by Paul (John) Russo
The Blackout
During the final 5 months of the 2016 presidential election,
I have occasionally mentioned to family and friends that I have been trying to
live a self-imposed news blackout since June. An experiment, if you will. I
noticed back in June, that the news I received from media channels was
extremely low value, and had a negative effect on my general feeling of
goodwill. So I tried an experiment. Stop reading and watching. Cold turkey. I
will occasionally indulge in looking at the row of newspaper machines in front
of Safeway to see what the printed headlines are. After several months, I'm
happy to say, that sometimes I don't know what they are talking about. Unfortunately,
only sometimes. It is actually
impossible to blackout the news entirely since enough family and friends
comment directly to me. It is
interesting that with all the supposed new breaking news everyone is talking
about, not really much has changed since June. Their comments are usually not
unwelcome though, because I do care. Especially how issues are affecting my
friends and family personally. And then, there are a very small handful of
friends, really not that many, who seem to blast out one meme after another.
And then there is an even smaller number attempting to change the discussion
into a more thoughtful one on the issues. And lastly, a very small group that
are resorting to enigmatic statements attempting to avoid the inevitable
backlash against anything someone might say in this culture of tolerance. It is
the first group that prompted me to write these thoughts. A common thread among
them is a professed mystification at how any rational person could even consider
voting for Donald Trump. Some go even further. But if some of those friends are
interested, I'm happy to share a few thoughts on why a rational person, myself,
won't do the "obvious" and rule out Trump.
The idea to write some thoughts down began recently, when my
blackout took an uncontrolled one-hour pause. I went to visit my Grandmother.
The debates were scheduled for that night, and she had CNN on the television
for the 'pre-game discussion'. Oh my. To be honest, I really couldn't follow
what anyone was saying because of the way they were saying it. The speech
sounded to me like machine guns: dat da dat da dat da dat pop da dat pop da pop
dat da pop. The dats and pops were the various 'sides' interrupting and
stomping on the other. I could feel stress and negative emotions building, and
I didn't even know why. There was no pause whatsoever to even contemplate what
a speaker just said before the machine guns continued firing in another direction.
It had a disorienting effect on the ears like strobe lights on the eyes. There
was no information, just lots of emotion. For those of you who are true Star
Trek Original Series fans, it felt like I materialized on board the Star Ship
Enterprise during Day of the Dove.
So how can you make an informed choice mostly hiding from
the news? When I got back to my farm, where my machine gun blackout could be
effectively implemented, the emotion dissipated, and what I was left with were
the unheard issues of the day. I did not continue to watch the debate that
night, so in fairness, perhaps they did have a vigorous discussion of the
issues. Most people I spoke with after either had no opinion after watching
(said it was a draw and did not elaborate) or simply recited support for their
particular candidate. I don't have to listen to the media tell me what a jerk
one person is vs. the other, and I'm not really under any illusion that I have
any real influence on the policy of our government, but I do have to live with
the personal consequences of my own participation in society which
unfortunately includes this election. This is what weighs on me most.
That means, in the end, if I want to make a rational choice,
I have to set aside the uninformed emotion that appears to be driving
irrational behavior, and vote on the issues most important to me, then leave
it in God's hands. Wow. Is it really that simple? Rationally, there isn't
really any alternative. This was a huge relief.
There is enough said about both candidates to know that both
suffer serious character flaws. Which flaw is the greater and which lesser,
well I think different people will come to different conclusions. No matter how
you vote on this one, you're going to get a little bit dirty in the short term,
and only history will know the future.
Does any Issue Take Priority?
In my own personal experience, I have let my thoughts drift
from issue to issue attempting to understand what I believe and what I feel
most strongly about; what is of critical importance for me in the next 4 years.
Character I have briefly mentioned above. Then there is immigration, defense,
the economy, social justice, foreign policy, taxes. All of these are important
issues and I have ideas on each. Perhaps character keeps coming to the surface
in the discussions and media over these other issues because we know how
important it is to our soul. The foundation of our being. But what about the
character of our country? If we secure our defense, but become a barbarous
people, what have we achieved? If we create great wealth and prosperity but
become despicable, where have we gone? If we achieve great fame, but no longer
value Life, what have we become? It is likely no accident that the founding
fathers listed the three most basic human values in the following order: Life
-> Liberty -> Happiness. Because it is a chain. Without the former, you
cannot move to obtain the next. Each is built on the former. And the first
depends on God.
