Removing History

A group obtains a legal permit to protest. Okay -- that has gone on for as long as I can remember. By being granted a permit allows a group to carve out an area to exercise the right(s) it is granted via the permit. This country allows for freedom of speech, rights to personal opinions, and the right to demonstrate/protest. Many states allow residents to "carry" a variety of weapons -- some of which need to be registered, some of which require background checks of the purchaser. The KKK and a variety of other "not popular" groups have obtained permits for parades, protests, and events. Some have taken place without incident, others have not. "Popular" groups have the same rights. Personally, I see that as a beautiful thing.

What is NOT a beautiful thing is when the law is broken. The USA has laws against violence, destruction of property, obstruction of rights, arson, manslaughter, and the list goes on and on. ANYONE who breaks the law needs to be willing to accept the consequences of doing so. If the people of Charlottesville, VA, objected to the white nationalists being allowed to protest, then the group should have never been granted the permit to do so. However, for decades they have obtained permits across this nation for various events. The outrage this time is, in large part, because Trump is in office; and his NY style of delivering messages is not very eloquent. So the whole thing has turned into a soap opera because comments bounce off another, and another, and another.

We need to look at facts and reality. One person goes WAY off the edge (and hopefully that person will be prosecuted to the highest extent, along with subsequently everyone else who broke the law on ALL sides of the fence), and a mini-war breaks out. The flames are fanned with the media as well as a lot of people holding onto old vendettas. Removal of Lee's statue was already decided. Fine. The white nationalists obtained a permit to protest. Fine. Anti-protesters showed up to signify their disgust. Fine. Violence erupted. Criminal. A killing and lots of injuries ensued. Not acceptable. Time to disperse the crowds, sort through who did what to whom, and let every criminal act be judged and the perpetrators sentenced.

As for the racial and history arguments? Are we so pathetically naive as to not value history and recognize that it certainly has a part to play? And are we so insensitive that we cannot come to some agreement on how to make our public places less offensive while at the same time not pretending the past never happened, despite the artifacts being proof it did? There are places that accommodate artifacts, and there are documentaries that bring understanding of how and why various events in the past took place.

Now there is talk of removing monuments to fallen Confederate soldiers. Does it not occur to people that some of their families, as a result of their personal loss of a loved one, came to have an altered perspective of life and what it means to be an American? Many southerners and some northerners, as a result of the Civil War, settled our western states with changed attitudes and ideas of how to be a better united country. We have become such a throw-away society that some of us are now even ready to throw away our deceased for, in my opinion, no valid reason. Just remember -- we all die. Does any of us just want to be tossed aside as though we never existed?
We in America need to get a grip and look at what we are doing. We need to cherish the freedoms we have, recognize that some groups are more "out there" than others, respect everyone's rights, and be accepting of who is acting within the limits of the law and be willing to prosecute those who are not.

Exiting with Naxolone

There are at least two sides to a topic or issue, including whether or not to provide inmates being released from prison with Naxolone.  I understand policy makers being wary of doing something that, on the surface, appears to be a “pass” for addicts to return to their addictions.  But after reviewing and witnessing stories and results of various perceptions, tactics, and programs surrounding addiction recovery, I believe providing inmates with Naxolone upon release is worth a five-year trial. 

Imagining myself being an inmate about to be released, I am sufficiently detoxed.  I have attended AA, NA, and/or Al-Anon meetings (or similar programs) while incarcerated.  Upon release, unless court ordered to go to a halfway house for recovering addicts, I will return to where I came from prior to incarceration.  Chances are high that I will associate with the same people as I did prior to serving time. 

If I am released without Naxolone, my chance of relapsing is high.  Despite today’s numbers of overdoses, my concern about relapsing is minimal because to addicts the prospect of death caused by using is a likely fact.  Some, if not most, of my social network will be involved in risky behaviors, and they will not discourage my return to my old ways.

If I am released with Naxolone, I am leaving with a container of hope.  My accepting it indicates I have a preference for life – either my own or someone else’s.  Obviously, if I overdose, I cannot administer the product to myself; but I will hope someone else will know how to administer it to me.  I might even go so far as to teach a few people close to me how to do that.  Or, I might be in the presence of someone else who overdoses and needs to be revived – an experience I’ve no doubt would have a lasting, profound effect on me and bring to ultimate clarity how essential it is to never take addictive drugs again.

Why society continues to keep the “needy” in need after witnessing the devastating effects doing so has on society in general, not to mention the loss of hope it can extract from those in need, is beyond my comprehension.  Until the policy makers themselves experience addiction and the effects of incarceration themselves, they will never appreciate the stigma, exclusions, and barriers addicts encounter.  We keep throwing away money on reactions to addiction that have been practiced for generations.  It would make sense to spend money on something different that may very well prove successful in the long term.

The public is kidding itself if it believes releasing incarcerated addicts with Naxolone would give the addict a reason to resume his/her addiction in the outside world.  The reality is that if the addict is going to use, he/she will do so regardless of whether or not Naxolone is available.  The signal an addict will receive if released with Naxolone is that the outside world does care about him/her and wants the inmate to remain alive, with hopes of choosing to live drug free.  So many addicts in recovery have shown their desire to “give back” and help others go through the process of a successful recovery.  That, in and of itself, is impetus for the rest of us to help that movement continue.

I ask that residents pressure their representatives to reconsider their latest vote, and do the right thing by giving “release with Naxolone” a five-year opportunity.  With the epidemic we currently face, we have absolutely nothing to lose; but we sure do have something priceless to gain.

Copyright © July 2017 by Maeke Ermarth

                    Cheyenne, WY

Not a Simple "Open and Shut" Case

Re:  The Trayvon Martin (black, teenaged shooting victim) and George Zimmerman (half-hispanic suspected shooter) case in Sanford, FL, where Zimmerman seemingly shot and killed teenager Martin during a neighborhood watch patrol.

I've been reading that Zimmerman had blood from his head and grass on his back, indicating a struggle.  Another report says Zimmerman's gun jammed after the first (and only) shot, further indicating a struggle.  Question, did the experts examine all foot prints, grass pushed down in specific directions, etc., to determine which person was where through all this, who approached who, was the encounter face to face or from behind, will the coroner find firing residue on Martin's hands, whose prints are on the gun -- only Zimmerman's or both Zimmerman's AND Martin's? Will any of the people who called 911 take a lie detector test?  Will Zimmerman? Will the one eye witness who says he actually saw the struggle?  

Accusations on both sides have been made prior to enough evidence being brought forward, and it is causing way too much tension and "us" against "them" mentality that will now persist REGARDLESS of what the actual truth is (if, in fact, we ever come to know it).  In my opinion, that is not "fair and equal" to anyone.  Zimmerman does not appear to be skipping town.  I think it wise to weigh ALL the facts after receiving ALL the evidence, and then may justice be handed out according to the circumstances of that story.  

Furthermore, I wish "race" would be taken out of all this and the case be reviewed by all us on-lookers to learn what the rules are pertaining to neighborhood-watch patrols and were they followed in this case.  Otherwise, we in America will not reach the goal of being color blind for a long, long time -- if ever.  I think we can do better than that.  Look at the progress made over the past 50 years, when we were still a nation of segregation.  It is everyone pulling together to be fair, honest, respectful and mature that makes us united and honorable.

Maeke Ermarth©March 24, 2012

            Cheyenne, WY