The morality of politics?

If you've been following along for the past couple of weeks, you most likely know what I think the answer to the question posed by this post is. Politics is just a way we go about organizing and structuring our lives together (in the public sphere), and as such, it is fairly neutral in and of itself. Having said that, however, it is also clear that the only ones who can organize and structure is us; that is, we human beings, and as such we are, or at least should be, moral beings. Can the two -- morals and politics -- mix?

The ideal answer is "yes"; the perceived answer is "hardly"; the real answer is "no".

Each and every one of us is face with moral, that is to say, ethical, decisions every day. Our morality has to do with what we believe to be right and good and true, regardless of where we draw our motivations for coming to such beliefs. We have seen that there are some issues which are inherently dilemma-like when it comes to the moral domain: killing, stealing, harming others, lying, and more. What we have also seen is that it is these very issues are part and parcel of political dealings, be they domestic or foreign, local, national, or beyond. In other words, we can't neatly partition off those aspects of political life that are uncomfortable or that make us uneasy, or put us in situations that might confront us with making moral choices. That is, however, what I believe most of us do in the end: we simply avoid.

The stands you take politically are, whether you like it or not, moral stands. You must be clear on what your moral values are, and you must be clear on how truly you uphold such values. Morality isn't partially anything. There's not a little bit of unethical. There's no rightness that's well-sort-of-in-this-particular-situation. You need to decide and you need to be aware.

I have brought this up merely because much of what I hear for argumentation in the political realm is based on alleged religious principles, on higher-order beliefs, and what some might even call divine ideals. Condoning cruelty, oppression, violence, the inflicting of pain and suffering, and the denigration of others to serve our own interests are simply wrong. To uphold such practices, especially when they are made policy, is obviously wrong. To turn one's back and remain silent, for whatever reason, is moral weakness.

There is so much talk these days of the "moral high ground", of what is right and what is wrong, of what are values are (or should be), and in most of what I see and hear, there is little moral foundation at all. It is not up to me -- nor is it my intent -- to tell you what you should believe. I can only admonish you to become aware enough of what you do believe that you are willing to stand up to that every day of the week and in every decision that you make, and in every position that you take.

Our invariably most egregious moral shortcoming is simply that we are not aware.

And I'm not the only one

A while back I was chided by a Facebook friend for referring to the United States as an alleged democracy. He pointed out that we were a republic. I tried to explain to him that I was referring to the process not the structure (Americans - well at least some of them - are allowed to vote ... though oddly enough it is a privilege; that is, proscribed by law; not a right; that is enshrined in the constitution). He never responded so I don't know if I made myself clear or not.

During and after the recent election, and particularly after all the flailing that has been going on regarding deficits, budgets, state-of-the-union addresses and gaffed water breaks, it struck me that there really isn't all that much really democratic about America at all anymore. I'm used to having thoughts that my neighbors don't, but I was pleased to see not long thereafter a piece by Zeese & Flowers on truth-out.org that made me feel less alone. Sometimes it's nice just knowing you're not the only one.

The article provided a lot of support for my friend's argument, though I'm sure the point he was trying to make was very different. We are a republic (structure of our political organization) and the say we are apparently supposed to have in how that structure is implemented has long been meant to be carefully circumscribed; limited, if you will, not just limited government but also limited influence on that limited government as well. We, the people ... we human beings that are, in the end, are to be governed, are not the focal point of anything. In the end, it's not about people. It's about property.

I'll be the first to admit that I missed that point, but in that I'm not alone either. In fact, in the meantime, I'm getting the impression that we've been sold a bill of goods, which is not an inappropriate a metaphor as we might like to think. Oh sure, the last round of voter-disenfranchisment measures that were attempted, to varying degrees of success, in the last American election should have given us all pause to think. That we persist in our delusion that we have something to say, electorally, is something we need to think very hard about. More than ever, Emma Goldman's words ring true in my ears, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." In a sense, that is precisely what was being done. The trajectory of events since the last Great Financial Crisis should also give us pause to think: the more "property" (what you have) that you have provides you with many more rights and privileges than the rest of us. It just hadn't struck me so directly how deep-seated this idea really is.

