise of that right. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are all moderated by various cases of responsible exercise. You may not intentionally defame a person in the press; and you may not yell, "bomb," in an airplane. People who possess these rights are expected to use them responsibly. 

While we do not have a right to own and drive an automobile (being somewhat ahead in time to the Constitution), I think there are some good analogies to be found here. When I purchase a car, it is registered in my name along with contact information. The car bears definite identification numbers attached to my ownership. When I drive the car, I am expected to have a valid license, demonstrating that I am capable of driving and that I have knowledge of my responsibilities. If the car is used irresponsibly either by me or by another person, I am responsible for damages as the registered owner. 

Now, firearms are also dangerous and can cause damage. I see no reason whatsoever why the owner of a firearm should not take responsibility for its use. And for that matter, training and licensing would be a good thing. 

The 2nd amendment does not provide that keeping and bearing arms is without responsibility for their use!