Is that a wrap?

Can we now bring down the curtain on the current year? I think so. If you've been following, I think you'll agree, that we've managed - perhaps in spite of ourselves - to reconcile the spirit of the season with the reason for the spirit.

The individual whom we know as Jesus of Nazareth - for some, Jesus Christ - whose birthday celebration is the occasion for this holiday, really didn't bring us anything new. (Let's leave all the theology and all the Christology out of this for the moment.) His "message", expressed in his own words are a rephrasing, a re-living, a re-emphasis of something that humankind has known all along: Love the ones your with, the ones you encounter, even the ones that drive you to distraction. If you do, it is a whole lot easier to not do to others what you wouldn't want them doing to you. It's really not all that complicated. Jesus gets a whole lot of points in my book, of course, because, if you read the stories of his life, what strikes one - regardless of what or who you think he might be - is the fact that he practiced what he preached. He took a lot of heat for it, to be sure ... more heat than any of us would be willing to risk, but he did what he said, and that's why he's at least a role model for me.

I don't mind ... in fact, I enjoy ... partaking in his birthday celebration. It's an opportunity to remind myself of what I should be doing, even if I must admit that I don't do it often enough. It's a time to reflect on how I might "improve my game" (it's sort of like golf: the only one you really have to beat is yourself). It's a time to think about opportunities passed and what might be possible if I could really put my mind to it. In the end, at least for me, that makes for an uplifting, rewarding, and encouraging time. To me, that's what Christmas is all about.

A new year, by our reckoning, is upon us. It will be a lot like the old one in many, many ways, and that's reason enough to be sad. We all know that we're not living up to our own potential. We know that there is more than each and every one of us could do to make this world a better place. We also know - at least if you've been following the last few posts, you should know - that we can do better, as individuals and as a species.

It's not complicated; it's rather simple. It's easily said, even if it's not easily done. But, we have to start somewhere sometime, so why not here and now? Love your neighbor (or whoever you're dealing with at any given moment) as yourself and don't do to anyone (neighbor or stranger) anything you wouldn't want them to do to you. I can assure you, if you persevere, the rewards are great, and to top it all off, life for all of us will be brighter, warmer and more fulfilling.

Now you know. Just do it. Just go for it.

Where did that get us?

So, what did you come up with? Did the world go down in flames or become reborn in a new tomorrow? Probably neither; most likely, somewhere in between.

Regardless of what you might have come up with in detail, I'm pretty sure that we can agree that the only instance to whom we may appeal for order and justice is ourselves ... we humans. Of course, depending on how you see this, you've got a vision of hope or despair. Without Gd, as most non-believers feel right now, there is just us. We have to figure it out.

I realize that believers don't like to think these thoughts, but if we're honest with each other, we all know, as Hans Küng so cogently argued, we can't prove that Gd exists, any more than we can prove that He doesn't. In the end, it is a matter of belief, or perhaps better, a matter of faith. Since we can't know for sure one way or the other, it is perhaps worthwhile to think about how we could/should act if He weren't there. Is it even possible to organize our societies such that things might even "work"?

Oddly enough, there is one principle that has been found in every religious belief system and in every society. A principle that has been derived even in the absence of Gd (for it will be remembered that this notion is alien to Buddhism), namely what we most generally recognize as the "Golden Rule". This most basic principle, don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you transcends time, place, culture and any other separatist classification we've come up with so far. It would seem, then, that there just might be a part of human nature itself that desires what everyone else desires, but rejects what anyone else would reject as well. A principle of balance. A principle of fairness. A principle that works, provided we allow each and every person to be what s/he is: a person. Race doesn't matter, we've eliminated creeds in our experiment, social status doesn't matter, nor does class or place in some hierarchy, for without Gd, let's face it: there's just us. There is no "natural order", no "natural hierarchy", only that which some might like to impose, but always at the expense of others.

My point is very simple: while things (at least for some) might be easier with Gd in the scenario, it is nevertheless possible, even if all there is is us, to find a way toward a reasonable and just world. A world in which fairness is important because it simply reflects how we are. This one principle, this rule ... the Golden Rule ... if applied, is really all we need. And, we are capable of grasping it, all on our own. Each and every one of us.

Time for a thought experiment?

Maybe it's time for a thought experiment again. There are only a couple of days left in the year, and I'd like to make a point before I start of on the other side of this coin. This particular experiment may strike some as odd at this particular time of year, but in reality there is no better time to try it.

Let's assume - just for the sake of argument and the experiment - this troublemaker Jesus was never born. Try to imagine (for the non-believers among you, it may be easier, but you're carrying more cultural baggage that you might like to admit) it is all "just a story" (whatever that means). Put slightly differently, and in order to get everyone on the same sheet of music, all those who believe in Gd should simply imagine that Nietzsche was right and He's dead. No Gd, no Jesus (and of course, no holiday, no time off, no holiday meal ... oh, right, just like most of the poor people in the world) ... what happens? What's next?

Part of what you need to imagine is that you have no Bible, no Koran, no real scriptures anymore (for they were never written). OK, one possible scenario could be that Gd died after He "published" His Book ... but that makes things too easy. What have we got to build upon? How do we organize ourselves and our society? How do we figure out what's right and wrong? How do we decide who's in charge? Is anyone in charge, or are we back to our survival-of-the-fittest routine? This isn't easy, I know, but it is necessary. If we no longer have the "Gd excuse" or the "Jesus excuse", just what do we have? Who's responsible? To whom do we appeal? How do we determine who has authority?

Do we simply descend into chaos? Are we simply left with a dog-eat-dog world? Does some misunderstood Darwinian fittest-survival mechanism kick in? I don't know, but I do know that it is worth the effort to think long and hard about it.

So, give it some thought.

December 25

Today's the day we've all been waiting for ... or at least that a lot of us have been waiting for, so in honor of the occasion and in light of the fact that I have had my own personal relationship to this holiday for quite some time, I'd like to share with you a moment of my youth. This is the first poem of which I have a record (that is, from 1968), and I would like to share it with all of you. The title is the same as today's entry:

"Good will to men!"
Choirs of angels sing,
Lifting their voices high.
Stories of gifts
The Wise Men did bring,
But I ask myself why?
Where has the love for other men
Gone in these passing days?
Why has the Christ one
Clear in Christmas
Faded to a haze?
Kettles clink with too few coins
Too many eat too well,
While all the while in some dark corner
Hungry faces tell
Of sadness, hunger, loss of hope –
Why should they rejoice?
'Cause no matter how loud they cry
No one hears their voice.
But, as all good Christians usually do
On this happy day
They turn their backs,
Sit down to eat and
Go on their merry way.