Making things more important than people is ethically questionable and morally wrong. For the religiously inclined among you, it is the foundation of idolatry. If our highest value is property then we have no values at all, for the value of property is subject to the whims of the market. We all need to think about this more, I can assure you. It has taken me a while, to simply get past the catchiness of the phrase, but Proudhon was right: "Property is theft". The true significance of that, however, is not what the "owner" thinks s/he has gained, but what has been taken from the rest of us: our dignity as human beings.

Is that what we hold dear?

No, not far-fetched at all.

If all of this were only restricted to the Yanks, it would be bothersome (and shameful for those of us who still carry US passports), I suppose, but we could chalk it all up to just another instance of the insularity of the United States. Unfortunately, this isn't the case at all. Giroux also references a recently released report by the Open Society Foundations which details the systematic and global use of torture by the CIA (which comes as no real surprise) as a policy and practice that is supported by over 50 other countries, most of whom like to claim theyare , too, democratic nations living under the rule of law. At best, these are merely hollow, self-praising accolades as well. If you know another is doing wrong and you aid, abet, support, or even remain silent to that wrong, you are complicit in the wrongdoing and hence guilty of the same thing yourself. For those who still believe in "sin", these are sins of ommission: sometimes it's what you do that is wrong; but sometimes it's what you don't do.

What I am missing in all of this is the widespread (it should be global) outrage over such evil conduct. Torture is wrong. The indiscriminate killing of civilians not involved in warfare is wrong. (Well, war is wrong, but I'll leave that out for the moment so as not to lose the fence-sitters at this point.) The execution of anyone never indicted, tried, and convicted of a capital offense is wrong, but I hear not outcry; I hear no anger, and I hear no clamoring for justice. But what I do hear is silence. And what little else I hear are timid, half-hearted attempts at justification (an ends-justify-the-means thing?), and that borders on active complicity in my book.

Saying something is justfied does not justify it. Saying something is legal does not make it legal. Following proscribed procedures and making something legal does not make it morally right. Knowing something is wrong and not opposing it is a wrong in and of itself.

It is long past time to decide where you stand, what you believe in, and what you believe to be right. It's not an easy decision, and I would caution about making it too lightly. Still, decide you must, and much sooner than later. Well?

A bit far-fetched perhaps?

That's what some of you are no doubt thinking, I'm sure. But I have to say, I don't think so. I don't think I'm even pushing the envelope.

I'll admit that the discussion has been a bit abstract, perhaps even a bit academic, but the issue at hand is anything but that. How we talk about something doesn't change its nature; it only reflects our relationship to that something at a given point in time. A couple of real-life circumstances can perhaps make this clearer. Let's look at one here:

We like to think that we -- in the US, in Germany -- live in nations guided by the rule of law, that we have certain, inalienable (human) rights that are both respected and protected by those we have elected to serve us. After all, isn't that our naive assumption about how democratic societies work? (This is assuming, of course, that we live in such societies.) It turns out, however, that things are perhaps not quite as they appear.

In a recent opinion piece on truth-out.org, Henry A. Giroux took the Obama administration to task for its approach to the so-called "War on Terror", the use of drones, and a shift in policy that includes America's own citizens in its highly questionable tactics. Giroux minces no words in pointing out just how far a democratically elected government will go in nullifying, if not simply eradicating, long-standing, accepted and constitutionally-guaranteed rights. He describes the current state of America as "authoritarian", but I don't think that goes nearly far enough to describe what is happening. When you think about the gallons of pepper spray that have doused how many Occupy and other protestors, the word "repressive" crosses my mind as well.

Fighting fire with fire is never a sound tactic when dealing with anything other than a brush or forest fire. As the Kabbalists have long declared, "you become what you hate". And, this seems to be a fitting description of America these days. This isn't a matter of left or right, of Democrat or Republican, what was started under one of those banners is being continued and even enhanced under the other. Becoming what one hates affects everyone, regardless of their political persuasion.

