This is probably the most opinionated thing I’ve ever said in public. Not sure I should say it, but I guess everybody bubbles over a little. I don’t know why the Trump/Pence football PR stunt seems like the last straw for me. Maybe it’s just because they go from the still more respectable “clueless and not very nice” people, to two people who are legitimately and with forethought kicking their voters in their head. It’s just despicable. Forget about the wasting of taxpayer money for this stunt, but the very fact that they are intentionally trying to divide people as a form of theater…bad theater, is truly embarrassing. It’s like they know the harder they kick their voters in the head the more their base holds on. Because if they give up on him now they would have to admit that they’ve been kicked in the head all this time. And the thing is it, I get it. We’ve all had it happen before. We’ve all got sucked in more than we should and the embarrassment is too much to bear. But the embarrassment always gets you in the end anyway, and you always suffer more than you should by sticking with something that you thought understood well, but isn’t really what you thought it was. I know it sounds like I’m blaming those who voted for Trump, but I’m not. Also, I might be just as stubborn had I been duped so badly.
It takes a corrupt system to begin with to get this Trump/Pence winning combination as leaders. It’s been built over years from politicians from both sides of the aisle. We all get that many of you who voted for Trump were reaching for somebody who you thought was an outsider, who could challenge the status quo. What ended up winning was much different. What ended up winning was the very set of values that corrupts those with power. Trump didn’t come to end dysfunction, he IS dysfunction. The only sense I can make out of any of it is that the rich white in America were bored and just wanted to see people fight.
But maybe my cynicism is wrong and in some grand design these soulless people will have us all joining the protesting NFL players and getting down on one knee, and a new golden age for this country will dawn. My fear, however, is that if we keep accepting unintelligent and compassionless leadership, eventually somebody whose more competently ruthless will come along and the only knee we’ll get down on is one of servitude and the great American experiment will be over. They want you to believe that freedom is bullying people into obedience. This paradox has to become clear to everybody. You can just as easily be a slave to the state as you can be a slave of it. There are no real winners here. I promise there will be no “I told you so’s”. There is no joy in it knowing every minute this level of dysfunction remains in office we are one step closer to a lot more suffering and that’s just not a place worth going to if we can avoid it.
I have wanted to do a blog post on Sam Harris for some time. I’ve had trouble sort of knowing where to begin. My first introduction to his work was his short book, or perhaps long essay, on free will. I found him to be an excellent thinker. Then I noticed that he was being attacked a lot by the left and I wanted to learn why. Like many great thinkers, they can seem unfeeling, and I do think there have been many instances where atheists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have been taking completely out of context. For them ideas are not something that can be handled in a sound bite. They like to break down arguments into their components and take a line of reasoning in a particular direction and test it out. And I can see why people find distaste for Dawkins at times, and after reading a lot of Sam Harris I can see why there is distaste for him as well. But I would say if you don’t like Sam Harris it’s because you haven’t really read what he has to say and have been going by what critics say about him, or you find what he has to say uncomfortable. He is critical of the left, even though he himself is clearly a liberal. Like me, he is against bad ideas. And he is very good at reasoning what is a good idea and a bad idea. In this era of identity politics it seems like there should only be us and them and Sam Harris is trying to find common ground. Trying to promote reasoned discourse. I connect with him for this reason, and I connect with him because he is scientifically minded, and I find him to be brilliant. That doesn’t mean that I always agree with him. I’ve come to a place in my life where I feel sure enough of my intelligence that I can even disagree with someone I find profoundly brilliant. I’ll tell you this much though, if you are a liberal, you do yourself a disservice if you’ve written him off. Whether you end up agreeing or disagreeing, if you want to be liberal and progressive, truly try to take in what he is saying and follow his logic, it will at the very least lead to some quality introspection. Proving him wrong through reasoned arguments will make you richer than dismissing him on an emotional level.
The main reason for this post is that I was listening to his podcast called Waking Up With Sam Harris, and there was a segment that was so wonderfully said that I had to transcribe it and share it. I know myself, my wife, and many that I know have been feeling this sense of complete disbelief at Trump’s win. Not that Republican’s won, but Trump in particular. It’s so obvious to many of us what a complete liar and con man he is, and he’s not even a good one. It makes 100% sense why many people would vote for almost any other Republican candidate, but in many ways Trump still remains a mystery to many. We can read story after story about why Trump won, but in the end, there is still this sense that many other politicians could have also had this appeal. Anyway, Sam Harris here simply breaks it down perfectly and provided structure to my disbelief in all this, and why I find Trump as such a dangerous person to be president of this country and why I worry about our future and wonder if we, as a nation, can head in the right direction once again. So without more of my rambling I wanted to share these words with you from episode #64: Ask Me Anything 6.
