Overcoming Fear

Overcoming Fear

by Ted Miller

(originally published July 2017 in Tumbleweird)

We like to label things.  It’s built in to our DNA.  It’s how we name things in language.  It’s how we tell someone it’s a dog, not a cat.  A Chihuahua, not a Great Dane.  We group things together that are the same and different in order to make sense of the world.  And we are taught to do so at an early age.  On Sesame Street we learn that “one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong.” 

It’s important to be able to recognize things by their characteristics.  On a fundamental level, it’s how we have evolved to be able to recognize danger.  Our natural fear of things that can hurt us helps keep our curiosity in check with a healthy dose of respect for danger.  That’s why some people have an irrational fear of spiders or snakes even though most are beneficial and harmless to humans.

And as humans evolved in our social construct, we learned to recognize members of our own tribe and identify members of other tribes who were our enemies, our competitors for the same resources, threats to our survival.  The “others” were to be feared, to be kept away from our own kind, to be killed if they threatened us.

So, we have a natural, instinctual way of thinking about the world as “us versus them.”  The more different from us someone seems, the more difficult it is to think of them as one of us.  The more difficult it is to think of them as the same. The more difficult it is to not think of them as a threat.

Labels can be used to demonize others, to diminish them, to make a group less than human, and therefore make them not worthy of equal treatment.  That’s why we use pejoratives to label others that we don’t want in our group.  We use stereotypes to rationalize treating others differently.  In wartime, soldiers adopt racial or ethnic slurs to describe the enemy, to diminish them as something less than themselves.  If the enemy is less than human, if we don’t think of them as part of our tribe, it’s easier to kill them.  When one group of humans subjugates another, labeling that other group with pejoratives and negative stereotypes allows us to feel superior and rationalize that they deserve their lot in life.  If we associate all the negative stereotypes with a group, it’s easier to deny them their humanity.

And when our culture continues to reinforce those stereotypes, we continually reinforce our baser instinct to classify someone who is not like us as someone who doesn’t belong.  In a tense, life threatening situation, we instinctually react to someone who is different as a threat to our survival. 

And that’s why some police officers react differently to a black man solely because of the color of his skin.  In an instant of heightened anxiety, that animal instinct for survival kicks in and suddenly all the stereotypes of our culture overtake any rational thought and in an instant, a deadly, lethal mistake is made.  The reality of this has been in the news over and over again with stories of innocent black men unnecessarily killed by a police officer.  We as a society must figure out how to stop this.  We must learn how to overcome our biases and prejudices.  And we must start with those whom we trust most of all to serve and protect us. 

A friend of mine was recently pulled over for speeding. He was running late and only thinking about getting to his commitment, and in a moment of misjudgment, stepped out of his car as the policeman approached him. In spite of him holding up his hands, in spite of him calmly telling the officer he was late and admitting he had been speeding, suddenly he became a threat. A call for backup was made and seven other officers showed up. The situation escalated in an instant because my friend stepped out of his car. And, in all likelihood, because he is black.

I remember years ago getting pulled over for the same thing, and I remember getting out of my car to talk to the police officer because I thought that was a polite and less threatening approach. I didn’t think twice about it, and no backup was called. I don’t even remember if the police officer told me I shouldn’t have gotten out of the car. I never felt like I was in danger. I am white.

We have to change this.

We as humans are able to analyze and overcome our basic animalistic instincts.  We are able to use our intelligence to empathize, to recognize our common humanity, and to work hard to overcome our inherent biases and prejudices.

We can make a difference one conversation at a time, one story at a time, one friendship at a time.  Each of us has the ability to change our own perception, our own biases. Through our own actions, we can influence others to find our common humanity.

We can look for the things that unite us, that bring us together, that lift us all up as one.  And we can learn to recognize that we are all part of the same tribe.  We are all human.  We are all worthy of equal protection, equal rights, and equal treatment.  Even though we are each unique and none of us is like the other, all of us belong.