A dilemma, really?

Yes, I'm afraid we've got a full-fledged dilemma on our hands. We've got the "founder" of a religion saying one thing, and we've got all these followers saying something else. That doesn't bode well, now, does it?

What his followers are asserting is at odds with what he was saying himself. What is even more interesting is the fact that a couple of thousand of years later, his alleged followers are asserting exactly the opposite of what the founder was saying himself. Exaggerated? I don't think so.

We've got the texts that tell us what he said. We have also seen that the other folks, especially those who are what we would call "down-and-out" today - widows, orphans, the sick, the infirm, the beggars, the unemployed, those without any resources at all - are more important than oneself. Nevertheless, by some twist of thought, today's followers can assert, in tune with the mantra of modern economics, that it is "enlightened" self-interest that rules the world. If I'm doing well, maybe my "neighbor" is doing well. The man himself said, however, that if your neighbor is doing well, you are probably doing well yourself. We've turned it around. Hey, you don't have to believe me. You can read it for yourselves, if you're willing.

Once again, we've got it backwards. Modern economic theory is based on the assumption that we all act as individuals who have our own best interest at heart, that our self-interest - what's in it for ourselves - is our primary motivator. On the other hand, we have this poor hippy from 2,000 years ago telling us that whoever is in need is more important than yourself. If two positions aren't more at odds with themselves, I don't know which ones they are.

When seen in this light, though, our dilemma is easy to identify: Christ (if you will) said others first; modern economics says put yourself first. The dilemma is: how do those who call themselves Christians bring these two antithetical positions into harmony. I maintain that they can't. You've got a choice: you can actually be a follower of the one whom you claim is the son of Gd and your savior, or you can believe that modern economists have figured it out. You can't have it both ways.

As I see it, the choice is simple: you can call yourself Christian and be all about yourself, or you can actually be a Christian (in the sense of practicing what the Good Jesus actually preached). You can't be both.

It's time to decide.

You think so?

I'm sorry - I have to apologize in advance - but I can't let this opportunity slip by. We've got the story, the narrative, the evidence, if you will, and then we have the reality. How different they are!

We've got all these people running around ... and I can't help but keep repeating: about half the population of the world, about 3,000,000,000 people who claim to be followers of this Jew born in a non-descript part of the world 2,000 years ago, and yet, there are probably not more than a handful of these folks who actually take him, or what he had to say seriously.

I'm not picking on them, really, after all they're only human. But, I can't help but find a certain fascination in the thought that although they call themselves followers of this particular individual, when it comes right down to it, they want as little to do with him as possible.

Let's be real: who wants to put others first? How realistic is it to turn the other cheek, or love our enemies, or help those who just happen to be around? I mean, what would become of the world anyway? That's a good question. A very good question.

Let's face it: we exchanged our society - our lives, actually - for an economy, and we all know what that means: everybody acts in their own self-interest. Economists have even tried to ease the blow and call it "enlightened" self-interest, but in the end, our world, as we experience it today, is all about, it is only about us. Others have to fend for themselves. We live and move and have our being in the fact that we act in our own self-interest.

I hate to be the one to break it to you all, but it just doesn't work that way. The guy who is the alleged founder of the world's largest, most widespread religion said himself that others are more important than you. If you subscribe to the assertion that we act in our own self-interest - enlightened or not - than you are simply at odds with the boss' own idea of how things ought to be working. This isn't a simple misunderstanding, it's a full-fledged dilemma.

We'll need to take a closer look at this the next time, though. It's too big an issue to take care of here.

What's the issue ... really?

Some of you are asking yourself, I'm sure: "What's the big deal?" or "Just what is he going on about?" Those are good questions, really. And I have to tell you, it's a cultural thing.

I hail, originally, from a country in which they think there's a War on Christmas. This isn't really all that surprising when you consider just how warlike this country is. They can't really do anything very well anymore, but they still wage war. That Christmas would eventually become a target of this aggression should be no surprise to anyone.

Once we all get off our high horses and realize that historically this has been a time of year for celebration, and for whatever reason another religion has a big holiday around the same time, then there really shouldn't be such a fuss when one uses the more inclusive "Happy Holidays" as a greeting, instead of "Merry Christmas". There are, however, more than a few people in my home country who find this offensive. It's important for them that they be Number 1 (whether they mean themselves, their own groups, their country or their religion ... being Number 1 is very, very important to them). They believe that they have every reason to be first, and everyone else should come after. I can understand that ... to a point.

It turns out that the individual whom they hold in such esteem - allegedly - that they can't bear being number-anything-but-1 turns out to be an individual who proclaimed that at best, you're Number 2, if you buy into the system he's propagating, you're Number 3. Bummer, isn't it? Yes, a real downer. How do you deal with that?

For those of you who have been following, I decided to take him at his word: the individual about whom we're all excited at this time of year laid out very clearly the order of things: Gd-Others-Self. Believe me, I'm anything but a fan of hierarchy, and that's what the "list" sounds like, but when considered a bit of closer, it's simply a matter of priorities, that's all. I even went to some effort to point out that you don't have to take him to be what others claim he is to see there's a lot to be said for putting others (regardless of whether you include Gd or not) first. And it's this simple fact that is the source of a whole pile of problems.

It's no wonder - at least not to me - that there is all kinds of distractions at this time of year: gifts, shopping, circuses, events, singing, spending money, outdoing the neighbors with decorations, you name it. It is absolutely essential that we divert our attention from what this whole thing is supposed to be about, namely rethinking how it is that we approach life.

Yes, that's what it boils down to: asking ourselves if we're really acting the way we should. The simple truth is "no".

That's what it's all about?

Alright, even those of you who are so aware of what is going down at this time of year, let me see if I can't condense it all in a nutshell:

Christmas is the holiday we celebrate to honor the birth of a person we call Jesus. For many people, he is the founder of the Christian religion, at least insofar as his "followers" tend to claim that they revere him as the son of Gd and the savior of everyone. That's a big deal to a lot of people. About half of all the people on the planet at the moment claim, in one way or another, to be an adherent to this religion, which is called Christianity.