“There is a difference between truth and lies. There is a difference between real news and fake news. There is a difference between actual conspiracies and imagined ones. And we cannot afford to have 100’s of millions of people, in our own society, on the wrong side of those epistemological chasms. And we certainly can’t afford to have members of our own government on the wrong side of it. As I’ve said many times before, all we have is conversation…you have conversation and violence. That’s how we can influence one another. When things really matter and words are insufficient, people show up with guns.That’s the way things are. So we have to create the conditions where conversations work. And now we’re living in an environment where words have become totally ineffectual. This is what has been so harmful about Trump’s candidacy and his first few weeks as president. The degree to which the man lies, and the degree to which his supporters do not care, that is one of the most dangerous things to happen in my lifetime, politically. There simply has to be a consequence for lying on this level. And the retort from a Trump fan is “Well all politicians lie.” No. All politicians don’t lie like this. What we are witnessing with Trump and the people around him is something quite new. Even if I grant that all politicians lie a lot. I don’t know if I should grant that. All politicians lie sometimes, say…but…even in their lying they have to endorse the norm of truth telling. That’s what it means to lie successfully in politics (in a former age of the Earth). You can’t obviously be lying. You can’t be repudiating the very norm of honest communication. But what Trump has done, and the people around him get caught in the same vortex, it’s almost like a giddy nihilism in politics, you just say whatever you want. And it doesn’t matter if it’s true. “Just try to stop me”, is the attitude. It’s unbelievable.
Finding ways to span this chasm between people, finding ways where we can reliably influence one another, through conversation, based on shared norms of argumentation and self-criticism, that is the operating systems we need. That is the only thing that stands between us and chaos. And there are the people who are trying to build that, and there are the people who are trying to take it down. Now one of those people is people is president. And I really don’t think this is too strong. Trump is, by all appearances, consciously destroying the fabric of civil conversation, and his supporters really don’t seem to care. I’m sure those of you support him will think I’m just winging now in the spirit of partisanship. That I’m a democrat, or that I’m a liberal, but that’s just not the case. Most normal Republican candidates, who I might dislike for a variety of reasons like Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush, or even a quasi-theocrat like Ted Cruz, would still function within the normal channels of attempting a fact based conversation about the world. Their lies would be normal lies, and when caught there would be a penalty to pay. They would lose face. Trump has no face to lose. This is an epistemological pot latch.” (Sam Harris then describes what a pot latch is: a Native American practice of burning up your prized possessions as a way of showing how wealthy you are). “This is a pot latch of civil discourse. Every time Trump speaks he’s saying, “I don’t have to make sense. I’m too powerful to even have to make sense.” That is his message. And half the country, or nearly half, seems to love it. So when he’s caught in a lie, he has no face to lose. Trump is chaos. And one of the measures of how bad he seems to me is that I don’t even care about the theocrats he has brought to power with him, and there are many of them. He has brought in Christian fundamentalists to a degree that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, and 10 years ago I was spending a lot of time worrying about the rise of the Christian right in this country. Well it has risen under Trump, but honestly it seems like the least of our problems at this moment. And it’s amazing for me to say that given what it means and what it might mean to have people like Pence and Jeff Sessions and the other Christian fundamentalists in his orbit, empowered in this way. ”
I don’t plan on making this a long one, but there are some times when you see something where all you can think is Yes. Yes. Yes, yes, and yes. Yes. Yes. That’s the problem. That is THEEEEE problem. Yes. We have lots of other problems, but we can’t start to solve those problems until we address this one. It is not uniquely U.S., but we certainly have a lot of it here. And it is not uniquely Republican, but they have made it a central theme to their party platform. If you haven’t watched John Oliver’s piece from “This Week Tonight” on the RNC national convention you should. For those with less time, I encourage you to start at about 3:39. And for those with even less time I encourage you to watch when they start talking to Newt Gingrich. I love that old Newt entirely gave the game away. I am don’t like the fact that there are far too many in this nature who don’t see that. For those with even less time I will give you the quotes of the night:
Newt: “The average American, I will bet you this morning does not think crime is down, does not think they are safer…”
Anchor: “But it is…we are safer…and it is down.”
Newt: “No that’s your view”.