So, on just who or what are you focusing your own hate?

OK, OK, what's your point?

It's a fair question, I'll admit it, but I'll also tell you right up front, you'll probably not like the answer.

We all like to think of ourselves as moral beings, upright individuals with strong sense of right and wrong. If you've been following closely and perhaps even reading between the lines, you'll find that truth be told we're just as immoral as the next scoundrel, the one we despise, the person whom we probably dislike the most. It's a hard lesson to learn, believe me. In the School of Reality, you get to do the lesson over and over and over again till you get it right. Some manage before the end of their days, some don't.

If that didn't sound like a consoling word, that's only because it wasn't. You don't get any points for almost getting it. You not only have to get it, you have to practice it, otherwise there are no points to be had.

To take just the examples we've looked at thus far (killing, stealing, harming others), if you see any of them happening, if you are witness to any of them in any way and you say nothing, or you do nothing ... if you just let it slide, for any reason whatsoever, then you are just as guilty as the one who is actually performing the act.

We could apply the same measure to any number of other things, such as lying or breaking promises (e.g. marriage vows, contracts, informal agreements), and the results would be the same: in not speaking out against the immorality we become a party to it. If some kinds of killing and some kinds of stealing and some kinds of harming and some kinds of lying and some kinds of promise-breaking are OK, we have to ask ourselves not only why, but who decides which ones these are? Who adjudicates in matters of morals? Ourselves? Our religion? And what if we have no religion, but we still claim to be moral beings? If you pick and choose when and how you apply your morality, you're really little more than an opportunist who is merely looking out for his or her own advantage. (I have to admit, I have a bit of a problem taking such people seriously or thinking that what they have to offer is of any value at all.)

For those of you who believe that I'm making this unnecessarily complicated, I must say, that when you get right down to it, I'm the one who's eliminating the complications and getting down to the true matter at hand. If we believe we are truly moral individuals, then we have to act like it. We have to commit to that morality and be prepared to stand up for it, especially in hard times.

That demands courage, I know. It's not easy to step in and make others aware of their wrongdoing. To be perfectly honest, I don't hold it against any of you personally that you can't quite bring yourselves to this. It's fairly human, after all. And all I ask is that in recognition of this fact, you neither act like, nor claim to be a moral person. For that would be stretching the truth, which is a form of deception; that is, lying, and we all know, lying isn't very moral.

Harming others is moral?

For the sake of completeness, our brief survey needs to look at the last of the examples I raised a few posts ago. If we agree that harming others is not right, what precisely do we mean by that?

I'm pretty sure we would all agree that hitting someone with the intention to hurt them, pushing someone in front of a bus, shooting them with a gun, and more would all be considered harmful. In each and every case there is the intent to cause discomfort or pain in the recipient of our attention. That's all pretty straightforward. When we think back over the past few points, it will become clear that we all come to agreement rather quickly and there is little debate about all matters physical. If the body or property of an individual is concerned, we are quick to recognize the wrongness of the acts being committed. The problem is, however, that most of what goes on in life and most of what there is in the world simply can't be seen. It lies beyond our physical senses, but it is no less real. For example:

If you tell your child (or student, or co-worker, or ) everyday that s/he is stupid. Is this harming them? What if they start believing it and then even start acting like it? Does it then become OK because we are correct in our observations? What about other forms of psychological coercion or abuse? Aren't these just as harmful. What about harsh words? Yelling? Cursing? Isn't it possible to be just as aggressive verbally as it is to be aggressive physically? I think we would all agree that it is.

Why is it then, that there are really no specific laws to cover these cases? We could say that the other laws cover them, but if they did, why are so few people tried and found guilty of these crimes?

