>
The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
 by Laramie Boyd
When Pay Day Rolls Around
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
ecrboyd@aol.com
2020 Spectator Ron - The Spectator All Rights Reserved
C
 
Consider the fact that certain people in the past have behaved in a way that in that time and society was by and large a legal, acceptable manner, however morally wrong, but that such behavior has since been deemed illegal or unacceptable. Should the heirs of those persons victimized by such behavior in the past be given financial restitution by the heirs of the persons committing what once was legal but now is not? If these heirs can be specifically found or not. Consider the following scenarios:
 
A      The US Govt. (armed forces) passed out free cigarettes in World War II. Cigarettes caused cancer and probably some deaths. So should heirs of victims of lung cancer at that time, if they can be identified, be given government money as restitution? Or maybe just give money to every member of the armed forces in WWII?
 
B      The Government (police, National Guard, law enforcement agencies in general) has been responsible for the deaths and injurious harm to some black citizens. So, should the government pay reparations to the heirs of those black citizens involved or if these citizens can't be specifically identified, to any black person just because they are black and must, somehow, be related. Should only the heirs of the citizens responsible for any atrocities have to pay, if they can be found? Should anyone pay?
 
C      Classroom teachers of the past were never afraid to apply the hickory stick to the rear end of "unruly" pupils. There are those who feel that was unjustifiable, regardless of the infraction. So, should school Boards across the country then pay restitution to the heirs of the students who were "brutalized" by the teachers involved? Or maybe to any parent of a child in school before it was illegal to strike a pupil? Surely some inherent relationship could be found, or just assumed?
 
D      Doctors, even medical healers, in the past have drained blood out of the bodies of people with certain afflictions, in hopes that some of the blood that caused the afflictions would pass out of the body. Of course, infections occurred, maybe even deaths. Should the American Medical Association pay restitution to the heirs of those treated by "blood letting" who consequently got sick or even died? Or to any person who ever went to a doctor?
 
E      And on and on it goes. Should sons and daughters suffer for the sins of the fathers? Should every German descendant of every WW II German Jewish citizen who was killed or punished by the Nazi regime in the Holocaust 75 years ago get reparations? Should every descendant of every American Indian slaughtered by U.S. Cavalrymen or western lawmen get restitution from the government? (Interestingly, many Indian tribes do get favorable tax breaks and property ownership handed to them by some local and national governments as reparation. I suppose guilt trips come into play here, as the vote count doesn't seem to be that large. For some reason or other, gambling casino owners seem to be mostly American Indians.)
 
     Human brain researchers tell us that thoughts are generated when brain cells "talk" to each other through synapses, which are structures in the nervous system that permit a nerve cell, a neuron, to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another neuron, forming a thought. And being electrical in nature, this event occurs at the speed of light. I am of the opinion that anyone supporting all or any one of the above scenarios requiring reparation payment has at least one damaged synapse and therefore false thoughts are being created in their brain. Do you think it could be the old scam of giving money away in hopes for a vote in the next election? Isn't there something very similar to that scenario floating around Washington D.C.? Let's hope that reason prevails, regardless of how badly the candidates need all the votes they can get, even by a giveaway, to score a victory in November.