The word "Christmas" is a term that derives from "Christ" (a borrowed translation from the Hebrew, Meshiach, meaning "the anointed one") and "mass", what the Catholics call their worship service. Christmas is the day on which a particular mass was celebrated to honor the birth of the one they consider to be the Messiah, the Redeemer of the World, or thereabouts. This birth took place, according to our time reckoning, about 2012 years ago. Yes, we've been at this for a very long time.

Over the past few posts - especially for those of you who may just be joining us - I've been taking a closer look at this individual. This part of the Christmas season is called "Advent" (the coming) and we have been considering just who or what is on the way. That's what all of the current hub-bub is about ... everything else, including Santa Claus, St. Nick, St. Nicklaus, or whomever else we've happened to associate with this event, is beside the point. We're left with the fact that this Jesus guy had such an impact on so many people, that he got his own holiday (actually, here in the West, he got two, but we'll get to the other one - Easter - in the spring. Until then, you'll just have to be patient).

Even though a lot of folks don't believe Jesus is who those other folks claim he is, we still have the celebration, and I believe it's worth the effort to at least take a look at the guy and see what he's got going for himself. It turns out, he was a somewhat radical troublemaker who thought we should be looking out for other people instead of just looking out for ourselves. Yes, yes, yes ... he said and did a lot of other things, but when you take a closer look at it all, it's the taking-care-of-others thing that causes us the most problems.

As a result, there are a lot of people (as I said, about half the world's population) who claim to be followers of this guy, but the fewest of them actually use him as an example of anything ... so I've been wondering why ... out loud.

Tragedy should give us pause to think

My personal condolences to all of the families of all of the victims of the latest tragedy in Connecticut. I am truly saddened by your loss.

This shouldn't have happened, and I shouldn't feel like I have to say something about it. But, I must for this is not a singular incident, nor is it a one-issue event. It is a systemic, cultural tragedy, one that runs deeper than most Americans are willing to think or feel. Yet, what is most tragic about this event, what saddens me the most, is that it is not, by a long shot, the last one, nor will it remain the worst one. None of this is going to go away soon.

The American journalist and writer H.L. Mencken once wrote "There is always an easy solution to every problem – neat, plausible, and wrong." That was over a hundred years ago, and a quick look at Facebook and a quick zap through the news channels will assure you, it's every bit as true today.

My fellow Americans, you are a superficial, quick-fix society. You don't want to be bothered, you don't want to have to actually do anything other than pursue your own self-interest, make as much money as possible and just do your own thing. And what won't be said by any public figure in any public venue is that you all share the guilt of the shooter whether you realize it or not, whether you like it or not. The howling and finger-pointing have already started, the tragedy is already being used for political gain, the victims and their families instrumentalized for more reasons than I care to think about.

You can't find single solutions on the surface. You have to follow multiple issues deeper and deeper; you must recognize connections and relationships between attitudes and values and laws and beliefs; you must follow the branches down to the trunk in order to get to the root of what makes events like Connecticut even possible. When I look at what happened, I can tell you what I see. I see America.

This isn't about gun control, security, healthcare, police oversight and screenings, domestic terrorism, video games or any other red herring that every so-called journalist and expert is going to trot out for review. No, all of this is just distraction. It's part of the illusion that Americans love so dearly: the illusion that it was someone else, from somewhere else who is responsible, who is to blame. It's not. It's about you, too.

The United States of America is not just the allegedly richest country in the world (and I say alleged, because it may have the most monetary wealth, but one can easily get the impression it is morally bankrupt; in other words, what "rich" means is up for discussion). More importantly, it is the most violent country in the world. And I would maintain that Americans love their violence more than anything else. It is the only solution to problems that Americans know. Violence defines American culture. It is the only answer that Americans have for any pressing question: violence. I'm exaggerating? Hardly.

Military violence.
A defense budget that is breaking your fiscal back. Two full-fledged wars that have brought only death, pain and destruction to everyone involved, and for what? Don't do what we say and we'll bomb you back to the stone age. Violence.

Psychological violence.
Spreading fear and suspicion, allowing your rights to be taken away so you can be sent to Guantanamo on suspicion, where you can be tortured for the blandest of reasons, like we do to other detainees, like we do in secret interrogation (read: torture) centers the world around. Violence.

Political violence.
Did none of you see the last presidential campaign? Hate, bile, vitriolic aggression, an obscene amount of money spent in hate and anger, while real people still suffer in real places everywhere. A winner-take-all mentality because you shouldn't just beat your opponent, you should destroy him.

Social violence.
Poor people should simply be eliminated. Lazy welfare folks should be forced to work, for nothing if necessary. After all, it's their own damn fault that they're takers. Ever more draconian measures with ever fewer results. The highest murder rate in the world. The highest rate of violent crime in the world. Denying healthcare to those who need it because they can't pay. Opposing universal healthcare because it would impinge on others' right to exploit and extort.

Legal violence.
The (non-deterring) death penalty. Money talks, everybody else walks, and this is directly related to the increasing environmental destruction that follows in its wake; the use of force, violent force, to remove protesters, to prosecute opponents, the sheer brutality of the police in so many Occupy situations: pepper-spraying women and children with impunity, the suppression of due process; stop-and-frisk laws. The passing of special-interest laws that simply take from others at the expense of the public good.

Environmental violence.
Disproportionate over-consumption of natural resources. Pollution that need not be cleaned up (see legal violence above). The forceful takeover of water and air supplies in the name of financial gain. Factual manipulation, lying, suppressing, and threatening opponents to escape having to take responsibility for the pain and suffering (e.g. BP in the Gulf of Mexico, fracking, the Keystone pipeline, just to name the most visible).

Financial violence.
Predatory lending practices, forced evictions, unregulated speculation that cost millions of people worldwide their homes, their businesses, their retirements, and more. Banking activities that put the entire world at risk and we know there were untold numbers of people who were killed as a result, who were wiped out and saw no other way out than a heart-attack or suicide. The widespread feeling of desperation, and of course, none of the guilty were ever called to task (see legal violence, above).

Workplace violence.
From below through mobbing, and bullying. The successful professional is the one who can elbow his or her way up the corporate ladder, any method is accepted as long as it works. Employer violence toward employees: paying non-livable wages, even if the company is making record profits, short-timing employees so that benefits need not be paid. Suppression of wages in the name of competitiveness (instead of producing something better than everyone would want). Inhuman working conditions (often outsourced work), substandard facilities and ignoring of OSHA regulations in search of profit.