What about things like, working overtime without pay? or insisting an employee work longer hours and not record them? Isn't that harmful to the person as well? What about insisting on poor working conditions and not providing any kind of compensation or insurance to cover the negative side effects? What about insisting that an employee work so long and hard that his or her family suffers? What about threatening an employee regularly with firing if they don't work harder? Or can we consider forcing an employee to perform an illegal act under threat of retribution (e.g. firing) ... can we consider that "harming others"? I wish I were making this up, but I'm not. And I think if we all stop for a moment and think about it, we all realize that there any number of situations and circumstances in each of our lives in which we felt "abused" in some way by those who we thought were, or should have been, concerned with our welfare. Yes, these, too, are immoral acts and we tolerate them again and again and again. My question is why?

Naturally, I can't speak for anyone in particular, but generally speaking it would seem to me that we feel helpless and powerless in the face of the threat or the perpetrator. But, taking a stand, speaking up, or even taking sides is what is required of us. When we fail to "do what is right" we contribute to the growing immorality of the world around us. I'm pretty sure that's not what any of us really want, but I'm just as sure that most of us don't have the slightest idea what to do about it.

Stealing is moral?

It should come as no surprise that if killing turned out to be a difficult moral concept ... well, OK, as a moral concept it's not all that difficult, but how we try to moralize the immoral certainly is ... it is not going to be all that much easier with stealing. The law the world round also makes various distinctions, sometimes depending on the value of the thing stolen, or its size, or sometimes simply whoever was the owner. All of this is, of course, irrelevant for our discussion here, for like with killing the last time, we need to think very specifically whether there is ever a case in which stealing is moral.

Granted, our review of killing merely revealed that killing is never moral, regardless of how hard we try to justify it. We can make some headway legally, I suppose, but on moral grounds, the rightness of the laws permitting such acts can be challenged. Killing is wrong, and trying to justify it on any grounds just makes you wrong too. But stealing? Surely there must be a difference here. Stealing isn't even in the same class with murder, is it? Well, is it? We should probably agree here at the onset what we mean by stealing (or theft, if you prefer more formal words). When I use the term here; that is, in this post; I mean the acquisition of something belonging to another without their consent. Be patient, please, for I know there are a couple of rubbery words in that definition, but how they should be understood will (hopefully) become clear before the end of the post.

There are lots of ways to do this: one could take whatever it is when the owner isn't watching (what we usually call burglary); or, the owner could be watching and we force him or her to give us what we want, say, by threatening him with a weapon of some sort (what we generally refer to as armed robbery); or another possibility is that the owner is watching but not paying enough attention (e.g. shoplifting). These are the obvious forms of stealing, however.

There are less obvious forms, too, and they generally involve deceit. I could get someone to lend me something and I simply never give it back. A variation of this would be borrowing something under certain conditions that would get me off the hook for having to return whatever it was I borrowed, knowing full well (or at least being pretty sure) that those conditions will come about and not informing the lender of such. It sounds of course like this only has to do with borrowing and lending, but this last scenario also covers sales of many kinds. If I lead you to believe you can make a lot of money by giving me money or buying a "security", but I know that I'm going to dump that security the first chance I get and make money off of that too (of which you will see none), that's pretty much the same thing. In fact, we usually call that a scam and that's fundamentally what happened in the most recent financial meltdown.

And this is where things get grey and cloudy. I'm fully aware that those responsible for the crash knew what they were doing, and I'm also aware that they were operating, for the most part, within the framework of current law, but what they were doing was immoral and no amount of legal argumentation will ever make it right. The realist in me knows that you can't really punish immoral behavior, at least not like you can illegal behavior, but to then turn around and treat these people as if they were honorable, upstanding, worthy members of our society is ... well, disgusting, to put it mildly.

What we need to keep in mind, though, is that even passively defending the perpetrators allies you with them and their actions; that is, it makes you as immoral as they are. And yes, in case you are wondering, what amazes me more than anything else coming out of the 2008 crash is the sheer absence of moral outrage. It gives us pause to think about whether we should even consider ourselves a moral society anymore, or if morality is even worth thinking about. It should be, but is it?

Killing is moral?

