Critical Comments by Dave Olson
for "Poltical Problems and Controversies"Evergreen Summer 2004 -Jose Gomez, Faculty
Does Public Safety Justify Greater Government Secrecy?Certainly public safety is critically important but the prevention of mass dissemination of information does not necessarily increase public safety and indeed may well hinder the ability for citizens to avoid or avert danger.
Perhaps more harmful to public safety and well-being than secrecy are "half-announcements" or the partial disclosures as recently evidenced by frequent post-9/11 "terror alerts" which offer wide and sweeping warnings without any recommended steps of action to take to protect oneself.
I suggest that a country seeking to protect it's citizens should encourage distribution of fair and accurate knowledge to dispel myths, diffuse public panic and protect the liberty of all.
To accomplish such a goal, a citizen or the media should be able to follow a defined and accessible procedure to gather information which does not have a compelling reason (eg: immediate risk of life or limb) to be kept secret.
Without an established policy of disclosure that is consistent during times of war and peace, the level of transparency afforded by a government is subject to the personal whims of executive branch directors. In such a situation, secrecy in government serves as the first step down the "slippery slope" to tyranny and censorship. Rather, a reduction of secrecy brings an enlightened and informed population and, most importantly, fosters a trust and respect between citizens and their democracy.
Should the Press be (as) Free During Wartime?
There are few (if any) more critical decisions a country makes than to sacrifice citizens in war. To make this decision prudently, the public needs to know the reasons for the war and the potential ramifications. Indeed, with accurate information and the words, images and sounds of war brought home, a citizenry can be educated and activate in support or against the effort.
To accomplish this, journalists need to be free to pursue a story, and particularly when reporting in times of war, not simply re-process handed-down "official statements" and press conference sound bites. Such reporting does not best serve the public’s interest.
While the military has a policy to imbed 'accredited' media members into the combat zone, the result is either a censored, watered-down version of the truth or dangerous sensationalism that could jeopardize life and limb. Additionally, the policy does not grant equal access to all journalists and favors compliant organizations that will publicly support the military objectives.
With these points in mind, if the military were to be more forthcoming in information in the wake of operational campaigns or "terror warnings," and ceased censoring reports, they would gain a reputation for honesty and veracity. In this spirit of integrity, other concerns (such as maintaining dignity for deceased) could be better addressed.
However, I do not think it is the military's responsibility to provide access to their operations to media members. Rather journalists, as civilians, should be entirely independent from the military units. In order to remain truly impartial, journalists should pursue information as any other citizen, while making sure they understand the risks of a war zone.
Has the War in Iraq been Just(ified)?
Despite the benefits derived from removing a brutal dictator from power, the war in Iraq is not justified for several reasons.
Most critically, the United Stares administration launched the military campaign under the auspices of the impending threat of WMDs, the existence of which was put forth as fact. Under these false pretences, the administration took advantage of national sentiment and dishonestly spread half-truths and innuendo throughout the congress and the country to gain support for an invasion/liberation.
While few dispute Hussien’s atrocities, regardless of the vernacular used (liberation or invasion), the war smacks with hypocrisy. If the US is truly trying to liberate the Iraqi people, then why Iraq and not any other significant human-rights-abusing regimes in Africa (notably Rwanda and Sudan but the list goes on ...) or other continents?
The absence of a full disclosure of actual objectives and reasons for the war suggest an imperialist pursuit or (conspiracy theories aside) a oil-industry family feud. The money-grab handling of post-war rebuilding further supports this notion of the war as a quest for economic gains and political power rather than a noble effort.
The only possible justification for military action is Iraq’s flagrant procedural non-cooperation of UN weapons inspections and other UN-imposed restrictions in the post-Iran war era. However, the US’s decision to rebuke the UN Security Council’s rulings sets a dangerous precedent in modern international affairs. I suggest that the course of history would be better served if the US more strongly supported the United Nations and International war crimes tribunals which is the appropriate venue for Hussien's trial.
Within this context of conflicting cultures, diplomacy must be employed to its fullest, most constructive (and perhaps most stringent) extent. When diplomacy is ignored or otherwise fails, we must look to historical events to avoid repeating mistakes. In this case, we don’t need to look too far back for relevant examples.
Will Gun Control Reduce Violence?
Senseless death of any variety is something which an enlightened society should seek to minimize. Particularly in the case of consumer products (i.e. guns, automobiles, or mattresses) which are sold despite dangerous possibilities, we the people should seek to regulate a basic level of safety which reflects modern technology - from airbags to trigger locks to fire-retardant materials.
Certainly, most any item from box-cutters to bathtubs can be potentially dangerous, yet there is a significant difference between products which prove to produce a larger detriment to society than benefit. Indeed guns (and bullets) are unique in that they are specifically designed to kill (or at least injure or intimidate others).