Anchor: “Those are facts”
Newt: in articulate mumbling and then “…but what I said is also a fact”
John Oliver “NO IT ISN”T! No it isn’t! It’s only a fact, that that’s a feeling people have”
After John Oliver makes some great points they go back to Newt.
Newt: “The current view is that liberals have a whole set of statistics that theoretically may be right, but it’s not where human beings are.”
The reporter argues that his accusation of liberals using these numbers is partisan, but she explains that the numbers come from the FBI, and that’s not a partisan source.
Newt: “But what I said is equally true, people feel more threatened…”
Anchor: “Yes they FEEL it…but the facts don’t support it”
Newt: “As a political candidate, I’ll go with how people feel and I’ll let you go with the theoreticians”.
The fact that a major politician feels his feelings = facts is a problem.
The fact that politicians feel that their role is to appeal to feelings and not facts is a problem.
The fact that politicians intensify and exploit those feelings and manipulate us because of them is a problem.
And while this CNN anchor (sorry I don’t my anchors that well as I avoid the major news channels like the plague) is doing a tremendous job pointing out the flaws in Newt’s arguments, the media frequently also appeals to our feelings and not facts as well. This is also a problem.
Imagine politicians and media if you presented us with actual information, and actual facts, and we determined our own feelings. But then we’d be more powerful and government would actually have to answer to the people. And the poor media would be relegated to actually watching over both us, making sure we remained informed and making sure the people making the decisions remained honest.
Drug users and petty thieves fill our jails, but this crime against humanity continues unabated.
First, I hope you don’t mind me calling you Bernie. You have from the start of your campaign felt like one of us. Something no other candidate has been able to pull off. So many presidential candidates seem so out of touch with the large majority of the population, and so the first thing I want to thank you for is being is so accessible to so many of us. Hell, you even flew coach. At the age of 42 I find that exhausting and I’m not doing the intense amount of traveling and campaigning that you were. This is just one of the many things I have to thank you for in this letter.
I want to thank you for running a brilliant campaign. You used social media in a way that no other candidate has done before. To communicate with young people and get them excited about politics (as they should be) is important. I also know it was a way to get attention that the corporate media wasn’t going to give you. I imagine the excitement you could have generated in this nation if you had been given similar exposure as your democratic running mate and the progress that could have been made if you were elected. You certainly deserved it and exposed the fact that the media isn’t trying to respond to the will of the people, but trying to bend the will of the people towards their narrative.
I want to thank you for running a clean campaign. You made it clear right from the beginning that you had a message and that you wanted to talk about the issues. You didn’t attack your opponents with meaningless minutia, but gave fair and substantive criticism of their political positions, policies and plans. It’s easy to get disappointed by the election process when it seems like slinging mud at each other is something that has to be done if you want to get elected. When it seems like pandering has to be part of the process. You generated so much support by being an honest politician and simply talking about the problems that you would have to face for the job you hoped to be elected for. I hope that you will be an inspiration for politicians in the future, because we quite simply need more who run their campaign the way you have.
I want to thank you for not using a SuperPAC. The marriage between big business and government has to end and you lived that message during your campaign. You depended on support from the people, the unions fighting for the people, and you did amazingly well. The fact that you gained so much support and won so many hearts without playing by the rules that so many politicians today feel they have to play by gives me some hope for the future of this nation. You are the only candidate who took the term “public servant” to heart, instead of being the “corporate pawn.”
By not being bought, I want to thank you for always having the courage of your convictions. You have a long history of political consistency. This is rare in of itself, and I am sure you had many advisers suggesting that you waver from that in order to get elected. Even close friends might have suggested that, just knowing the good you could do if elected, but you took the high road and trusted that if being true to yourself got you this far, it might even get you to the highest office of the nation. Whether we like or dislike a candidate we deserve a group of people to vote for who are exactly who they appear to be. Gandhi famously said “Be the change you want to see in the world.” You seem to have always lived by that creed. I am so grateful for that, because I simply thought that candidates like you didn’t exist anymore.
Finally, I want to thank you for changing the conversation. You were substantive and intelligent when talking about the issues. It may be that there are different or even better solutions to our problems but you never backed down from an honest conversation about them. You changed the conversation from one that was divisive to one that was inclusive. You talked in red states. You talked at Liberty University. You avoided talking about religion, which has no business being in our political system, but more importantly, because you knew that regardless of one’s individual beliefs we must focus on our common aims than our differences. We must realize that there is more that binds us than separates us. You showed political courage even when you didn’t have to for the simple reason that you wanted to suture the tear that seems to be worsening and threatens to move the people of this nation further apart. You genuinely want to help all citizens of this country, you care about the oppressed, the marginalized, and the unlucky. You demonstrated so much compassion and integrity. We sink or swim together and you seem to be the only one who really gets that.