One would think this would be fairly straightforward. It's not right to kill other people. But for some odd reasons, legally, at least, we've come up with a lot of exceptions: the Americans have "degrees" of homicide; almost every country makes some kind of distinction between willfully and accidentally killing someone, or between planning the crime or simply committing it in an act of rage or hyperemotion. And, I suppose that there are good reasons for this - legally - but it really doesn't detract from the immorality of the act, does it? After all, it's for good reason that you can still be punished legally even if you accidentally kill someone. It would seem that these are not exceptions after all, but I thought about this some more. What about the state/country/government? Why are they exempt?

Willfully killing a human being is called murder, and the state murders in two primary ways: capital punishment and war. You can twist and turn it any way you want, but while capital punishment may be legal, as it is in the US, China, or Iran, it is never moral. Oh sure, there are lots of folks who go to great lengths to justify the laws on religious grounds, but as we saw last time, morality is broader in scope than religion, so if your religion sanctions state-committed murder, you may just be an devotee of an immoral religion. Seems oxymoronic, if not downright paradoxical, to me, but I can only call them as I see them. When all is said and done, a state has simply given itself the right to commit murder without sanctions. But again, that doesn't make it moral, only legal.

A very similar case obtains with war. States, for whatever reasons, reserve the right to wage war. I'm not arguing that a possible case can be made for defending oneself against invasion, but what about the aggressors? According to their states, they are not murdering, they are "only" waging war. We have to ask ourselves though, when is a war a war. That may sound silly at first, but what the US did in, say, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan certainly looked a lot like war, those events are referred to as wars, but the US never "officially" declared war in any of those cases. I mean, there is a mechanism is place for making sure everyone knows what you're doing is actually that special case in which you've exempted yourself from the rules applying to murder. And if you don't do that? You see my dilemma?

We can even take this one a step further: what is the case with the innocent women and children who are killed in US drone attacks in, say, Pakistan? We're talking about Pakistani citizens who have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, innocents who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Isn't that murder? Referring to them as "collateral damage" is probably more heinous than killing them. They were human when they were killed; their not even that anymore if they are only damage.

You may not like the outcome, but when considered morally, if killing is immoral, then all killing is immoral. We may tolerate some kinds of killing, but our tolerating them does not lessen their immorality. If our morality means something to us, then we need to start thinking very hard about how much immorality our morality can tolerate. I have found that my threshold is very low. What about you?

Morality, really?

Let me say that there is hardly a topic that more people wouldn't touch with a barge pole than this one. This is a highly emotionally charged issue if there ever was one, and the starting points for the discussion cover an exceptionally wide range ... or do they?

That's the common conception, but it needs just a bit of fine tuning. Right at the onset, we have to make a very important, but very fundamental distinction: morality and religion are not the same thing. One's moral views may be based on one's religious beliefs, but even non-believers and atheists can be moral, so morality must be an area of our make-up that goes beyond the merely religious (and I don't mean "merely" in any condescending way). Morality itself is the placed that believers and non-believers can get together and talk about something that matters to both of them. That was the point of my post) half-a-year ago. This time around, I'd just like to approach it all from a slightly different angle.

Morality has to do with what is "good" and "right". We can generally agree more quickly on what is "good" than on what is "right" simply because the latter term is where we start crossing over into the legal domain, so I'll focus more on the former. What is "good"? What's good for me may not be good for you. I handle sweets and chocolate just fine, but if you're a diabetic, you need to watch what you eat. Of course here we're only talking about a matter of degree. In more absolute terms, a bullet to the head isn't doing either of us much good, unless one of us is suicidal and likes guns. That would be a special, and certainly controversial, case. You are most likely starting to realize that morality, what is moral, is a bit difficult to nail down. It's a somewhat fuzzy area. In general terms, what is "good" is what brings benefit, not just for oneself but for everyone; what stimulates positive feelings and emotions not just for oneself, but for everyone; what makes life easier or better in some way, not just for oneself but for everyone.

Funny, but it's impossible to talk about morality without involving others. Whatever we consider "moral" apparently applies to everyone. If anyone is excluded, then we can question the morality of the decision, act or circumstance. Morality isn't democratic, it's not a matter of the majority deciding, rather morality is an absolute, and it would seem either all of us are involved or it just doesn't matter. And this is the very reason, I believe, that we avoid the topic like the plague. How can we possibly agree on something that is utterly and absolutely applicable to everyone? Truth be told, though, we more or less do: I don't know anyone who believes that killing, stealing or harming others is OK. (And for those who claim they allegedly do, at the latest if anyone tries to do any of these things to them, they're the first to complain.)