Entertainment violence.
(My personal favorite.) Where did violent video games originate? Who produces and sells them to this day? What about the movie industry: so many people haven't seen enough people hacked, chopped, tortured, blown apart, dismembered and there just hasn't been enough blood flowing to satisfy our insatiable thirst. (How many voyeur-vampires do you know?) Not to mention America's favorite sports pastime: football -- it can't be brutal enough, violent enough, you can't stomp your opponent enough, and we celebrate the most brutal of the players as our heroes. Idols for our children.

Ever more force, ever bigger weapons, ever stronger tactics, ever more brutality, thuggery, arbitrary suppression ... had enough? I'm sure I could find some more if I took some time to think about it. This is simply what immediately came to mind.

I'm sorry, my fellow Americans, but you live in a society that allows, accepts, encourages, promotes, at times demands, idolizes, welcomes, perhaps worships, and exports violence. It may not be the American Dream, but it is the American Way of Life. It is such a part of the culture that it is most likely simply taken for granted, but as long everything is about "me", and as long as it is about what I can get because I believe that everybody else is trying to get more than their share; along as it is about believing that ends justify means, as long as you tolerate and accept all of this as just the way it is, well, you are just going to have to live with these tragedies again and again.

You can't stop them. You have only fertile ground for growing more. You have built your society on violence and it is time to simply own up to the fact that this is how your world works. You support it. You feed it. You nurture it. You justify it. You defend it. You even argue for it. And you do nothing to stop it. Yes, my fellow Americans, it is a deep-seated, cultural problem that you (and unfortunately the rest of the world) have to deal with. And until you do, you're just going to get a lot more of the same. You are going to be part of who's to blame.

Really? It's that bad, eh?

While surfing through the hundreds of channels available to me in languages I both do and don't understand, I stumbled across one of those let's-see-how-dumb-most-people-are segments about Christmas. I know, I know, we only talk about "holidays" anymore, but for all you politically-correct folks: pound sand.

C'mon. I know that Hanukkah is always celebrated around this time, and I'm a big fan (they do daily presents and have special things to eat everyday ... now, who's against that?). Unfortunately, our Moslem brethren don't have anything to celebrate themselves, and our Buddhist and Shinto friends have to wait till February to get their New Year going. Christmas is, I'm afraid, the biggest game in town, and I'm all for everyone joining in and celebrating for whatever reason they can find, but I also believe that it's not a bad idea to know why there was a reason for all this chaos in the first place.

I am fully aware of the fact that historically, the reason for celebrating may be a bit divorced from what we've got today, but if it comes down to partying and having a good time and adhering to history, well, the party wins out every time. We don't get bothered by movies that are loose adaptations of actual events, so let's not get all bent out of shape because of a few historical details. If I didn't know when I was born and decided 1 April seems like a good day, and then I invite you all to a party ... what? you're not going to come because it's probably not really my birthday. Get real. There's free food and drink and you're going to stay home on principle ... right.

So, once more, for those of you for whom all of this has been moving along too fast: Christmas ... which is the holiday that's coming up ... the reason that civilized people in the West are going to get two days off ... is because at some point in time somebody decided that this is the day we would set aside to celebrate the birth of the Baby Jesus (whereby, had he been born an adult, we would have just had another myth to deal with that we didn't understand).

Over the last few posts, I've been trying to get behind who this character is. Obviously, he's had a tremendous impact on our culture, how we think and what we believe. There are various theories and there are a whole lot of people who claim to know exactly what he was thinking, what his Father was thinking and how this all fits together, but that's another issue we need to address at another time. (I personally think most of these know-it-alls have it all wrong, which is another reason why we'll deal with it later, OK?)

Look, I'm as amazed as many of you that it is not clear why there's even a holiday season, but the fact remains, as I learned from TV: not everybody knows. So, the next time, let me see if I can put it all as simply as possible ... just so we're on the same sheet of music.

Who would have thought? Till I saw the show, I didn't even know we were singing.

Is there another way to get there?

All roads lead to Rome, they say, but that's only if you're actually heading to Rome. What if you want to go somewhere else? I know there's a lot of you now thinking this not-me thing isn't really my cup of tea. I mean, where would we be if I didn't look out for good ol' Number 1? Yeah, who knows where we might end up.

You have to give this Jesus fella credit though: he knew how to keep it simple. I mean how hard did he really make it: Love Gd, love your "neighbor", and don't do anything to anyone else that you wouldn't want them to do to you. That's it. As I like to see it, just three simple rules, or principles, whichever you feel more comfortable with. It is the case, however, that there are some of you out there who don't believe in Gd. Your choice, I say. So, I think you've got it even easier, really, because then the system, the whole to-do, consists really of only two principles: love your "neighbor" and behave accordingly. How tough can that be? Two rules. C'mon, any of us can get it together with two rules, can't we? OK, apparently not.

As I read the story, this is what got him into trouble. The powers-that-were (which weren't a whole lot different than the powers-that-be today) knew that it was precisely these couple of rules which were going to ruin things for them. I mean, who's going to bow and scrape if everyone is looking out of other people, ordinary people, people who might for whatever reason need a hand. If we're all running around being Good Samaritans, if you like, who is going to pay them the respect and defer to them as they think is fit? Well, actually, nobody. My feeling has always been: if you want my respect, earn it. end of story. You don't get it just because you happen to think you deserve it. If you're playing by the rules, you get it because you're better and helping others and not doing stuff that you wouldn't want done to yourself. Anything else is, well, simply off program.

I know, I know ... not how things are, I hear you saying. All I can respond with is a question: why? Three billion people out there claim to be following this Jesus fellow and we're all gearing up for his birthday bash, and when I look around, all I see are folks who are looking for excuses not to follow him at all. Not even in a position to adhere to a couple of simple rules, rules that children, oddly enough, follow quite naturally, until we raise them to stop helping others and start looking out for themselves.

No, we're not putting our best foot forward, by any means.

Escape from Translations Woods?

Yeah, that Jesus guy was a troublemaker, there's no doubt about it. What's even worse, he's still making trouble for us today. Why is it that he gets so much lip-service but so little attention? That's always struck me as strange. Truth be told, those who are quickest to sing his praises and cry halleluja - at least in my experience - are those who by and large think they might owe him something (they claim because he was crucified on their behalf) but other than that don't really pay all that much attention to the details of the contract.

