According to the American criminal “justice” system, yes. America — by a very wide margin — imprisons a larger percentage of its population than any other nation on earth and it also has a disturbingly high rate of recidivism, suggesting that America does, indeed, permanently write off ex-cons. Politicians campaign with “get tough on crime” slogans while utterly ignoring, indeed, probably exacerbating, the causes of the crime they supposedly want to prevent. America has almost made “writing off people who are different” into a national disgrace. When people in other countries refer to the “ugly American” (i.e., American tourists who are rude and demanding), they are referring to the narrow-minded contempt some Americans have for people who are different.

Bill Clinton’s speech was not a denial that people are different. Rather, his speech was directed at finding a way to a better social order. To form a meaningful social order, people need to find things in common, then there can be dialogue. Then there can be negotiations regarding those differences that exist. There will be some people who cannot be brought into the process. A friend of mine recently toured the Miami Dade jail and was shocked and shaken by the types of human beings she saw. Most of the prisoners she saw that day were vile, disgusting, unrepentant and horrifically violent. Bill Clinton knows this, I’m sure. We can’t go around pretending that people like that should be able to run loose.

On the other hand, there are many people currently in jail who are there because they’ve made mistakes and they are willing to try to rejoin society in a productive way. How shall we view those people? Should we write them off permanently as people who are different, who are beyond redemption? Or should we try to view those people (the ones who are deserving ) as humans who are a lot like you and me, who have made mistakes?

When we meet gay people, should we view them as Gays, or as people who happen to be gay. When we meet corporate executives, isn’t it more productive to treat them as human beings who happen to be corporate executives? What about women? I’ve been around lots of men who consider them to be a different species, which leads to all kinds of problems. How about treating women as people who happen to be of the female gender? And the French are people who happen to live in France. And so forth. What about those horrible people who are now trying to kill us? Have you ever seen soldiers who fought against each other in WWII having reunions where they now share in their humanity? They can often get along when they reach out. Their violent actions are not their sum totality. http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?res=9E03E0DE103CF935A15750C0A9679C8B63

This subtle-seeming difference of looking for things we all have in common can have dramatic consequences. For one example, bigoted jokes and comments become scarce.

The important overall benefits of seeing most other people (not the hopelessly violent) as living under the same tent was the point of Bill Clinton’s speech.

People are not the same. It would be nice if it were so, but acting as if it is true when it is not will only get you or someone you care about killed.

Schools also segregate by gender in so-called physical education. I learned nothing about my physicality in these classes, and even less about the physicality of the complementary gender.

Home-schooled kids have an even stronger sense of discrimination because they are not exposed to anywhere near as wide a range of cultures as state schooled kids.

I understood that Clinton was asking us to consider that the terrorists and their sympathizers (as well as everyone else in the world) are human beings with much in common with us. Consider that many people who hate the U.S. really do want the same sorts of things we want: a roof over their heads, food for their families, a sense of security.

For me, the Clinton point is well illustrated by the neocon claim that “terrorists” simply hate us because “they” allegedly hate freedom. Listen to what Ron Paul has to say about that.  Paul did not obsess that “terrorists” are different than Americans or that terrorists are irrational. To the contrary, he drew parallels between how those who hate the U.S. think and how Americans would think and react if a foreign power occupied America.

I’m not suggesting that we need to agree with the reasons anyone posits for any position. On the other hand, if we want to be admired, we simply must start by working to understand the motives of both friends and enemies. The current administration has failed miserably in this regard.