My Quest for Truth and Liberty
By Me
Dr. Seuss and Liberty?
Jun 17th
There’s a remake of one of his most famous lines circulating Facebook right now…but before I post that, I’d like to mention that his book “Yurtle the Turtle” has been interpreted as an anti-statist parable, you might say. Anti-statist being anti-state. One turtle decides he must get high enough to see the whole world (or something alone those lines) and tells the other turtles it doesn’t matter how they feel about it, they must sacrifice themselves for him, so that he can see the world.
Anyways, here’s the remake: I do not like it Uncle Sam, I do not like it Sam I am. I do not like these dirty crooks, I do not like how they cook the books. I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their secret deals. I do not like this Speaker Nan, I do not like his “…YES WE CAN”. I do not like this kind of hope, I do not like it nope! nope! nope! ~~Jeanine Bodie
Who Am I? An Essay of Identity
Jun 16th
The title of this piece is taken from the Broadway Musical based on the book by Victor Hugo, “Les Miserables.” In the musical, the protagonist sings, “Who Am I?” because he is caught between two identities, one being his respected life as the mayor of a town, and the other being his former life as a convict. He struggles between being Jean Valjean and “24601”—his prison number. The prison number is an artificial identity, given to him by the state because of his alleged crime of stealing bread for his sister’s starving child. Yes, he was guilty of theft, but as all of France was starving, and it was probably caused by government interference, the 20 years hard labor punishment to Jean Valjean seems cruelly inappropriate.
The inspiration for the theme of this essay, however, is from the classic holiday film, “It’s a Wonderful Life.” George Bailey, the main character, owns a loan and building business, and takes responsibility for missing funds which will bankrupt the business if they cannot find the money misplaced by his uncle. Bailey grows increasingly disturbed and worried over what would happen to the bank—and what would happen to him as the person responsible for the money. He takes out his frustration on his family, which leads him into even more anxiety and depression. At last he considers suicide as his only option for escaping the trouble that will befall his business and family. However, just before jumping into the river, Clarence—an angel sent by God to protect Bailey—jumps over the bridge instead, and Bailey instinctively jumps into the river, not to kill himself but to save Clarence. Later, after Bailey rescues Clarence, they are sitting together drying off and Clarence questions Bailey and his motivations for considering suicide. Clarence is desperate to show Bailey that his life is very important, that he has made an enormous difference in the world, and despite Bailey’s own feelings, the world is better off because of him. So Clarence decides to try a new idea, and shows Bailey what it would be like if he had never been born. Bailey and Clarence go to the local bar for a drink, only to discover that the bartender doesn’t recognize Bailey now, and eventually the two men are thrown out of the bar. By this time Bailey is confused and worried, he still doesn’t realize what Clarence has done. He rummages frantically through his pockets to show Clarence proof that he is George Bailey. But his pockets are empty.
George says, “Then if I wasn’t born, who am I?”
Clarence replies, “You’re nobody. You have no identity.”
“What do you mean, no identity? My name’s George Bailey.”
And Clarence reminds him, “There is no George Bailey. You have no papers, no cards, no driver’s license, no 4-F card, no insurance policy…They’re not there, either.”
And yet we see George Bailey—he is standing there next to Clarence, talking to Clarence, moving, acting, speaking, thinking…we know, as viewers, that Bailey does in fact exist. It is interesting how Bailey’s identity is stripped from him. Bailey does exist, but not as George Bailey, just as a nameless person.
The setting of this scene in “It’s a Wonderful Life” is the early 1940’s, the war is ending, and George’s brother Henry is coming back from Europe a hero. In the modern state, ushered in by Progressive Era ideas and President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, personal identity is granted by the state itself. Bailey has no driver’s license…a card given by the government. Currently, it is very difficult to do anything without a driver’s license. The system is so set up as to force a person to obtain a driver’s license or similar identification card if they want to do anything.
In this new era, without government approval and permission, a person does not exist. The definition of existence and of society has changed, and George Bailey was a victim of it. Society does not accept people who have no official government cards. When a child is born, their identity is inextricably linked to the Social Security number issued to them.