Like any other narrative, we need to sort the truth out from the red herrings and what's false; we have to find the substance and throw away the fluff; we have to sift the wheat from the chaff. For all of you who are not familiar with the source document (and especially for those of you who think you are), let me point something out to you: what we call the New Testament is actually three different parts that have been glommed together. The first four books, the Gospels plus the fifth book, called Acts (which was written by the same guy who wrote the third gospel, which is why we can include it here) constitute the first part. It is all about what Jesus said and did. The last part is the last book alone, Revelation, or as some like to call it, the Apocalypse which is a pretty heady vision of the end of the world, so it, too stands out on its own. The 21 "books" in between, which are actually letters, mostly by Paul, make up the other part, and these tell us what Paul and his friends think that first part means. And, as they say, therein lies the rub.

Some people think it's just a bunch of gibberish because it says too many different things. Some people think it's Holy Scripture and stands above reproach. Some people simply find deep inspiration in the first part (which is what Gandhi, for example, was most concerned with). And some people don't care at all. The point is that regardless of how we personally see it, something in there is strong enough that it has persisted till today. My question is what?

It would seem to me that if in fact we have this big celebration every year honoring Jesus' (alleged) birthday, then it strikes me as most reasonable to take our cue from the man himself, not someone else's ideas about what he meant. I mean, after all, should his own words and deeds count for more than someone else's thoughts about them? I'm a big fan of originals, so that's where I go first, and that was the reason for the little excursion through what gets lost in translation. It seems to me that it's all pretty clear: "the one next to me", the "one nearest to me", my "neighbor" (if you will) is first and foremost not me. The Other is every bit as important as, if not more important than, oneself. In fact, life in general isn't about you, it's about others. That's what he said, and that's what ticks us off the most.

If you ask me, that's why Jesus was such a troublemaker: he called us out on our own hypocrisy. So the next time, should you be so inclined, praising Jesus - and passing the ammunition or whatever else you do at the time - remember it was that guy who said it wasn't about you at all, it is about who you're shooting at. The rest of us can just stop putting ourselves first. That's what I think the Birthday Boy was trying to tell us.

More lost in translation?

Did you try it? Did you just randomly pick a moment, look at who was next to you and asked yourself if you can love that person as much as you love yourself (and we all know how much you love yourself)? It's not easy is it. Nah, it's not easy at all. So, obviously, he must have meant something else ... which brings me back to the story:

Well, in all fairness, the guy who asked Jesus the question in the first place wasn't all excited about the answer either, for his immediate response was "Well, just who is this person whoever is the closest to me at the time?" (See how clunky that sounds in English!) In other words: "Could you be just a bit more specific about whom you actually mean by that?"

And now comes my favorite part of the story. It is my favorite because we see right here why he was considered such a troublemaker. Instead of just running of the list (if there even is one), he decided to tell a little story. Most of us know this story under the title of the "Good Samaritan".

On the surface, it's harmless: one guy gets beat up by robbers, another guy happens along, helps the beat-up guy, gets him shelter and medical care and pays for it all out of his own pocket and then, like the Lone Ranger, goes on his way without waiting for a thank-you. Yes, yes, yes, we've heard it a thousand times. Except, most of us have never really heard it at all. To hear what he was saying, we need to know just a little history:

The guy who was beat up and robbed was a Jew; the guy who took care of him was a Samaritan. The Samaritans were to the Jews of the day much like the Soviets were to the West during the Cold War, or the way too many of us think of the Muslims today; and of course the feelings were mutual. Take your pick: choose the nationality, race, creed, religion ... whatever ... that you despise the most and imagine that's who was robbed and you are the one to help. What do you think about the story now?

The robbed guy just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. He might have even been warned not to be there, but went anyway (in other words, it was his own fault that he got beat up and robbed). It doesn't matter. The guy who helped him just happened to be passing by and found him. He wasn't looking for him; he had absolutely nothing to do with him, except he was the "one who was the closest to him at the time".

So, here's my point: the story is the mirror, and we all have to decide how well each of us is meeting these expectations. If you're feeling a little sheepish at the moment, well, then it's not really all that hard to understand why this troublemaker has got to go ... sooner than later.

Lost in translation?

Let me relate one of my favorite stories to illustrate what I'm talking about.

He was once asked what it is that we should do more than anything else; that is, what is the most important guiding principle for our lives. I think that's a pretty straight forward request. Being the good Jew that he was, he responded that really there are two of them: Love Gd, and love your neighbor as yourself. Well, anyone who doesn't believe in Gd really can't do much with the first one, but the second one seems applicable no matter who you are. And it's at times like these that he just bugs the bejeezuz (if you'll excuse the pun) out of us. But, it's at this point that things get interesting.

The response begs the question: who is my neighbor. It would appear that we have decided in the meantime that my "neighbor" is anyone I like or can stand, and everyone else isn't, so we can all pretty well pick and choose who that is. It might be the folks next door (unless their jerks) or it can be people who tell me what I want to hear, say on bowling night or at church on Sunday, or the like. One of the problems, though is that he never said "neighbor". That's just how it ended up being translated into English. What did he really say?

In actual fact, the word he used in that line (as it was recorded, in Greek, we must remember) was πλησιον (plesion). The word derives from the preposition for "near, next to, near by" and in a neuter noun; that is, it doesn't refer specifically either to males or females, rather it applies to everyone. In English we'd have to say, "whoever happens to be near you". Not very spiffy, so we end up with "neighbor" but it turns out that "neighbor" is simply too weak a word to do the statement justice.

There is a huge difference between whomever I happen to be with, as opposed, for example, to one's "neighbor". Do we have any choice about who's next to us, who's near us ... not just feeling-wise, not just spiritually, not just emotionally, but physically as well. All of a sudden, this sounds more like a challenge than simple advice. It's is, without a doubt, not the answer that we want to hear, not by a long shot.

Have you ever stopped at any random time during your day: at the mall, at the supermarket, at work, on the bus or train or subway, or just walking down the street? You should. You should just stop sometime and look at who's next to you, and then you should think real hard: "This is the person I should love as much as myself." What do you think?

Who are we dealing with?