My heart is broken that you didn’t win. However, my heart is lightened by what you accomplished in this primary. When a virtuous and honest man comes to the fore it forces a lot of people to ask questions about their own character and so I hope that even if you can’t be president, the greater thing you accomplished was that you created a better political climate going forward. We need that combination of empathy and courage from the men and woman who want to be political leaders in our country going forward. Thank you for being an example for those who follow you.
I know this post will be very unpopular with some people I know, but I write it not as someone who means to offend, but simply as someone who wrestles with ethical principles all the time and this is a subject I’ve though a lot about. I guess I was inspired to share my feelings about this after reading an article that talked about the dangers of automatically associating heroism with anybody who is in the military. I’ve written about heroes before and how there are a lot of people in this world worthy of being called a hero, but most people don’t know about. In this country it seems that if you’ve joined the military and are deployed you are a hero; plain and simple. In fact usually when someone joins the service they are automatically seen as honorable and brave. Adopting any attitude that is in opposition to glorifying the soldier is seen as treasonous by many. The only narrative we are allowed to accept is one that paints the recruit as someone who nobly has joined to serve their country and defend American freedom (this turns out to not be the reason, most people join the military). To think otherwise, it means you don’t appreciate the fact that soldiers died for your freedom. You are ungrateful and you don’t understand the cost of being free. I’ve always taken offense to this generalization, and it seems to me that many people who say things like this experience nationalism in the same way that the devout experience religion.
It’s not that I don’t think it takes a lot of guts to join the military, knowing that one day you may be placed in a situation in which people are trying to kill you. In the middle of combat it is either kill or be killed and to come out of such a situation alive requires
some pretty good team skills and awareness in an extremely stressful situation. There is certainly something to applaud and be amazed by such people. Many of us perhaps would not be able to face such an extreme situation. The question is, does that quality mean that this is their only defining quality of character? And do we not have the right to complain about the context in which these soldiers are placed to take part in this very dangerous combat? People often criticize us peace-lovers if we don’t support the war, and say we are not supporting the troops. But I can think of no better way of supporting the troops than wanting them home and safe and not fighting in a conflict for which we have no business being part of. If your child wants to do something that could get them killed, for which you don’t think there is any valid reason for them to be doing, if you don’t want them to do that are you being unsupportive? Perhaps you just value their life more. And when you don’t support a war, many consider you unpatriotic. Most of those people have no problem criticizing Obama and his policies, so why is it unpatriotic to criticize a decision to go to war?
Often, of course, these things come down to your point of view. If the act of joining the military and the willingness to put yourself in harm’s way automatically makes you a hero, and a brave and honorable person, then every member of the military anywhere must also have such qualities. It may even include rebel forces, or terrorists. Such people believe in their cause just as much as anybody in the military. In some way this would make war even more horrible if the most brave and honorable of men and women are always being killed, it seems to me a terrible way to solve a problem. The
problem is that we tend not to see just any soldier is honorable, but only the ones that fight for us, our allies, or causes that we agree with. To say that a Nazi soldier was as honorable as any allied soldier would not go over well. And of course in order to justify killing the “enemy” we must dehumanize and make them less than they are. When they kill civilians they are the scum of the earth, and when we do it, it’s an accident in the course of an honorable fight. Was every Nazi a Jew-hating genocidal maniac? That seems unlikely. Many were perhaps simply fighting because they had been recruited, because they wanted to provide for their family, because the country was destitute at the time and thought the fight was a cause that could improve the German standard of living. There are likely many other reasons, but how easy would it be to kill someone if he was no different than you, but just happened to live in a different country?
In Henry V, one of the well-known scenes from the play involves King Henry disguising himself as a common soldier and walking through his troops on the eve of a big battle. His troops are tired, sick and will be outnumbered the following day. At one point the King questions one of his men about whether or not they should trust the king, that
what if his reasons for this fight are unjust and is just leading them all to slaughter. A soldier gets angry at this and says that he fights for King and country and that if the King’s reasons be unjust that that is a crime he will have to answer for when he dies and that it is something for the King’s conscious to deal with, and not the soldiers. This seems to be the ultra-nationalistic mentality that many in this country subscribe to. If there is an afterlife then perhaps this is true, but even if there is some supernatural judge up their making us answer for our crimes, does that morally justify leading men to their slaughter even if their loyalty leads them to be willing to do so (although at least in King Henry’s time the King fought along side his men instead of sitting thousands of miles away)? Just because someone is willing to die for you, should they? Is it not even more morally wrong to take advantage of that loyalty for an unjust cause? It seems that context is important. When it comes to killing shouldn’t we need more than simply, “this is just what our government wants, so we have to do it”? Shouldn’t we make absolutely sure that our cause is just? Shouldn’t we also really make sure that other means of solving conflict aren’t a better option?
