Skip to main content

A BAD TWO WEEKS FOR THE USA by Bill Lee

By any standards we’d have to say that last couple of weeks constitute a “sabbattis horribilis”, a hell of a nightmare for democracy and decency in the USA. In week one the myopic “originalist” right-wing “elders” of the Supreme Court struck down the right of women, to access abortion, by a six to three margin1. This, though a reported 72% of US voters support the 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade (Saunders, 2022). Interestingly and distressingly, there is evidence that one of the robed “wise persons” (one of them is a woman), the dreadful Clarence Thomas, has in his gun-sights the right to same sex marriage as well as the right to freely use contraception. It is as yet unclear to what degree the other five ideologically blind denizens of the right-wing majority are of the same opinion.


Then on Friday of the same week, the court made another six to three decision that will make it more difficult for the states to regulate which individuals may possess lethal ordinance, i.e., guns. They believe that anyone who wants a gun or two or three or more, for whatever reason, need not justify their desire to state authorities. For them, it is a matter of individual choice, like the right to free speech or to vote2. This again, though a reported 70% of the US citizenry believe, “that restricting gun ownership should take precedence over gun rights” (Saunders, 2022: O11).

Finally, on Thursday of last week the same six occupiers of the highest court in the USA, in their wisdom, limited the authority of the main anti-air pollution law that, up till now, has been used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, saying “the Clean Air Act does not give the EPS (Environmental Protection Agency) authority to regulate emissions of plants that increase global warming” (PBS NEWS HOUR, 2022).

This raises any number of questions about a range of topics, about the rights of women, how unsafe society is, how safe the world is and about democracy in the USA itself. However, I have a particular question that I’m wondering about, the linkages, if any, that exist between these three minority population groups that have been pushing for the kinds of legal/constitutional decisions that were handed down by the US Supreme Court in the last two weeks? These men and one woman get their energy from somewhere. The lobbying industry draws money from specific groups to get the financing to influence the conservative legislatures who challenge the laws that the Supreme Court strikes down. Do we know if anyone, academic or a member of the press, has ever undertaken a study on the existence, and extent, of any overlap among the degenerate and clearly anti-female gangs who are intent on destroying the rights of women to control their bodies, the caterwauling second amendment rabble who desire that any and all individuals shall have the right to walk around as heavily armed as they please and the blind and ignorant gangs which have no interest in the health of the planet or the well being of future generations? It is not simply a matter of idle curiosity. The more we know about the actual demographics of these populations, sex, class, geography, age (an interesting one) etc. of these arrogant and duplicitous mobs would make it easier to develop ways to counter their foul and destructive messages. One thing we do know is that each troop of adherents wraps itself in the US flag, a claim they care for working class people and jobs (that will be among the hardest hit when climate change disasters start to kick in) and/or loose bible pages3, particularly Old Testament pages, to try to justify their claim that their only desire is to protect “life” and children, particularly those who are many months from being born. Meanwhile the vile triumvirate of misery press mightily, and apparently successfully, for a legal system that will guarantee that children will face an ever more dangerous path and that life will generally be more nasty, brutish, and short in the USA.

Resources
Coren, M. (2022). “Does Christianity Condemn Abortion? That’s not what the Bible says.” The Globe and Mail, July 2. P. O-11.
PBS NEWS HOUR, (2022). “What the Supreme Court’s EPA ruling means for the climate change fight”. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-the-supreme-courts-epa-ruling-means-for-the-climate-change-fight. June 30.
Saunders, D. (2022). Americans are more tolerant than ever. Too bad about their institutions. The Globe and Mail, July 2. P. O-11.

___________________________________________________________

1 I understand, and have considerable sympathy for, the position that holds that a fetus is a human life, if held sincerely. Life is a wonderful gift and should be held sacred. I have grave concerns however that for many of the campaigners, it is not an honestly held belief. If it was, surely the people who hold it would be, by definition, against war, capital punishment and equally for, well-funded programs for maternal heath, strong gun regulation laws, universal day care, comprehensive sex education and programs that ensure the health and safety of all children. One cannot credibly claim to be pro-life unless s/he is serious about, and supports, all these positions with the same passion and vigour. I think the slogan of the Indigenous campaign to identify all the grave sites that contain residential institution victims, here in Canada, should hold true everywhere, Every Child Matters.

2 To be fair there is some question of whether the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, like most of the Republican Party, are particularly concerned about how strong the right to vote actually is, or should be.

3 Religious commentator and Anglican priest, Michael Coren (2022: O11) makes the case that the Bible “simply doesn’t provide any absolutes on abortion”. He then goes on to debunk the particular examples that are typically used, as taken out of Biblical context and used in a manner that is intentionally or deliberately misleading

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ANY LEFT LEFT? OR WHY I AM DISAPPOINTED IN THE NDP

 By Bil Lee Prior to announcing that they would not support the Liberal budget (thus triggering an election over what was really a pretty left friendly Liberal program) the NDP in Ontario has been wasting a great deal of breath on hammering the Liberals over the "gas plant" scandal. Of course the Libs have been their old tricky and disingenuous selves in many ways and did waste a pile of money (and try to cover up how much) attempting to score some bi-election wins by cancelling the damn things. But the fact is the PC's and the NDP had both made a promise to cancel them if they got into power, so the money ws going to be wasted in any event. So it was all game playing, and pretty boring game playing actually. I am not against a solid critique of the Libs (except I continue to disagree on the utility of playing at the gas thing). My concern with role back of corporate tax breaks that Horvath has muted about as an election promise is that though I clearly support the ide...

RITUALS KEEP CHANGING by Tony Boonstra

It is interesting that since time immemorial people have developed rituals. Sometimes we forget the initial meaning of the ritual. Take Christmas. It was originally “the Mass being celebrated at the time of Christ's birth”. That is literally what the word means. What I found helpful is an idea I came across in my studies at McGill University years ago. One professor shared with us the difference between a sign and a symbol. A sign is literally what it says. So, when one comes to a stop sign there is only one meaning. Stop. No rolling stops allowed. The meaning of a symbol on the other hand, is the meaning that a community embraces. This can change over time as the community's values and belief systems undergo changes. In the Netherlands they celebrate Sinter Klaas-Santa Claus, on December 5. The celebration takes on much of the meaning of what Christmas is in Canada. There is goodwill, exchanges of gifts, celebrations, etc. Then Christmas is a quiet day for reflection and for C...

Lifeboats for the rich will sink us all – Income Inequality and Climate Change

 By: Mike Balkwill Climate change are words that form a constant hum in the background of my thoughts. It is an anxious hum and is the result of a lot of gathering a lot of information about climate change, its causes, its current and anticipated impacts on the ecosystem and therefore on human society. The hum goes like this – “Everything is going to change, everything has to change. Will the people I love survive?” In order for humanity, (and many other species) to survive the effects of the changing climate people who live in societies with capitalist economies are going to have to change everything about how we live.  One source I have read says that in the industrialized economies that means reducing everything we do that uses fossil fuels by 90%. This means anything that we do ten times in a day, or ten times in a week, or ten times in a month that requires fossil fuels we would now be able to do only once a day, one time in a week, or just once in a month. If I...