Looking at guns from a cost-benefit analysis viewpoint, we as a society - through the courts and legislative process - need to draw a line as to what is acceptable societal cost for the benefits of gun ownership. Simply put, whether by spears, clubs or bombs, violence begets violence and rage begets rage. At the very least, regulating guns will reduce crimes of ‘passion’ and argumentative reaction as well as significantly reducing accidental deaths caused by guns.
With this in mind, first, using substantive research a line should be drawn as when guns may be possessed, sold and used.
Additionally, education and safety measures should required as an integral aspect of guns ownership rather than the laissez-faire attitude common among many gun owners.Finally the types of kinds of guns made, sold and distributed should be limited to types of guns appropriate for hunting and controlled marksmanship activities meaning rifles and shotguns. More advanced weaponry should only be used by trained people with a reason to be using them at that time that they are in possession – if at all.
Should the Death Penalty be Abolished?
I put forth several reasons for abolishing capital penalty:
1) The racial and socio-economic inequality of application;
2) The economic inefficiency of the process;
3) The moral cheapening of life by succumbing to bloodlust;
4) The opportunity that innocent people may be put to death; and
5) The actuality that the death penalty does not deter the social-paths from committing murder.Indeed there are no more heinous events than murder, yet society is not best served when we succumb to bloodlust in order to effect justice – especially when cloaked the name of morality.
A civilized society should understand that all life has value. Certainly our basic human instinct of hope suggests that people can (and do) change, can be rehabilitated, and perhaps even contribute something positive to society.
When human life is taken by the State, it is a mockery of justice and perpetuates a misguided societal standard that one has a legal (and moral) right to kill another to resolve a dispute. In this sense, rather than a deterrent, capital punishment acts as a reinforcement of a barbaric logic.
Additionally, taxpayers' resources (in vast excess of the cost of incarceration) are squandered through (necessarily) complicated prosecutions, numerous appeals process and application for stays.
Despite this economic cost, many inmates are victims of mediocre legal representation and often outcomes are determined without allowing relevant background evidence and victim’s families’ input. Further, the outcomes result in unfortunate (and embarrassing) ethnic and economic incongruities.
Advances in investigation techniques and science have shown the innocent people have been, and might have been, killed. This chance alone suggests that capital punishment is too great a risk for society to bear.
With these reasons in mind, I suggest that stringent retributional sentences for socio-paths, in conjunction with rehabilitative and restorative judicial processes where appropriate, better serve society than resorting to killing as punishment.
Are Our Prisons Too Full?
American prisons are over-crowded and, as a result ineffective in fulfilling many of the fundamental aims of the criminal justice system in a civilized society.
First off, a distinction must be made between habitually violent criminals (i.e. murder, rape, assault perpetrators) and non-violent, low-risk offenders (i.e. simple property and ‘drug’ possession crime).
This latter category of offenders -consisting of the over half of the prison population - offer prime candidates for alternative adjudication options such as intensive group and personal counseling, moral recontation therapy, work/life skills, victim impact panels, ‘boot-camps’, home monitoring and education.
I am not suggesting a soft-ride for offenders nor do I feel that societal factors are entirely to blame, but I do put forth that the colossal resources devoted to retributional forms of justice presents a significant and non-sustainable problem. Further these funds could (indeed must) be used in a more efficient and productive manner, including the aforementioned rehabilitative processes and a sincere dedication to preventive social and educational measures.
For pundits to dismiss rehabilitation and restorative sentences simply because such approaches are not effective for "all" inmates is a short-sighted and cynical error.
An established process leading to a return to life as a normal, ordinary, responsible person is a legitimate possibility to many prisoners who sincerely seek to improve themselves and gain the skills to not re-offend. Those who do not wish to submit to such progressive measures should be housed and treated in a (relatively) safe and non-violent atmosphere, despite their loss of liberty.
I also put forth a modicum of support towards required work for prisoners - but not with an eye towards private company profit, but rather towards prison self-sufficiency and public service.
In determining appropriate sentences, I look toward returning discretion to impartial and well-educated judges rather than relying on the prosecutorial ‘shell game’ of plea-bargains, motions to suppress mitigating evidence, and changing charges to fit a sentence which has become the norm in the modern courtroom.
Is Affirmative Action an Appropriate Strategy to Remedy Discrimination?
After listening to the debate and reading relevant documents, I suggest that there is no question that a diverse environment is desirable in both the educational realm and the workplace however, preference or advantage based on race is inappropriate, exclusionary and against the spirit of equality.
The problem of racial inequality cannot be solved – though perhaps it can be somewhat adjusted – by affirmative action as it stands. Such problems are better fixed by addressing socio-economic situations when offering advantage to education or employment instead of racial makeup.