Before you get the wrong idea that I'm going to get all sappy-sentimental on you, you can forget it. I'm not proselytizing either. I don't count myself a member of that particular club ... there are too many in it that I'd prefer not to have to associate with. It's nothing personal, don't get me wrong, but there are just too many who have such little idea of what any of it is about that I'd prefer to settle my accounts on my own terms, if you don't mind. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean there isn't something to be learned from what they at least purport to believe in, even if they don't practice it.

I actually think that Kris Kristofferson (who might have been - and I believe most likely was - inspired by John Prine) put it best:

Jesus was a Capricorn, he ate organic food.
He believed in love and peace and never wore no shoes.
Long hair, beard and sandals, and a funky bunch of friends,
Betcha they'd just nail him up, if he came down again.

OK, apart from the Capricorn thing, it's not a bad summary, and a little poetic license has to be tolerated to at least acknowledge that the choice of his birthday was something less than arbitrary. Nevertheless, we like to think that actions speak louder than words, and if we look at the actions of this particular individual, the "love and peace" idea isn't all that far-fetched at all. I mean, mass-feeding hungry people, healing the sick, forgiving your torturers. These, be they literally true or not, are big-ticket items. The intents that are being conveyed by the narrative are moving, inspiring, and, if you ask me, make for pretty big sandals to fill. Maybe that's why so many folks don't even try.

Yes, I know, he was also a troublemaker. Lord knows we shouldn't be hanging around with people like that, but just what kind of a troublemaker was he? Certainly not violent (if you forgive him the money-changer thing), certainly not subversive - he insisted one should pay one's taxes (Mat 22:21, Mk 12:17) - but he still managed to rub the establishment the wrong way. Have you ever really asked yourself why? I have.

My current theory is quite simple, actually: there is one thing about him we can agree on independent of any theological or religious sentiments we may harbor, namely, he was damn good at holding up a mirror and asking, what do you think of how that person you see is behaving? That'll get us every time.

Do we have any idea?

Right, wrong, or indifferent, this is a unique time of year, and it has been for longer than any of us can remember. That we moderns have perverted it into some hedonistic festival of waste and debauchery, of egotism run wild and false expectations, is, I suppose, in some ways just a natural progression of things. Things don't always change for the better when we humans are involved.

We've turned it all on its head: everyone who ever celebrated anything at this time of year - except for us, of course - did so with a certain reverence for things greater than themselves. Since we are defined by our man-made toys and gadgets, we have lost this sense of "something greater" and have degenerated into über-consumers who can't get enough fast enough, shiny enough, twinkly enough, expensive enough. And yet - and here I have divorce, mental-illness, and crime rates to back me up - we are some damn unhappy people. Like any other junkie, our consumer fix will fade fast and we'll be seeking another kick before all too long.

Now, before the more religiously inclined of you get up on your high horses and tell me you're the only ones who have figured it out and haven't succumbed to the holiday, consumer madness surrounding us, I just want you all to know that I don't believe a word of it. You may be bothered to no end that there are insensitive people who don't want to hear anyone say Merry Christmas any more, but you only need to look at the clips of Walmartians on Black Friday to know that whomever this holiday is supposed to be about or because of has absolutely nothing in common with what's going on there. How soon we forgot that he was the one who drove the money changers out of the temple, not the one who invited them in.

But that's just part of the story, of course, those ireful actions were the consequence of a long frustrating narrative, and one that still hasn't sunk in. I mean, you have to give the story credit: it's persistent. It's hung on in spite of centuries of efforts to suppress it. But, it is also clear to me that we have lost sight of that narrative in meaningful terms. OK, roughly a third of the world's population call themselves Christian (though Lord only knows how many actually act like one), and the figure of Jesus inspired even non-believers like Gandhi. It would seem that it should be a powerful narrative, but do we even know what it is anymore?

I would suggest we don't. More abuse, suffering and death have been caused in the name of that poor guy than even he would be able to stand, I think. Just what was he trying to tell us? What is the story really about? I'd like to know, so it seems the perfect time of year to submerge beneath the glare and glitter, the theological smoke and mirrors and just take a look at why this narrative is all but forgotten today.

What's on the way?

While I realize many of you have no antenna for religion, we shouldn't be so foolish as to think that it has no influence on our lives anyway. Christianity, generally speaking; that is, independent of the many flavors of it we encounter daily, is so deeply entwined in our Western culture that it is simply more often than not overlooked. Being aware of certain things within that culture doesn't put one at a disadvantage, and, believe it or not, there are some things in the culture that can be downright helpful. Yes, when it has to do with good things, picking and choosing is perfectly fine with me.

We, thankfully, have Black Friday behind us. Talk about perversions! The day after Thanksgiving in America has got to be the most insane "event" ever derived from twisted minds. The logic of allegedly being so thankful for everything one has that it one is compelled to rush out and get even more stuff simply escapes me. But, then again, I don't think a lot of stuff does much for us except collecting dust, and I hate to dust.

But, just for your information, tomorrow is "officially" the beginning of the "Christmas Season". Yes, in the Roman and most protestant churches, tomorrow marks the beginning of the Church Year. It is always the fourth Sunday prior to Christmas, and this period of a month leading up to Christmas is known as Advent, from the Latin adventus, meaning "arrival" or "coming". The original purpose of setting this time aside was to get ready for the big event of the year: the solstice, Christmas, the coming of the light ... any number of things, most of which I talked about last year.

Regardless of the religious or philosophical doctrine you subscribe to, it simply makes sense to periodically take a step back and think a bit about what you think and what you believe. In pure calendar terms, a new year will be starting soon and you may or may not want the next one to be like the last one. If that's the case, I suggest you take some time and think about what it is you really want. For those of us in the Northern Hemisphere, there couldn't be a better time: longer nights and colder days drive us inside, both literally and figuratively.

Do yourself the favor. Take some time. Give it all some thought. Get yourself sorted for what's on the way.

Who's to blame?

We love to place the blame, don't we? I mean, there are so many others, there are just so many places we could place it, isn't there? Why do we have to place it on ourselves?

While I can certainly understand not wanting to be culpable, it is time we started realizing that we all share some of the blame for the terrible shape our world is in. And it's in bad shape. The environment is deteriorating, and it doesn't matter whether it's humans or natural, we need to do something about it. The economy worldwide is deteriorating, and it doesn't matter whether it's the greed of the money-lenders, the corruption in government, or a combination of both, we need to do something about it. Our societies are deteriorating, and it doesn't matter if it is unbridled egotism or sheer indifference, we need to something about it. So many things are broken - big things, significant things - that we have to do something before everything just collapses around our ears, for when it does collapse - and it will (I've got history on my side in that one) - it will collapse around all our ears, not just some of ours.