The Death Penalty – What Is It Good For

The Death Penalty – What Is It Good For

by Ted Miller

(originally published June 2017 in Tumbleweird)

On December 23, 1991, Todd Willingham ran out of his burning house frantically screaming that his three young girls were burning up. The wooden house was quickly engulfed in flame and all three girls died from the fire. Willingham was subsequently accused of murder, convicted in the deaths of his children, and sentenced to death. He was executed in 2004, maintaining his innocence until the end. Since then, investigations have shown that witness testimony was questionable, forensic evidence was flawed, and the fire was accidental and not arson. In all likelihood, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for a crime he did not commit. How many other innocent people have been executed?

Last month, Arkansas rushed to execute death row inmates before their supply of a key lethal drug expired at the end of April. Assembly line executions to ensure justice under the law. But what kind of justice? What good does this barbaric practice of executing criminals do for our society? Does it act as a deterrent? Is it less expensive than life in prison? Is it fair? Is it just?

The United States is among a dwindling number of countries that have yet to abolish capital punishment. The countries with the most executions each year include China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, and the United States.

Although some argue that the death penalty is an effective deterrent against certain crimes, the evidence does not support such a conclusion. The South carries out over 80% of the executions in the United states, yet has the highest murder rate of any U.S. region. That doesn’t correlate to deterrence. Whether a murder is pre-meditated or an act of heated passion in the moment, it is ludicrous to think the murderer spends any time at all considering whether they will face execution as a consequence of carrying out their crime. In fact, a 2009 article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found that 88% of expert criminologists believe there is no empirical evidence that executions reduce crime. And as Jimmy Carter reminded us in his April 2012 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article, “the homicide rate is at least five times greater in the United States than in any Western European country, all without the death penalty.” The death penalty as a deterrent is myth.

The monetary costs associated with capital punishment are significantly more than those for similar cases where the death penalty is not sought. A January 2015 study published by Seattle University showed that for the 147 aggravated first-degree murder cases in Washington State since 1997, the average costs when the death penalty was sought were over one million dollars more expensive for each case than for similar non-death penalty cases. This was true even when including the cost of life imprisonment. When Governor Jay Inslee declared a moratorium on executions, he stated “the costs associated with prosecuting a capital case far outweigh the price of locking someone up for life without the possibility of parole.” States which still impose capital punishment spend tens of millions of dollars each year on death penalty cases with no corresponding reduction in crime for that cost.

Moreover, the death penalty is not applied fairly. Since 1973, more than 155 people were released from death row for any number of reasons:  faulty evidence, problems with the conduct of the trial, prosecutorial misconduct, defense ineptness, witness reliability, or other factors. In most of these cases, the individuals were innocent. Indeed, as in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, there are many cases where innocent men have been put to death with evidence later indicating it was not possible for them to have committed the crime for which they were sentenced to die.

One-hundred-fifty-five people wrongly convicted and sent to death row. Is it acceptable to sometimes execute innocent people? Is that really an acceptable cost to society? I’ve always agreed with Sir William Blackstone’s 18^th-century principle that it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one innocent suffer. That is the way of a just and fair society – protect the innocent. And with the death penalty, an innocent person executed by mistake is an atrocious action by the State that cannot be undone.

Statistics show that race is a significant factor in application of the death penalty. Black defendants are several times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants in similar cases. For crimes where the victim is of a different race, a black defendant with a white murder victim is fifteen times more likely to be executed for their crime than a white defendant with a black murder victim (deathpenaltyinfo.org). This disparity is hardly an indication of an even application of justice.

The death penalty is expensive, ineffective as a deterrent, barbaric in its application, and unfair. There is no rational or compelling reason for the government to kill someone for any crime, no matter how terrible and heinous. Vengeance or retribution is an inadequate argument and cannot undo the harm already done. Criminals should be held accountable without putting them to death. Life in prison is a harsher and more appropriate sentence than a quick and painless death.

We as a society should be beyond an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Thirty-one states, including Washington, still have capital punishment on the books. It’s time for the United States to join the rest of the modern world and abolish the death penalty.