Frankly, attempting to provide redress for slavery is an impossible moral and economic prospect. Rather than relying on racial profiling to provide advantage to correct such injustice, society needs educate people in all neighborhoods, provide outreach and recruitment, even tax incentives and placement agencies to encourage diverse colleges and workplaces. However, the reasons in doing so must be to adjust economic injustices and encourage opportunity to types of citizens, not to provide compensation for the errors of bygone generations.
PS In reading my comment, I somehow feel I must place some context in (albeit diplomatically) stating these opinions. Though I am a <ahem> white male, I grew up in an ethnically diverse and economically poorer, Vancouver suburb, in a neighborhood which became significantly Sikh and Asian. The relative racial tolerance and harmony in Canada led me to be rather naïve to the racial problems of the US until I moved to lily-white Utah for a while at which time, the advantages of a diverse environment were starkly apparent and greatly missed. Since then, I have always been "from somewhere else" and experienced discrimination from many viewpoints as a gaijin farmer in Japan, an illegal worker in Germany, a white hitchhiker in Harlem, a hostage to angry Taos Pueblos in New Mexico, to a "f&#$*ng haole" in Guam.
Has Divorce Become Too Easy?
When considering the whether or not divorce has become too easy to obtain, one should remember that the fundamental constructs of marriage are rooted in cultural, religious traditions, not in a secular realm. With that in mind, I put forth that divorce has not become too easy to obtain and States should not impede the divorce process by mutual consent or individual desire.
While I personally will not dispute the emotional burden of a divorce (besides the ‘paper work’), the answer to the pains of divorce lay in the disciplines of psychology and household economics.
As marriage is a purely private matter, consenting adults certainly may proffer any vows and participate in religious ceremonies in front of any audience they chose to, however, no matter how loquacious and well meaning the vows are, a religious marriage is not a binding contract. The public’s interest in licensing private unions in a contemporary society should be based a desire for record keeping rather than an endorsement of a religious dogma or other personal decision.
Certainly the State has developed reasons to license marriages - primarily for civil organization and economic record keeping (taxes, insurance) reasons - and marital unions are the de facto standard of addressing medical decision-making ability issues, wills, and child raising issues. The State does have an interest in ensuring the welfare and custody of the children through family court proceedings – preferably through mediation and non-hostile arbitration hearings involving empathetic counselors and other impartial representation – with minimizing the emotional strain on the child the primary goal.
Domestic assault matters (whether by a spouse or not) are best handled through the criminal justice and the civil process can be an unwieldy step in an already difficult process for abused spouses trying to leave.
Aside from the aforementioned social welfare issues, I suggest (despite the cold sound of such a proposition) that the state’s primary involvement in licensing marriages should be similar to that of a corporate entity such as a Limited Liability Partnership. In other words, marriage being a private partnerships formed by terms outlined in a fairly negotiated agreement, and the material assets of the entity be dissolvable and/or divisible by detailed actions and processes.
Should Same-Sex Couples be Allowed to Adopt?
Sexual preference should not be a consideration when determining parental fitness for adoption of a child. Couples should be considered on a case by case basis and matched with children who would benefit from their care.
More significant factors such as household stability, educational opportunities, and parenting skills should be considered regardless of sexual orientation when making this critical decision. Because of the life-long implications of this decision for all parties involved, applicants should be carefully trained and screened and then, an unbiased, professional judgement made to match children with caring families.
Certainly some homosexual couples are not appropriate choices for parents, just as some heterosexual couples are not equipped or prepared for the challenges of parenthood.
Heterosexual couples are (generally) able to pro-create freely without government intervention regardless of other life-style characteristics such as infidelity, drug use, abuse, or even financial insecurity. However, this biological ability has somehow become de facto carte blanche for heterosexual couples to adopt children while excluding otherwise qualified homosexual couples.
This situation is unfair to the applicant adoptive parents as well as the children being moved from foster home to foster home who are denied a chance to stability and happiness because of religious or political bias.
The argument that gay men are more prone to promiscuity and disease is an outdated and paranoid view which is in stark contrast to the positive lifestyle shared by an uncalculatable number of responsible and caring homosexual domestic couples.
My personal experience with gay and lesbian friends finds many scenarios in which couples are thoroughly competent to provide a safe and responsible familial experience to children, whether through adoption or alternative fertilization methods.
I also suggest that, in the case of kids who have suffered abusive or neglectful situations, homosexual couples may even be able to provide an enhanced level of compassion and understanding - especially in comparison with heterosexual foster households with several biological and foster children vying for limited parental attention.
--
© 2004 Dave Olson, Olympia WA - e-mail dave (at) olsonboys.org for permission or comments