The ideas I've been pushing the last few posts are not original. Taking on guilt because you don't do something when you should is even a legal precept in Germany, for example (it's called unterlassene Hilfeleistung, literally, "refused help". If you see someone in need and you don't help, it's considered a crime in these parts. It's a good idea, because it is simply part of what holds us together, as a society, and as a race - the human race.

A couple of weeks ago I read a passionate little book by William Rivers Pitt about what went wrong with the first Bush II administration. It was the passion that struck me most of all; the facts, at least in this case, pretty well speak for themselves. He took the title of the book from a statement Bill Moyers made back in a speech in October 2001, over a decade ago, and called it The Greatest Sedition is Silence. I can't remember the last time that truer words were spoken. Pitt put his finger in the most festering wound we've got, worldwide, in every so-called or half-way "free" country: we are silent. We allow bad things - very bad things, cruel things, lethal things, inhuman things - to happen; we know about them; and we stay silent.

We have every reason in the world to hang our heads and hide our faces. We should be more than ashamed. And for that very reason, it is time to speak up and speak out.

Is that all?

No, not by a long shot. You really didn't think that was all I had to say about that, did you? I didn't think so.

You might have noticed that a word popped up more than once in the last post, and it's really the theme of this one: hypocrisy. It's one of our taken-for-granted concepts. Everybody believes they know what it means, and it's one of those that, oddly enough, only ever applies to other people, never to ourselves. The moment you find yourself thinking just that, it might be time to stop and reassess.

There's a lot of little things that fit into the scheme here. Did you ever notice that other people get paid way too much for what they do, and we never get paid what we're worth? Or, have you noticed lately that only poor people who get assistance from the government are moochers, but when the well-off receive it, it's a necessary subsidy? Or, what about those folks who rail against entitlements but take their own Social Security checks to the bank every month and ride to their Tea Party protests on scooters paid for by Medicare? I could go on, of course, but why beat a dead horse? None of that applies to any of us.

If asked directly, all of us will say that we're all for freedom and liberty, but if pushed just a little, you'll find that every one of these liberty-lovers isn't so keen on having Nazis around, or perhaps they think that our society has become promiscuous or degenerate because others have decided on a lifestyle different from our own. And, of course, anyone on the street protesting, well, talk about too much time on your hands: why don't these people go get a job and stop asking for a handout?

All of these ways of thinking are simply hypocritical. We're right; others are wrong. We know our limits; others are just takers. Truth be told, we're no different than anyone else. What most of you don't know - or maybe what you're simply not aware of - is the fact that if you do not stand up and speak out against the injustices that are inflicted on others each and every day, if you simply remain silent because you don't think it's your problem or you (even worse) don't want to get involved, then you are every bit as guilty as those who actually do the deeds. Need I remind you: silence is assent. By allowing it to happen, by not speaking out against it, you are, at least tacitly, supporting it.

Silence has its price. Looking the other way has its price. For the more religiously inclined among you, there are sins of commission and sins of omission. You can be guilty for doing something, but it's almost worse to know that others are being dealt with unjustly and to be silent.

If you've never thought of it this way, you need to start.

Is he serious?

Oh, yes, he is. He's very serious. I'm very serious.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... I hear all you whiners, too: nobody made him take the loan; he didn't have to sign the contract ... but, is that really the case? No car, no job. Where's the choice? There are many times in life when we simply have no choice and we end up in a situation that we wish were otherwise. My question is, why don't any of us count so much that our situation can be considered? Why are we treated like human beings? Why are we simply contracts, and agreements, and obligations, and, well, just things. When you strip a human of his/her humanity, you do violence. And that's what we do, and that's what we think is right these days. Yes, we've stooped this low.

For all the touting that conservatives do about the worth and necessity of the individual, I find it somehow surprising that as soon as money is involved, the individual isn't worth anything at all. Any individual can suffer a twist of fate, a set-back, an unexpected and temporary change of fortune. Why can't that all be calculated in? Why is this so difficult?

Well, it isn't difficult if you owe enough, or if you appear to be rich enough, or you have the proper gift of persuasion. Rupert Murdoch can be on the verge of bankruptcy, but if he calls in his creditors and tells them they are going to negotiate new terms, new terms get negotiated. If you're not of Rupert's "stature", you're nothing more than free game. The fact that another can consider you so unimportant, so insignificant, so not worth dealing with, is another piece of evidence for my violence hypothesis. Since I can bully you, I will; since I cannot bully Rupert, I won't. How phony can you get? And these are the folks we like to praise as "captains of industry", "gurus of high finance", "business leaders" ... right.

Truth be told, they are little more than braggarts, bullies and cowards. They hide behind their rules and laws when it suits them and when they can get away with it, but otherwise, they bow, scrape and kow-tow before anyone upon whom they can place a monetary value greater than their own (in that moment). Isn't that just grand? How proud we must be? How satisfied we must be with our own humanity.

Well, not really. You may think they are business or finance geniuses, but they're simply crappy human beings. They're hypocrites and purveyors and multiple standards. They're inconsistent, arbitrary, and in the end, cruel, and simply violent. If you admire them, or support them, or simply don't care, well, you're just as bad.

Funny, I can't remember the last time I was this serious.

Does he mean me?

Yes, he does; that is, yes, I do.

Lots of you don't feel spoken to, and I think for two primary, but very different reasons. First, there are those who just don't get the debt-violence connection. And, second, there are those who don't think I'm talking to them.

Let's take the second group first: I'm talking to you. It's that simple. I'm talking to you because I'm talking to everybody. As George Carlin put it, you're here, you're guilty, end of story. Get over yourselves. You're involved, you're not immune. None of us are immune. If we're not actively playing the debt game, we're playing it indirectly. We support it because we don't understand it, we think we know better, but the fact of the matter is, hardly anybody really thinks about it because we think that's just the way things are. They're not. This is how we made them (or allowed them to be made). There's nothing natural about it. It's artificial, just like everything humans make is artificial.