Poverty Isn't a Choice

Poverty Isn’t a Choice

by Ted Miller

(originally published April 2017 in Tumbleweird)

We like to pretend that bad things only happen to other people and that somehow it is their fault, as if something they did or did not do made them deserve it.  Bad karma.  Because we all know that if we work hard and stay out of trouble, we can achieve the American Dream, whatever that is. 

And so we blame the poor for being poor.  They just need to make better choices, get a better job, stop being such a leech on society.  They certainly don’t need a phone, a television or a car.  They are just lazy and don’t deserve our help.  Let’s test them for drugs to make sure they are worthy of our help.  Let’s control what they can buy with their food stamps because they don’t deserve anything better than the leftover scraps from our table.  Let’s make sure they are really living in poverty before we give them any assistance.

Maybe blaming the poor for their troubles makes us feel better about cutting social safety programs, but the reality is much different.  Seventy per cent of government benefits that help non-elderly low-income households (like food stamps and Medicaid) go to working families.  Yes, people who are working, sometimes two or three jobs, but who just can’t make a living wage.  Millions of children in the United States don’t know where their next meal will come from, and many go to bed hungry every night.  Many of those children are also homeless without a consistent place to sleep every day. 

I don’t know why, but for the past forty or fifty years these myths about poverty have crept in to our social conscience.  The so-called welfare queen who has everything taken care of by the government is a complete myth.  The idea that people somehow choose to be poor and can just live off of the government, that all poor people choose to stay that way, is insidiously evil.  And it leads to an implicit shaming of those who most need help.  When I was a teenager, I remember that my grandparents, who were hard working Missouri farmers, being too embarrassed to go to the welfare office for food stamps because their neighbors would see them.  I have a friend who walked a mile out of his way to school so his classmates would not know he was from the poor part of town.  Because somehow being poor is something to be ashamed of.

But the shame should not be on the poor.  It should be on the rest of us who look the other way and pretend that this isn’t a problem.  We should be ashamed that in this land of abundance, ANY child should go hungry.  That any working family would be considered homeless.  That those who work just as hard as the rest of us are one medical crisis away from bankruptcy.  Our public policy should help ensure that working families can take care of themselves.  There is no reason that we can’t make a living wage possible for American families.  It doesn’t require radical socialism, it just requires the political will to help those most in need; that food, housing and health care are considered a right, and that employers pay their employees a decent wage.

Today’s largest low-wage employers are in effect subsidized by the taxpayer.  In 2014, Walmart cost the taxpayers $6.2 billion in public assistance for their underpaid employees.  McDonald’s employees received $1.2 billion.  There is nothing wrong with corporations making a profit, but when record profits are in part due to suppressed wages that are subsidized by my tax dollars, the market forces are not putting the costs where they belong.

Following the great depression of the last century, we came together as a country to create social programs that would work towards eliminating poverty and its terrible effects on our society.  We need to protect those programs and continue the effort to take care of our neighbors.  Social safety nets are an important part of our society and we should be working to strengthen them, not eliminate them.

You may ask why the government should be in the charity business, but what other means of helping the poor can be as efficient and fair?  Churches and other non-profits are certainly a great help and I would not want to replace them, but they have not been able to eliminate poverty or help everyone in need.  With thousands of individual charities across the country, efforts cannot be realistically coordinated to ensure no one falls through the cracks.  And each charity has its own policies and requirements to decide who gets what assistance.  The government shouldn’t mandate who receives help from an independent charity.  Instead, the government has the ability to create policy and programs that will help all citizens.  I believe we have a moral obligation to help each other, especially those who are the most vulnerable and those who try but cannot climb out of the poverty cycle without help.

Unless you are part of a religious order that takes a vow of poverty, being poor isn’t a choice.  So let’s stop blaming the poor.  Instead of telling the poor to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, let’s offer them a helping hand.  And let’s tell our elected government that’s the kind of public policy that makes our country great.