Don't misunderstand me, please. I know full well that there are people who will kill, steal and harm others. I'm not unrealistic, but we all agree, that such acts are morally wrong. If we don't have laws and mechanisms in place to deal with these circumstances, we have a problem as a society. But here comes the rub: there are too many people running around who think that whatever it is that they did, it wasn't exactly any of the things mentioned. You think I'm exaggerating? I'm not. The next time, I'll start looking at some of these cases. Let's see where that takes us.

We're not there yet, are we?

Uh, no, we're not. We've just got started, but I'm not going to bludgeon you with guilt. I'm just the guy who asks questions. The answers can vary. In fact, they can vary a lot.

You see, we all live with far too many contradictions, so many in fact that we think we don't have any at all. Let me give you a few examples. There are many Americans who deplore the fact that rapid-fire weapons are used to kill large number of people - most recently, small, innocent children - and while we all know that people pull the triggers, it makes sense to discuss whether someone has a right to own that particular type of weapon. There are quite a few folks who recognize this who immediately turn around and argue vehemently that any kind of restrictions on any kind of guns is a violation of (admittedly) controversial constitutional rights. Whether we realize it or not, the safety and security of innocent people is being weighed out against a possible right to a particular freedom. In the end, where you're most vehement is where your priority lies.

Or, there are many folks worldwide who realize and recognize that we're facing a number of serious environmental problems, most of which have to do with excessive energy consumption. Still, ideas like "clean coal", fracking, or nuclear energy are still seriously discussed and legislatively protected. Many of these folks then whisper quietly that compromise is always necessary, but it's their lack of volume that is speaking loudest. Once the environment is destroyed or a particular resource, say, water, is decimated, there won't be any compromise to be made. Turns out Mother Nature doesn't compromise.

In other words, most of us - certainly too many of us - are inconsistent in our beliefs and actions to a fault. We say one thing, then do another. We step up for one issue, but at the expense of another. We insist on the legality of something (generally when it's to our advantage), but know that the moral issue invovled is to the contrary. In fact, there is a lot of pressure on one these days to decide, on extremely short notice whether the moral, political, personal, or legal aspects dominate. There's not a whole lot one can do about that, is there?

Well, actually there is. If we look at the four "dimensions" just mentioned, we could rank them according to importance. Yes, they all play a role. Yes, they are all involved, but it is possible to rank-order them nevertheless. Political expediencies bother me a lot, so the political ramifications of my actions and decisions play the least important role. I don't consider myself the biggest egoist going and I'm willing, in those situations in which I believe it makes sense, to put others' needs before my own, so that's the next to least important aspect. I do like the idea of living in an ordered environment (or I wouldn't like it in Germany so much), so I can agree on a legal framework, to be sure, but this is not the most important dimension by any means because, as I have noted before (for example, here or here), there is such a thing a unjust or immoral laws, so the legal dimension is less important that the moral one. In the end, then, our morality will determine if and when we get there, and as there is still a bit of disagreement on this one, no, we're not there yet.

Is this going somewhere?

The short answer is "yes". The longer answer follows.

One of the survivors of the Nazi Holocaust was an Austrian, Jewish doctor by the name of Viktor Frankl. He was both an admirable and inspiring person. He was a psychiatrist actually and he developed a method of treatment for suicide-endangered individuals which he called Logotherapy. The therapy part is clear, but what does the "Logo-" mean in this context?

Obviously, the prefix derives from the Greek word logos, which can mean a lot of things, from idea to word to thought to argument to ... well, you get the point. It's the key feature of the word "logic", if you get my drift. The metaconcept to all these concepts of course is what we might describe as "meaning". Things that make sense, are logical, where the words and concepts fit together ... well, that's what we generally think of as "meaningful". Logotherapy could be described, as a result, as a therapy that searches for meaning.