For the most part, honor and courage being automatically associated with the military mystifies me for a couple of reasons. First I find it very uncomfortable to surrender my choice about what causes I fight for. Would I have enlisted to fight Nazi’s in WWII. I think that’s likely especially given what they were doing in concentration camps. But would I have happily then gone to Korea 5 years later? Absolutely not. And while I realize on some level a military probably wouldn’t work if we got to pick and choose which conflicts we wanted to fight in, when it comes to pointing a gun and killing somebody else I think I should believe in that cause, not do it because someone else believes in the cause. I want to live a moral life. The Nuremberg trials even set the international legal precedent that “just following orders” cannot be used as a defense for committing atrocities and absolving guilt, but only lessening the sentence. I simply don’t want to be put in a position where I am asked to fight and kill others unless I think it is the best and only course of action. I don’t find any honor in simply killing or dying for someone else’s cause.
Secondly, many people will question your lack of courage when you say you don’t want to be a soldier, or say at least that a soldier has more courage. I’d like to say that I am not afraid of dying for a cause I believe in. Dying is a pretty easy thing to do after all. Many people have done it, and you only have to do it once. What I am afraid of is killing. My grandfather fought in WWII. He didn’t talk about it much and I admired the courage it takes to get through such a terrible conflict in which so many, including his brother, were killed. I never asked him how many people he killed though. He was a good man. It was hard to imagine him killing, and if I were to guess, I think he is the type like many who would have carried the weight of those he killed. Even in a cause he believed in. He would have wondered, “what kind of man was it that I killed? In different circumstances could we not have been friends, shared a shot of scotch whiskey and kept each other laughing all night?” I know such questions would plague me. I know the average person loves his/her family, is kind to his/her neighbors and would help those in need. And perhaps it is come to the mind of many in the military, “Perhaps that soldier’s leaders have taught him/her dehumanize me in the same way I had been taught to dehumanize them.” Maybe they have doubts. I certainly would. Like, what if my bullet misses and hits some civilian or my own comrade? What if we were told to attack the wrong target and it was a school instead of a military hideout? If I choose an action that could end my own life, that is my choice, but ending someone else’s life is another matter altogether. From a psychological point of view, one could easily argue that putting yourself into a situation in which you give up your right to choose the causes you fight for, and are willing to kill people you really don’t have a problem with, can be seen as mentally unsound as opposed to a decision filled with honor and courage.
In the end, I can’t subscribe to the idea that those who join the military are the best example of bravery and honor. There are people in the military who have done terrible things. Rape in the military is a huge issue right now. Where is the honor there? Of course we want our military to be honorable, and there are many who are. But there are also many honorable people in different facets of society. If we are going to celebrate heroism let us not only do it for the glorification of war. There are many people who have courage and face difficulties and adversity everyday. Sometimes it takes more courage to live than to die. Let us at least bestow the label of honor, courage and heroism to wherever it applies and not apply it blindly. Such things prevent us from having honest conversations about important issues concerning conflict, war and violence. I bear no ill will towards soldier, and appreciate the sacrifices that they go through. Particularly because I know many of them did not join the military because they wanted to fight in a war. And maybe I don’t understand or am a coward, but personally I’m glad that we have found better ways to deal with conflicts and that there are a smaller percentage of people dying in wars today than in our past. It gives me hope for the future.
On Dec. 17th, Ethan Couch, age 16, was sentenced to 10 years of rehabilitation after admitted to driving drunk and killing four people. The reason for his light sentence according to the judge was that the defense successfully proved that he suffered from affluenza.
If you clicked on the Wikipedia link I provided for this condition (a condition which doesn’t even pass my spell check), I think that one could conclude that if someone was suffering from this condition, this could certainly impact their decision process greatly and make them likely to be reckless and careless.
Now I am a strong supporter of psychological treatment and the impacts our parents have on our development and decision-making processes. We over-incarcerate far too much in this country and I am especially for providing our young with psychological treatment over incarceration because study after study shows how the earlier we recognize a behavior (whether due to a traumatic event or crappy parents) we can correct that behavior.
