A Social Illness: The Crime of Being Sick

As the conversation ended, they tried to explain what it’s like to be poor and disabled in Ontario. “It’s like you’re always being judged and found guilty of some crime,” Koo said. Smith gave it a name: “the crime of being sick.”

Recently, I was hit by a car.  I was very lucky in that I bounced back.  Even then, the challenges I face in trying to get myself back to full functionality are not slight.  The fact that the guy who hit me got off without any repercussions didn't help any.  Worse - this fella belittled a police officer during the process of the investigation.  The driver, Ryan Bornstein (not his real name, but the name he gave me), is a lawyer - knowing the rules, he knows how to skirt them.  He broke the law, lied about it, lied about his name and is facing zero legal repercussions.  It doesn't occur to him that there should be any; for Mr. Pseudonym, the very concept of responsibility doesn't enter the picture. 

Now, magnify that sentiment a million fold. 

"I never give money to homeless people. I can’t reward failure in good conscience."

"I'm not concerned about the very poor."

"His private, personal religious views would not interfere in his role as an MLA.”

As a society, we aren't making much of an effort to encourage responsibility on the part of the empowered; the 1%, as it were.  The prevailing logic asks us - why should we?  Those at the top were successful.  It's everyone else that needs to step up their game.  To the victor go the spoils, etc.  Don't whine if you lose, just play dirtier next time.  The 1% certainly feel that it's the poor and the disenfranchised that own all the responsibility for their lot in life.  The failures of the 99% are due to their own incompetence, sloth, short-sightedness or a lack of moral fortitude.  The idea of disability through physical illness hardly registers; most people refuse to acknowledge the idea of mental illness as a problem.

Well, Mr. Bornstein is hardly the quickest bunny in the forest.  By seeking to immediately and fully abdicate responsibility, he's opened himself up to a host of challenges in the court of public opinion.  Of course, that's an outcome you risk when you underestimate your opponent.

Here's my question back to those folk who either see themselves as social puppet masters or completely removed from the goings on of the rest of society; if success comes through toughness and toughness implies the ability to get ahead at the expense of others, does that not imply there will always be those who are left behind?  The bear's going to get someone, right?

It sure will.  This is reality the supposed rain makers of the world seem blind to.  When you see yourself as history's actors, after all, you get to make reality up as you go, right?  You can always trade in your production crews.  What these players don't ask themselves is, how long does 'always' tend to last?

If you look at history - pick your revolution, pick Civil Rights or Apartheid or the rise of Fascism and the entirely justified and forceful response to it - you see that the answer is, "not as long as you might think."

This, then is the crossroads we're at right now.  The disenfranchised, fueled by the connectivity of the Internet, are only going to live with feeling helpless for so long.  As their ranks swell with the formerly-successful who have been marginalized in our polarized times, those disenfranchised troops will sooner or later be rallied into taking action.  Maybe it will come at the polls; somehow, that doesn't seem likely.

Occupy has been dismissed as disorganized, having no clear objective and being largely a rallying point for those who don't want to make any efforts on their own behalf.  That may be partially the case, but no revolution begins as a fully-formed organization with clarity of purpose.  That all comes over time and generally gains momentum after hitting some kind of tipping point.

I would expect, in the not-too-far-distant future, that a spark will light off our social powder keg and incite a societal brush fire.  This could be a political scandal that is too egregious to ignore, but so far, such scandals have only proven to be kindling.  It will likely take something more dramatic to wake the sleeping beast.   It's happened before; it'll happen again.

We could avoid all this, of course, if we simply stop and think far enough ahead.  The long-term trend is encouraging in this regard; even as every new regime tries to rewrite history, more and more people have access to accurate versions of yesterday's mistakes.  With every bust, we do look a bit further down the road, but I don't think we have our eye on the destination quite yet.

There's only one way forward.  Disagree with me all you want; just don't blame the messenger for your own failure to heed the message.