Frankl's seminal work for us laypersons is Man's Search of Meaning (which he obviously wrote before the politically correct wardens got the say on the block). His approach? When people contemplating suicide would come (or were sent) to him, he'd ask them why they hadn't already killed themselves. If they answered, he would make clear to them that whatever that was the basis for identifying the reason why they were alive. If they had no answer, he suggested they just go ahead and do it. There was no reason in waiting. If we don't have a reason to live, why do we live at all?

Now, I know that some of you are gasping for air at this point, and others are chuckling, but if you think about it, the good doctor does have a point. Nietzsche once quipped that if we have a reason to live, a "why" for living, we can endure just about any "how". He was absolutely right, you know.

Of course, many of us, even those of us who don't have suicidal tendencies, have no clear awareness of why we think we deserve to be alive. We really need to stop and think about it for a moment. We really should get a clear idea of what we think our purpose on this planet is. Some of you will say it's to make money, or enjoy life, or play golf, or go for the gusto, or ... yes, this list too goes on and on. I don't want to be the party-pooper, but if we're honest -- which I know is tough for some of you -- are any of those reasons really "reasons"? To me, they sound more like excuses.

All the petty little pleasures we have are not the reason that we exist. It's a nice parlor game, but it's not the basis for leading a meaningful life. In other words, if you haven't done so already, I would strongly suggest that you take a moment or two (or more if necessary) and ask yourself if you have really ever done anything that justifies your consumption of the resources that you've consumed. Do you live according to some abiding principles, or do you just do what you have to do to get by?

Please don't get the impression that I'm judging ... nothing could be further from the truth. But, as Socrates once noted, the unexamined life is not worth living. When's the last time you took a good look at yours?

Why does it matter?

The short answer is: because it does. The longer answer follows.

It is nice to think that people I know are going to get it, but I know that more often than not I'm going to be disappointed. It takes some effort sometimes to maintain a modicum of optimism when I see all the crap that gets shoved my way. And, it is definitely a challenge to continue talking when it is fairly obvious that as good as no one is listening.

Oh, I really don't mind all that much if you think that I'm full of crap and have no idea what I'm talking about, or that I have no clue as to what needs to be done to fix some of the problems I repeatedly address. Sure, I wish it were otherwise, but that's not the real issue. No, to me, the real issue is that most of you reading this don't think you're part of the problem, that you are everything we need to be: social, caring, empathetic, concerned, informed ... well, the list is endless, isn't it? Especially when we're saying nice things about you.

Let me tell you what amazes me most: the immorality of it all. And let me tell you what amazes me even more: how much each and every one of us is a part of it; how guilty, how immoral each and every one of us is.

I know, I know ... we're not supposed to say things like that because it could offend others. Quite honestly, if there is one thing I might regret in my life, it's that I offended too few people. Always worrying about others' sensibilities, when their sensibilities make it impossible to have a real discussion of anything. Always having to be politically correct when the biggest offenders are the ones imposing the sanctions. Always toning it down because someone could find it hurtful. Right. Let me tell you what I think "hurtful", "politically incorrect" and "insensitive" mean to me:

I'm offended by elected officials who think they know more than me when all most of them really know is how to stick their noses in other people's behinds so they can get re-elected. I'm offended by stupid people who think that science and reason are mere opinions. I'm offended by everyone who thinks that legality trumps morality. I feel unnecessarily restricted when I can't describe any person, situation or event without being accused of having an agenda. I feel abused when it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion. I feel oppressed when others think they have better arguments by virtue of where they perceive themselves to be in the social hierarchy. I find it hurtful that things are more important than people, that property matters more than persons, that money is the measure of all things. Yes, there are a lot of things that bother me, that's for sure.

But above and beyond all of these petty personal issues, I find it unfathomable that so many allegedly educated, informed, intelligent, sophisticated and experienced human beings -- many of whom I personally know -- can be so unaware that they are so often exactly that which they so strongly condemn.