Life First
Coincidentally, Life is one of those issues that I often
find myself meditating on. It is so basic. And the extent to which our society
respects life seems so fundamental to our well-being. On the issue of life,
there is clear distinction in this election. One candidate has expressly said
he is prolife (with 2 exceptions), and the other the opposite. In fact, so
forcefully has Clinton expressed her promise to defend abortion, she has in
this election cycle gone so far to say that a child even just shortly before
natural birth are not persons with any rights whatsoever, and particularly no
right to Life. These statements are worthy of pause. I think anyone who is
honest knows that babies are viable persons well before their natural birth.
Debates often get hung-up on the "moment of conception" but even as
we disagree on a fertilized egg, most people on both sides of this issue know
in our hearts a child is a fully formed person a week before birth and likely
much earlier. Morally can I, even with my tiny influence of a vote, support
participating in the reality of a society that condones and enables the killing
of innocent people just a month or even days before their birthday?
Before I go on, I must say to any woman reading this who has
had an abortion late term or otherwise, these thoughts do not have any ill
feelings towards you. If someone has family or friends who have had abortions,
my thoughts have no ill feelings towards them either. In fact, it is actually
likely that many of my friends have had abortions even if I don't know about
it. The current statistic is 1 in 3 women. That makes it pretty likely. While
situations and choices may be personal, the point at which these decisions
actually happen are a collective societal responsibility. It is in this that I
dwell. Further, in the discussion, I do not use the word 'killing' to offend
anyone, but because I do believe it is the proper word for ending the life of an
another person for whatever reason. The definition is simply: (1) to cause the
death of a person, animal, or other living thing, (2) put an end to or cause
the failure or defeat of something. Euthanasia is killing. Capital punishment
is killing. War is killing. Whether it is justifiable killing is an entirely
different discussion and unique to each situation. I do not use the word
"murder" because the definition of that word includes
"unlawful" and therefore technically not appropriate. What concerns
me in this case is what society supports and enables, the collective will, and
therefore by definition, that would be lawful practice. So please know that I
am coming from perspective of society, not the individual situation, and I hope
you may consider this in peace.
Constitutionality of Justifiable Killing of Innocents
My thoughts return to Clinton's statements, which attempt to
defend the justifiability of lawful killing of people within 20 weeks of birth,
also known as "late-term abortion". In defense of late term abortion,
I have heard people assert many things. Some will say that these people are not
full 'persons'. They are only part 'person'. These are similar arguments used by
some to justify slavery and other forms of discrimination. Again, I'm talking
only a month or two before birth. The essence of Clinton's statements defends
the idea that these 'persons' are not entitled to any legal protection under
the law that extend to any other full 'person'. If that is true, I must
understand that they are less than a full person. I honestly do not know what
that could be. I know Clinton did not say sub-person, but if it were not what
she meant, then unborn babies would indeed be full persons which could not be
deprived of life without due process just like you and me. This has some bizarre
mind-bending implications. For example, that would mean under our constitution,
a corporation, which is considered a "full person", is *more* of a
person than a real baby just a few days before birth. Obviously that is not
true. Whether she said it or not, this is the philosophical fundamentals of
what she is saying. Who would want to live in a country founded on such a
principle? Not I. Well, before we go too far into the twilight zone, let's see
if her statement is even true from a constitutional perspective.
Can such statements be made in such a dry and categorical
manner by an objective person? Is it an indisputable fact that the constitution
excludes a baby let’s say a month before birth (although even 10 minutes would
not be inconsistent with her statements) from protection? Obviously not from a
moral or common sense perspective. But it is happening, and the law is
permitting it. But what about from a constitutional perspective? The ability to
speak so categorically about the constitution has become very complicated these
days even about simple things. For example, we're talking about a statement
made by a person, Clinton, who has expressed ideas consistent with the belief
that the statement in the second amendment, "the right to bear arms shall
not be infringed" is reasonably disputable and fluid. Let's not argue
that. Clearly though, even directly worded statements are not taken as
definitive statements by everyone. Does the constitution or law anywhere define
the magic moment of becoming a person? In fact, in the Roe vs. Wade decision,
the supreme court expressly states that the beginning of life is NOT decided by
the supreme court or indeed ANYWHERE. Referencing the decision itself: "We
need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained
in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable
to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of
man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
(U.S. Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, 1973) This just simply says in flowery
language that since we cannot currently agree if "someone" is in the
body, it is okay to proceed with a decision to destroy it. (I encourage you to
meditate on that). It most certainly does not say they are not people. In most
debates (including the reference above), the moment of conception is used as
the benchmark, which is much more difficult for many people to clearly grasp
and agree on. But most people see the situation that Clinton comments on, near
birth or what they call post viability babies, as pretty clear. This is what
makes it so striking. Yet, she defends it forcefully and publicly. Why?
