Snitches and More

There has been a lot of uproar about some of our politicians asking citizens to "snitch," that is, to report people who are violating "stay-at-home" orders, "social distancing," etc.  I find that troubling, in a sense.  But I don't think it's as cut and dried as it might seem.

Is it "snitching" to report criminals?  How many people don't speak up, excusing their refusal by saying, "I didn't want to get involved?"  Should students not "snitch" on school bullies who are physically or mentally threatening other students?  "Let the kids handle it themselves."  At what expense?

I was always bothered by the "If you see something, say something" campaign.  I was reminded of tactics used by the German Nazis, where neighbors turned in neighbors (particularly Jews), and the Soviet Union Communists, when children turned in (often innocently) their own parents.  Especially in our society today, this is dangerous.  For too many people, a mere accusation, no matter how spurious, is proof of guilt.

It's a tough call, to say something or to remain quiet.  In the end, I guess we have to have confidence that people are able to tell what really needs to be "snitched."  I, for one, don't have much trust in the government if told to turn in shutdown violators.  For that matter, I find it troubling that American government(s) would even think of asking citizens to turn in their neighbors in situations like this.  As noted, it's a tough call.

A couple of recent letters in the newspaper seemed outlandish.  One equated those protesting the shutdown with "traitors."  Those wanted a "re-opening" of the state are "unpatriotic."  I wonder why they wrote such things.  Is it merely that the protesters oppose government, which to the letter writers of course always knows and does what is best for us, always knowing what is best for us better than we do ourselves?  Do these letter writers really think the "Stay-at-Home" orders have saved lives?  The executive orders may well have saved lives from CoVid, but we don't really know that.  For that matter, do we know how many lives have been lost because of "Stay-at-Home," by closing facilities to treat ailments which, untreated, led to deaths, by discouraging people with ailments from seeking medical help?   I don't think we can know any of this.  Are then, too, people who talk or text on cell phones while driving "unpatriotic" or "traitors?"  After all, people die......

I've probably written about this before, but "income inequality" has reappeared in CoVid discussions.  I guess I believe there is real "income inequality" and that its gap might be growing. But it's a loaded term, one that is misused and even abused to further divide people for the sake of political advantage.

So, Jeff Bezos (and I'm not sure who he is) is on the road to becoming the world's first trillionaire.  (It must be unique as spell check underscores "trillionaire," but not "millionaire" and "billionaire." )  Who cares?  Sure I'd like as much money as some of these guys, but that's not the point, not to me.  I couldn't care less if some people are worth millions and billions of dollars (as long as they come about their money in legal and moral ways).  That is, if someone who makes, say $60,000 a year ca live comfortably (Disregard the injustice of things like qualifying for college financial aid.)--have a nice house, that big-screen television, a couple of cars, an annual vacation, etc.--why should that person care if another gets, say, a $600,000 salary?  Well, other than pure personal greed and envy.  But many politicians and other interest groups exploit both the term "income inequality" and the extreme wealth of those at the very top. 

That befuddles me and wonder why others don't see this.  Consider a number of factors. That the wealthiest of people have a whole lot more than I (or people like me) do doesn't detract from my comfort level.  Their money doesn't take anything from me.  I think back to growing up, what we had and what we didn't have.  Until their last years, my parents had far less than what I have now.

Eating out?  Where we now go to restaurants once or sometimes twice a week, often when I was a kid we went out to eat once or twice a year--Easter and Mother's Day.  Our play clothes were last year's school clothes.  (I didn't have my first pair of blue jeans until I went to college.)  Except for one new one, I rode used bikes, none of which had different gears.  The list goes on.  Oh, we didn't live in poverty, far from it.  But we had far, far less than what, say, people in my neighborhood and those like it have today.

And even thinking of those not as well off as I am today.  (I chuckle as I write "well off."  I think of some surveys I do online.  They often ask for my "income level."  Invariably, of eight levels, mine falls into the third lowest.  This AM, mine jumped a notch to the fourth lowest level!  But there were eleven, not eight levels.  Ha Ha Ha.)  What is "poverty?"  About 96% of all US families have televisions and 80% have HDTVs.  How many of those who don't is by choice?  I'm not sure, but if I was living alone, I'm not at all certain I'd have television, almost surely not a flat screen one.  (I don't even know if those are the only ones made now.  Ha Ha Ha.)  More than 80%, too, of adults in the US are said to have smart phones, not just cell phones, but really intelligent ones.  Half of the people in the world, it is claimed, have them.  So, exactly what is wrong with "income inequality?"

There's a lot more to the dishonesty of the "income inequality" abuse, such as that the bottom 20% of income earners in the use is not static; that is, many of them, most of them, don't stay in the bottom 20%.  They move upward.  But that's enough for this rainy day.

As is now usual, please overlook/forgive any typos and other errors.  I don't want to go back to proofread.