Danielle Levy

It’s hard not to bear in mind that hundreds, probably more, were jailed in Teheran merely for protesting. In Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi is still jailed. In North Korea, two American journalists were tried and convicted for trying to obtain information about the reclusive country. The list of people in prison, house arrest or whatever detention who are tortured, harassed and or condemned for their political views, for what ought to be their right to exercise free speech, is very long indeed.
And then there are the excesses we engage in in the U.S. CNN has become too gossipy, Fox News too one sided, MSNBC is cultivating a liberal audience and talk radio is not only proliferating, it is also reaching for the sensational, the emotional, the superficial, the knee jerkings and all the opinionated rants time allows. Like many, I’ve decried them all. Suddenly after Iran, China et al, I remember anew that excesses are preferable to repression. If that’s the price of free speech, let’s all gladly pay it—but let’s all still work for a better way too.

The economic crisis is affecting prisons and as a result several are cutting back, including on the number of meals served inmates, from 3 to 2 several days a week, which among other unpleasant things means time lags between meals long enough to invite hunger. And this despite the fact that studies show a correlation between substandard prison food and violence and discipline problems. There’s been no outcry, some feel it’s only fair, most don’t even know it’s going on and were they, it is doubtful would be riled up. Regardless of outcry or of how many know, the very premise of not giving prisoners the basic human right of enough food to stave off hunger is morally wrong. Animals have the SPCA and PETA to protect their rights. When it comes to inmates we tend to wonder whether they ought to have any rights at all, suspecting it is their fault if they are in prison. They are criminals who deserve to be punished. Even assuming such a point of view would have validity, would such line of thought absolve us of our own moral responsibility as part of a society which engages in such practice? As moral beings we need to ask ourselves under what circumstances could our silence itself be considered morally offensive? Similarly, under what circumstances could our ignorance of prison conditions and reluctance to treat prisoners like full human beings make us accomplices in the morally objectionable way they are treated? The point is not to be a bleeding heart, but to understand that being a criminal does not make one less human, just one more overtly so.

Affairs are wrong; and so is the policy of health insurance companies of cutting off medical coverage; but all wrongs are not equal—Rescission is the practice by health insurance companies to cancel—rescind—a policy for certain illnesses. It is legal and the three largest companies have told federal policymakers they have no intention of changing it. What it means is that if a policy holder ends up with a catastrophic illness, or if he or she ends up costing the company what they believe is too much money, they will end up without medical coverage. Since these are usually dire cases, it also means that the lives of those with canceled policies are likely to be in danger. It may even be obvious to say that such putting lives in jeopardy may be legal but it is clearly wrong.
Mark Sanford, the SC governor, has now joined the list of the many officials forced to admit to having had an affair. Some are calling for his resignation; as happened with former Pres. Clinton, some are looking into how this affair could have criminal aspects; many defend their scrutiny of the matter based on the notion that it goes to what is called character. Whenever the discovery of such affairs occurs, the cries of how wrong it is are very loud, by those who had affairs themselves (as Mark Sanford did himself during the Clinton incident) and those who presumably didn’t or believe they wouldn’t.
There isn’t a culture in the world that sanctions affairs. It’s only a matter of how much it is frowned upon or declared wrong. In our culture it is clearly wrong. Because it is, it makes one wonder if we are so blinded by that wrong we forget to put it in context of other human weaknesses that have larger impact, perhaps revenge, or of other wrongs—such as the policy of rescission which tends to be life threatening.