Late-term Abortion is a Reality in America
Yes, why? This begs the question, why did this question come
up at all anyhow? In the entire election, this statement from a relatively unpublicized
MSNBC interview has received minimal attention relative to other statements,
and the answer is almost unbelievable. At least it was to me. The inconvenient
fact is that it was asked because late-term abortions happen legally in the US
all the time. Full pause. This is not known by most people. When told, many
reasonable people often reject this fact due to much misinformation. Even in
Clinton's own statements with MSNBC, she propagates misinformation by stating
the practice is only done only when it is life or death for the mother. In fact,
she repeated that over and over. But is this true? Well, no. Not really. The
life of the mother is legally not the only exception. The truth is that late
term abortions usually do require a 'reason'. Isn't that the same thing? Not at
all. Well then, why do we even require a reason at all? If the baby is not a
real person, why need a reason? The answer to that, it is because obviously a
baby is a person. This is confusing until you consider that life is
complicated, and sometimes there are "advantages" for some people to
destroy (kill) someone else. To clearly articulate that 8 month old unborn
babies are people would either eliminate these advantages, OR inadvertently
open the general population to such decisions. Yikes! Further, since a reason
*is* required, most reasonable people assume that the reasons permitted must be
reasonable reasons such as the example that Clinton gives: to protect the life
of the mother. This is why her statement appears so, well, reasonable. But such
extreme cases, presented as the only cases, are not true and serve to mask the
actual truth about the situation. The reality is, that if something is
permissible, but with a reason, it is extremely precarious for the government
to legally define which reasons are valid and which are not without triggering
discrimination issues. Even a definition like "medical" reasons might
include "stress". What mother isn't under stress? A sufficiently
broad definition that includes every situation, would not be any limiting
factor at all. Attempting to define whose reasons are more justifiable is
legally difficult. Therefore, the process *of* obtaining a reason is well
defined, but the criteria *for* the reason, the reason for the reason, is not.
I've got a headache just discussing it, but this is why such a shocking
situation continues to exist in relative obscurity.
A Popularized Moral Dilemma
In fact, we actually can wind up literally in "The
Twilight Zone" with this thinking. The specific episode we appear in is
"The Button Box". In this episode, a couple is placed in a situation
where they are handed a box with a big button on it. They are told if they push
it, they will materially benefit, in this case with the receipt of money.
However, the moral dilemma, somebody will die. But the palliative is that
"somebody" is "somebody they don't even know." With that
comfort, the couple does justify pushing the button and they indeed do. In the
episode, it is just TV and Justice is served when the box is passed on to
another "somebody they don't even know." This is where the analogy
breaks however with our late-term abortion example. Since people never return
to an unborn state, those that push the button are never placed in jeopardy.
The immoral but just scenario in the TV example is actually immoral and unjust
in ours. Worth considering.
Back in reality, the result is this legal situation enables
late term abortions across America. At this point I will pause because some of
you may still not believe this is actually happening. But sadly it is. At a
huge scale. CDC estimates based largely on state reporting (which is voluntary,
California does not report anything for example) and provider surveys from a
former affiliate of Planned Parenthood, estimate that about 15,000 late term
abortions are performed annually in the U.S. (Thorp, 2012; Pazole K, Zane SB,
Parker WY, Hall LR, Berg C, Cook DA., Abortion Surveillance—United States,
2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2011) Since it is obvious to any
honest person that a baby that is 8mo 29days 23hours and 50 minutes old is a
fully formed person, what is actually happening is the legal killing of innocent
people in the United States. 15,000 a year. And it is happening near you. Mind
blown.