Bailey has “no papers, no cards, no driver’s license, no 4-F card…” and cannot prove his identity without it. We are to assume the papers and cards Clarence refers to must be some type of government identification, for what else could be used to identify George Bailey? The 4-F card is part of military classification. Bailey was unable to be drafted into military service because of his impaired hearing. The 4-F card identifies an individual as being not qualified for military service under the established physical, mental, or moral standards. All of this is given to a person by the government and without it they have no identity, as Bailey discovered.
While Bailey’s loss of identity was caused by angelic interference, I suspect that if the government took away anyone’s personal identity, it would not be quite so heavenly. Whatever the government can give, they can also take away. If the government can give identity, and “belongingness” to a person, they can also refuse or repeal it. Our identity and place in society would depend entirely on the government’s whims.
So the question comes down to, does the state give identity? If I had no government papers, no official cards, nothing—would I still be who I am? Or would I be a nameless person, excluded from society, from human interaction, if I had no government identification? Who am I? A creature of the state? Or a person given life by God?
Gitmo Detainees and Human Rights
Jun 15th
If you don’t know this about me already, you’ll know now. I have a habit of challenging everything that those around me take for granted as being right. Example, there was recently an uproar about the Gitmo prisoners being brought to Thomson IL, which I don’t think is more than 90 miles from where we live. Within only a couple days, many conservatives came out against it, including Rep. Manzullo. That’s fine, I understand the concern, especially since there is at least one, maybe more, nuclear plants in this area…it would make an ideal target for terrorists, if you’re going to go along with that story. But with the prospect of having terrorists as near neighbors, I’ve observed the common attitude towards them, and I couldn’t just agree with everyone, I had to do some research.
People around here at least, and I suspect around the country, think that the Gitmo detainees are somehow almost “sub-human.” The media certainly doesn’t do anything to correct this feeling. Have you noticed that there’s only one picture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed used in most mainstream newspapers? And it is one of him looking nearly sub-human, his hair tangled and wild, and a “brutal” scowl on his face. Now, I am sure most people don’t even think about this, they just go along with whatever is the popular thought. I am here to say, that will not do. That is not enough. Let me explain.
As I learned from listening to a lecture on the history of natural rights, there are various schools of thought when it comes to where our rights come from. This isn’t a discussion about the origins of natural law, so I’ll spare you the complications. But I tend to align myself with the school of thought that teaches that there are some basic rights that are inherent in human beings, and when you deny people these rights, you are denying their humanity. There’s debate over what these rights are, but certainly it includes the right to life and liberty.
So here’s my point, in case you were getting worried I didn’t have one.
In my opinion, to deny these prisoners the right to life and liberty without due process of law and a fair trial is to deny their humanity.
From what I’ve learned about the Constitution, I’ve realized that the Constitution doesn’t give any rights, it only protects rights that already existed. Maybe some people have some sort of racial/cultural idea about rights, that one group of people have inherent rights and others don’t. But for myself, I believe that every single person on this planet has the right to life, liberty, and property, and that only by proving their guilt in an open and fair court can their rights be taken away.
I am not challenging the guilt of these terrorists, I am only saying that they deserve a speedy and public trial, not because I have a fondness for terrorists, but because of the principle behind it. Once we start saying that some people don’t have the right to a speedy and public trial, we’re on a dangerous road. Don’t forget that only last spring most of these readers were labelled ”right-wing terrorists” in a MIAC report. So if the “regular” terrorists don’t have a right to a speedy and public trial, it is only a short step to denying right-wing terrorists their basic rights, and pretty soon all American citizens are being tried in kangaroo courts, which reminds me of what happened in Europe during, oh, maybe around the 1930’s through the 1960’s…but I won’t name any names here.
So, there’s my take on it. I still don’t like the idea of the terrorists coming to reside in Thomson, but I don’t think we should send them to any penetentiary to sit for years on end, occasionally waterboarded and interrogated. They should all go to court. If they’re guilty like everyone thinks, there should be enough evidence to prove it. If they’re not guilty, then shame on us for wanting to keep them detained for who know’s how long, just because we can.
You know our government well enough–give an inch and they take a mile. So we give them the inch and let them detain and torture these terrorists indefinitely, and then it might happen to us.