There is a lot at stake: the world as we know it; so I don't see how we can afford the luxury of all this ignorance and hypocrisy. What? Where did those concepts come from so suddenly? It's easy. They've been here all along. We all know what is "right", and when we make any effort at all to "explain" why in this particular case we need to qualify that "rightness", we're being both ignorant and hypocritical.

Making fertilizer

The Germans have a saying that I just absolutely love, Kleinvieh macht auch Mist, which literally means that even little animals produce manure. It's not what any particular contributor brings to the effort, in the end, it is the total of all efforts that matter. In that barren wasteland we call everyday life, it would be nice to think that we could get something blooming.

You see, the important thing is not whether any one of us individually does anything. That much should be clear by now. The strength of anything is in its numbers and the more of us who make the little steps, the larger the leap forwards that is possible.

If we were all getting ourselves sorted in the ways I've suggested, what we would notice is that there are increasingly more and more people like myself. We would begin to see that there are more of us with more in common than we thought. What we have in common, believe it or not, is something that transcends racial, gender, religious, political, or even fan affiliations. We would simply recognize that there are more real people around than we originally thought.

We're all plagued by the same frustrations. We're all faced with similar challenges. We're all uncertain of where things are going and what any one of us can do about it. We're all unhappy that nothing seems to work right. And I'm certain we're simply sick and tired about hearing about all the bullshit. OK, that is manure, but it's much more than we need.

What's really worth noticing here is that at bottom it really is more about "we" than "me". I know this isn't the first time I've brought this up, but we need to start putting things into a proper perspective. Politically, economically ... out there, in the "real" world, it might seem that it's the "me" that's important, but when we take a good hard look at it all, we realize it really isn't. What matters most is always closer to home.

So, why not take that as our starting point. My own way of changing the world is not in thinking any one thing in particular, rather I find it is in keeping the dialog going, in taking some time to rethink what I thought I knew and in bouncing these other ideas off still other folks that I'm talking to. The world I live in today is in so many ways not the world I lived in a year ago. And that's a good thing. That the world itself hasn't got a lot better ... well, that's something we still need to work on.

But even more important, and I believe, impressive, is that there are more of "us" than I thought, even if we don't agree on everything. We agree about what counts. Isn't that a start?

Is that it?

Good question. And the short answer is "no".

Recently, I was having something of similar discussions with two different friends. These guys don't know each other, and though both are different from me, they are also, as would be expected, very different from each other, although both are what most people would likely describe as "conservative". No, neither is rabid, nor so far "right" that the Republican party starts looking attractive, but they both shudder when I intimate that a position they've just taken has been traditionally considered a "liberal" one. My point is, they're both pretty normal. The overlap between the discussions was the question of what we, as simple "little people" can do about all the evil being perpetrated by all the "big guns" out there in the world, be it the government, industry sectors, banks, whatever.

When looked at that way, there is as good as nothing that we can do to change anything. Voting doesn't matter if politicians have been bought. Standing on the street corner holding a sign doesn't have much impact if nobody reads it. And I'll be the first person to tell you that trying to play their game is as deadly as is trying to stop tanks with rocks. No, none of us is going to change much by taking things head on.

For those of you who read my post last time, you will have noticed that each of the five points I raised has nothing to do with confrontation, persuasion, or manipulation. In fact, all that any of those points have to with is each one of us ourselves. Aside from all new-age, pseudo-enlightened puffery, the fact of the matter is that if we change ourselves, we change the world. It's not important that no one other than us see it. It's not about making an impact or change so that others will tell us how cool, or great, or impressive we are. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that each of us is in tune with and satisfied with ourselves. If we are, in a non-self-centered, not conceited kind of way, the world is -- technically -- a better place, but we can't possibly think that our job is now done.

Truth be told, if you do manage to get yourself sorted and headed in the right direction, what it means is that you are now ready to get to work. Yes, the work will be hard, it will be long, it will make demand upon demand, but it will also be just one step at a time, a little here and a little there, yet we will see we're getting somewhere, too.

After all, you've got to start somewhere.