Ethan is a rich, white kid. Worst-case scenario his parents are selfish assholes who spent little time with him, who enjoyed the privilege that money has given them. They probably flouted laws themselves knowing that as an upstanding member of the community they probably wouldn’t get too many speeding tickets if pulled over, and even if they did they could pay any fine. Remembering, I’m sure, to mention to the cop that they might have a talk with some politician of theirs who is a friend and talk about possibly reducing the budget of the police force after a generous donation to that politician’s re-election campaign. When you have ridiculous sums of cash, the law is always on your side. After 16 years of seeing such behavior and without your parents giving you the time a day, I would say that your sense of right and wrong would be screwed up. Your attachment to reality would also be screwed up, because you literally don’t understand how most of the world lives when the only other people you know are also filthy rich. So I support the idea that it is at least possible that bad, extremely rich parents can screw up their kid so badly that he would do something so terrible. I mean there was no intent to kill here, but this is always the danger of drinking and driving, and punishments are often quite harsh for most people. Now most people are outraged by the judge’s verdict of affluenza, and for good reason. I am among one of those outraged, but perhaps for slightly different reasons.
The case raises numerous philosophical questions for me. At what age do we become blameless for the mistakes of our parents? Should parents ever be made responsible for crimes their children commit? How long does the psychological impacts of things that happen in our childhood last? How long can we use them as an excuse for poor decisions that we make? A child that is raised to hate African-Americans will probably hate African-Americans, but will he ever commit a hate crime? Who knows, but if he did, would it be an acceptable excuse to use the fact that your parents taught you to hate as a defense? If the kid committed the crime at 13, is that adult enough? Would we still all be as outraged at the verdict? What about traumatic events like sexual abuse or physical abuse? These things have definitely been shown to do psychological damage for possibly the rest of one’s life. It seems reasonable that if you reinforced from childhood that a certain behavior is acceptable, you will likely feel that way as an adult. The condition of affluenza, however, is perhaps not as legitimate as one thinks, at least according to one of the co-producers of the 1997 PBS documentary on the subject. As John de Graaf points out, that in a capitalistic, consumer based society such as ours, we may all suffer from this to a certain degree. Furthermore he says it is not a psychological condition, but rather a societal criticism. Affluenza is not a condition recognized by the American Psychological Association.
But let’s say that even if we accept that bad parenting seriously messed up this kid, a whole host of other questions come to mind. How often can we use psychological conditions as a defense? Are such rulings equally applied to all such cases? If there is a psychological condition that can be contracted by rich kids, what psychological condition does poverty cause and can these not be made for their defense when they commit crimes?
The same judge gave a 14 year old African-American a much harsher sentence for a much lesser crime the previous year. One only has to look at the amount of minorities and poor people in the prison system, who commited crimes that did not lead to anyone’s death, to be convinced that such defenses as affluenza or any other defense based on psychological damage in their upbringing has not been successful. The impacts of poverty on children, in fact, is a far greater reason actually for “deviant” behavior as young adults and is actually well researched within the psychological community. Ultimately this is why I am so enraged. There is probably no greater slap in the face the legal system could give to the poor than this verdict. A compassionate sentence is either deserved by all or by none. Whether you think incarceration helps society or not, there cannot be any true justice when it does not apply equally to all citizens. If prison isn’t the answer for Ethan Couch then at the very least he should be made to volunteer and live in an inner city neighborhood. If society truly believed in his correction then he won’t receive the education he sorely needs which is compassion and understanding for how the rest of society lives, especially since he hasn’t been punished in a way that the rest of society is punished for similar crimes. His parents are paying $450,000/year to go to this swanky facility in California. I shudder to think how many lives could be made better with that money instead of teaching one kid a lesson that would perhaps be better taught in other ways. There is nothing inherently more valuable about Ethan Couch than any other youth who has been sent to a juvenile detention center or jail. As income disparity mounts every branch of our government still continues to help the smallest minority ; the rich. How long can we live in this illusion that we are the best country when we incarcerate more people than those places we consider our enemy and backwards in thinking? How long can we live in the illusion of trickledown economics? How long can we live in the illusion of the American Dream that all you have to do is work hard and that dream will come true? This case is as much about racism and inequality as the George Zimmerman case and it is even more of a reason to be outraged at where our country is headed. Don’t confuse the meanings of money and value. Nobody is better person just because they have money and it’s time the government and the justice system stopped acting like this was true.