Author: Danielle Levy

Why not take a higher road and apply forgiveness to politics, specifically to George Bush–Several on Capitol Hill want to investigate the Bush Presidency. Senator Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee, calls it a truth and reconciliation commission but then explains it in a way that makes one wonder if prosecution is a possibility. He and others say we must know the truth. Indeed so. But hasn’t there been several books, commissions, articles and programs documenting the misuse of power, the excesses, the errors of the past administration? Is another likely to uncover anything of significance? Absent any proof there was some malfeasance or some intent to harm instead of the erroneous mindsets, stubbornness, bad judgments, wrong deductions and mistaken ideas that seem to have prevailed, it’s difficult to see how the nation can benefit. A few egos would be stroked, a few politicos would gloat, others would say I told you so. Still would the nation move forward? There is the argument that what happened need to be prevented from happening again. An investigation, no matter its label, may not be the way, legislation may be more fitting. Besides, at a time when resources are scare, the idea of an investigation does seem misplaced.
Taking a higher road may be more constructive, applying forgiveness to politics may be more useful in the end than any kind of investigation. Mistakes were made. Directly or not, we all paid and are paying for them. Regardless, let us now forgive. Let us not forget lest the offense be repeated, but let us forgive. Let us open our hearts, understand that making mistakes is a common denominator, that forgiveness heals far more than an investigation–one which whether or not it starts out with good motives is very likely to be politicized and hence become divisive.

Sometimes progress may be more than slow and hard to notice, but it’s there—Last Monday a Chinese delegation led by Ambassador Li Baodong appeared before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. It was a first. It told the council that people in China could voice their opinions and that the government opposes torture. In a statement before the proceedings the Chinese emphasized that human rights are related to economic growth and went on to say that the standard of living has improved, so have the judicial system and political participation. Many argue with the delegation’s presentation to the council and point to many facts painting a dismal picture of human rights in China. And yet the very fact they would agree to make this historic appearance before the UN body and answer their questions is, at the very least, worth notice. Progress is slow, comes by the millimeter, and is not always in a straight line. What matters is that it comes. One must say the Chinese delegation sent to Geneva is a good sign.
Later that week the Chinese government barred foreigners from traveling to regions with large Tibetan populations, given the approaching 50th anniversary of Tibet’s failed rebellion. There will surely be other news items somehow restricting people’s freedom. And yet none will undo the tiny progress represented by the agreement to answer the questions of the UN Human Rights Council.

–better pay a price for freedom than have it curtailed—-It looks like Nadya Suleman, the mother of the octuplets, could have only made her choice in a free society. To the mind of most she chose wrongly. She’s using food stamps, three of her children have disabilities and collect some social security disability payments, and given the prognosis for octuplets in general, possibly more. As a person it may well be that she’s selfish, stubborn, short-sighted, obsessed and unrealistic (if so she’s far from alone) and all this adds up to the fact that since public monies are bound to be involved we are all affected. One can make a case for the fact that she is no different than the Wall Street companies and bankers who after a series of bad judgments required public money not to fail. It does look like nothing but a variation of the same theme. Regardless, I’d rather live in a society where freedom leads to mistakes we all pay for, rather than in one where it may be so curtailed our choices are no longer ours and we no longer have the freedom to make any.

We can’t de-humanize inmates without de-humanizing ourselves–A while back the state of California’s health care for prisoners was so lacking and so deficient, it was turned over to a receiver. The receiver then went to court to ask for $8bil to fix the problem. But California is in a financial hole, even more so than most other states, so now various officials, some with political ambitions, are criticizing the plans of the receiver. The latest attack is a recreation room with space for such things as yoga and art therapy. Calling it spa like, holistic, a gold plated Utopian hospital plan among other descriptions, the governor, along with several other state officials, is strongly objecting. While their objections have to do with the cost, they also have to do with providing criminals with amenities that are much too homelike. The receiver explains it this way, “I’d rather have inmates sitting in a small, relatively empty room practicing yoga than engaging in race riots or gang violence. I’m not exaggerating when I say that’s what can happen when you have overcrowded conditions and don’t provide medical care.” Regardless of consequences, the resistance to providing inmates with amenities continues and some threaten going to court to stop it.
It’s easy to treat inmates as sub-human, and it’s just as easy to forget that when we do, we de-humanize ourselves as well–because the measure of our humanity lies in how we treat each other.