Subterfuge Common Practice
But wait, what about the cases where the mother is actually
at risk? Do these exist? Probably, but it's harder to get to the truth than you
might think. These are extremely gruesome procedures. If you saw pictures of an
aborted 8-month old baby, it would make your stomach turn. This is why there is
a large and concerted effort to keep the truth of this reality from us, and the
gruesomeness is behind the new California law (as of 10/2/2016) prohibiting the
private and unapproved recording of health care. If you try to research this,
you get an interesting mix of articles. The articles and studies do not usually
deny the legality, that would be verifiably false, but rather try to cast doubt
on the extent to which it is "actually happening". A complex set of
possible reasons and anecdotal evidence is used to present horrific cases that
basically present us with emotionally difficult cases for euthanasia that would
wrench anybody's heart. More importantly, they generally do not try to argue
that the person is not a person, but rather focus on the merit of the benefit
in killing the baby even if it were a person, leaving that particular issue of
being a person entitled to protection obscure. This is the same strategy we see
in the actual Roe v. Wade decision. But these horrifically difficult cases do
not usually explain why, even if mandatory euthanasia (the babies don't have a
choice, so this would be an accurate description of the procedure) was
supported in certain cases, we would not just simply just delineate the
acceptable scenarios. The answer lies at least in part in the difficulty of
anti-discrimination laws described above. For example, commonly cited reason
for abortion is abnormality such as mental handicap. But if the truth were
acknowledged, it could open a Pandora's Box for mandatory euthanasia of *born*
mentally handicapped persons. Age (i.e. unborn vs. born) would no longer be a
factor. In fact, the only real difference in this example is that in one case
it is "somebody we don't even know" and in the other case, we do.
Clinton is a lawyer by training, and no matter what some people say, she is an
intelligent woman. She knows this full well when she makes the statement that
late term abortion is only used to save the mother's life. It's not true, and
the extent of this untruth is being hidden from us just like the images of what
an aborted baby looks like at 8 months. This follows the general pattern of
promoting uninformed and irrational opinion in morally or ethically
indefensible situations. Rather than facing these issues head on, instead we
are turning our heads away while a common law de-facto approach is being
imposed to justify the killing of real people unable to speak for themselves or
their own interests. This isn't happening in some third-world dictatorship, but
right here amidst our democratic society. There is nowhere to hide, we are all
participating in that society. Mind blown again.
Material Support
I know this issue is not seemingly as sensational or
outrageous as vulgar words and FBI investigations. But in the end what does
this mean with regards to personal voting decisions? For me, I know that:
I CANNOT KNOWNINGLY PROVIDE MATERIAL SUPPORT OF ANY KIND TO
ANYONE WHO I BELIEVE IS KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY KILLING OR AIDING IN
KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE.
The capital letters are to indicate this is immutably true.
I cannot knowingly "kind of" help, or "help but not approve
of" killing an innocent person. And her own statements indicate that
Clinton is defending this practice. That means she is helping through a promise
to enable. How could I vote for her? In fact, I also know:
I MUST DO WHAT I CAN TO PROTECT INNOCENT PERSONS FROM BEING
KILLED.
I am not omnipotent. In this case I only have one feeble
vote in a sea of over 100 million. But Trump says he will oppose this practice.
Even the President will not have the power to change this situation
unilaterally. But he might have the ability to ensure that any laws that do exist
to curtail abuse of this practice are strongly enforced. With this the case,
how could I NOT vote for him (unless Clinton changes her position of course)?
Conclusions on Character
I know even with all that, many cannot get past the fact
that Trump is a flawed unsavory person. I don't like it either. I am certainly
not in a position to defend his character, only his position. But it still
leaves the question: How can the degenerate character of the leader not define
the future of our country? Well, I'm sure it will. But does it always work out
in the way we expect? Let me recount an old story. There are three candidates
for president. In this story we get three. Their character is described by the
media as the following:
Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults
with astrologists. He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8
to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps
until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian,
doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.
Who is the most respectable candidate that will lead their
nation to greatness? Candidates revealed: A is FDR, B is Churchill and C is
Hitler. God uses flawed people for great things all the time.
Many things "might happen" depending on which
candidate wins the election. Respectable people may speculate and even disagree
about many complex consequences of voting for either candidate. But one thing
seems certain, in the next 4 years that this new president holds office, we
will all be participants in a society where approximately 60,000 babies within
20 weeks of their birthday will be killed. And we will all apparently suffer NO
consequence in this world, save what our conscience imposes. Is that moral? Is
that Just? We might just be in one of those strange temporal vortices where the
misogynist defends the life of the innocent and the woman defends the killing
of children and the only thing we can do is vote. A signal if you will of where
we stand on the most fundamental human value: Life.
Strange times indeed. Peace.