So, now the other folks, the one's who don't get it yet ... here's the deal:

To me, the definition of violence is simple: it is the ability one has to have someone else conform to that person's will, when the person simply can't say "no" without repercussions to his/her well-being. Say you just got a job, but you can't walk to it nor can you take public transportation (because more often than not there isn't any). Now what? You need a car. Have the money? No. Answer: car loan. Do you have a choice? Not really, if it's up to you and you can't mooch off others. Great. Now you have a car, but the company decides it's closing shop and sending all the jobs to China. Now you have no job, therefore no money. Does the lending institution tell you not to worry about it, they'll just put the payments on hold and as soon as you're back on your feet again, you can pick up where you left off? I doubt it. They want their money, they want it now, and if you don't pay it, they'll send some thuggy looking individual to intimidate you into putting up the cash or simply taking back your car, by force, if necessary. That's violence folks, and the fact that they can do that without the slightest hesitation, without fear of the slightest sanction, they exercise violence ... against you. It may be psychological, it may be potential, or it may even be physical. You're in debt, you're subject to that violence.

You don't count. Your circumstances don't count. Nothing counts but the money you owe. And "they" can get it, one way or the other, by force, if necessary, and you have not recourse whatsoever. If that's not violence, I don't know what is.

So, was that it?

For those of you who are still having a bit of difficulty shifting back from personal to political mode, hang onto your hats, I need to make the shift again. What we wouldn't put up with on a personal level, what we realize is simply unfair, if not immoral, at a nation-state level, is still going on every day. It's not making things around the world any better, but what is going on says a lot about us as people.

I don't know how many of you have ever been to Greece, but I highly recommend it. The country itself is simply beautiful, the weather is grand most of the year, and the people are among the most friendly and warm-hearted that you'll run into anywhere. Just like anywhere else, there are good folks and some not so good. In many regards the Greeks are just like you and me. They're not sloppy, lazy, or deceitful. They love their families and would like nothing more than to see they live happy and healthy lives. Unfortunately, they are being victimized through no fault of their own (other than they happen to live there. Here's why I say that.

When the whole financial crisis with Greece started, they had a public debt level of about 165% of GDP. In came the banks, and particularly the IMF, told them they had to get their stuff together or no one would help them. The political tug-of-war began. In the meantime, the banks and IMF have been forcing the country to privatize where possible, sell off public assets, so to speak, they cut the salaries of all their civil servants, teachers, security and rescue personnel, and they cut earned pension benefits for their seniors; they have eliminated their healthcare system. On top of this, the richer, lender countries have poured several trillion dollars into the country as well, and now, after all of that they are being threatened with begin thrown out of the euro zone and too many outside nations are back to pointing figures at the lazy, screwed-up Greeks. The problem is that even with all the saving, the austerity, the pressure from above, their debt is now at 197% of GDP. How is that possible?

It's possible when you don't want to help, when you don't want to really do business, but when all you want is money. The banks, who received untold billions in bailouts for outright criminal behavior, now have the audacity to demand of others what they were not willing to do themselves. You don't have to be a financial expert to know that debt is being used here as a cudgel. We're allowing the Greeks to be beaten to death by supposed upright, honest institutions. They're not. And by not speaking out against them and by not pushing to have them back off or be shut down, we are simply accomplices to the crimes.

What else is it about?

Last time I mentioned that there were two issues involved here. The one has to do directly with the scenario, but the other one can be thought about separately as well. We saw that the conquered people had no yet paid off their debt. There was still a lien against them. Sure, you can say, why should they pay, it wasn't there decision to take on the debt in the first place. But apart from that, just looking solely at the numbers, if we assume that the regular payments were made, when is a debt actually paid off?

Why do we find it reasonable to borrow, say, 100,000 (€ or $, it doesn't matter), at, perhaps, 5% interest, and think that the debt has first been repaid when almost half-a-million dollars or euros have left our bank account and go to the lender? Don't get me wrong, I know how interest works and I know how compound interest works as well. Uncle Al (Einstein) was once asked what he believed to be the most powerful force in the universe to which he answered "compound interest". He was know for being a pretty smart guy. He nailed this one, too.

It is interesting to note that we have a strange relationship to such things. At 5%, the lender should be saying the 5,000 is what his troubles are worth. I don't think that's all that unreasonable, but when considered in absolute terms, I have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that the lender thinks his efforts are worth more than three times the principle. That sounds more like extortion than business to me. My question is then, why do we put up with it?

It is not by accident that almost every religion in the world abhors usury, that is, the practice of demanding too much for your trouble when you lend money to another. I don't think this is a religious issue, but for most of their existence, religions have purported to be the bearers of a culture's moral standards. In other words, in most times and in most places, demands of this type were simply considered immoral. And now, we think they are normal. Obviously something has changed, and I don't think I'm too far off base to maintain that one of the first things we've sacrificed has been our innate morality.

The fact of the matter is that all such relationships, all such money relationships, are simply immoral acts. Just like the guilt you accrue when you don't speak out against aggression, so too do you express your own immorality when you don't speak out against de facto extortion as well.

What's it all about?

Even though the scenario is highly improbably in our personal lives, the principles upon which it is built are not. I'm sure that most of you simply shrugged it off as silly because, after all, who would do a thing like that? Even if it were possible to eliminate the legal and administrative aspects, who would come up with the idea to just take someone's house for his or her own silly purposes? Truth be told, the scenario is truer than we might like to believe and there are two issues in the exercise that need to be addressed.

The scenario was based upon historical events. In the early 19th century a well-known western power (no, not the USA), attacked and subjugated a smaller country and forced them to agree to pay the victors for their losses. Since the conquered country couldn't pay up front, they were forced into debt, and have been paying ever since. Yes, they are still paying ... well, more accurately the financiers of the conquering country still has demands on unpaid funds. It turns out, the scenario is not as far-fetched as first thought.

This brings us to the first issue. I'm sure you were outraged by the behavior of the corporation. What right did they have to just come in and take over. You were right to be outraged, but if you are outraged if it had happened to you, why aren't you outraged when it happens to others? What did the home owners do to deserve their fate? Nothing as far as I can tell. The sole culprits in the story are the representatives of the corporation who imposed its will and was in a position to enforce that imposition, with force, if necessary. Obviously that isn't right, but this is a story that has repeated itself time and time again up until today. This is how many nations became "great". Their exploits are glorified in history books, these ideals poured into the empty heads of unwitting students in schools until we are led to believe that we somehow have the right to impose our wills on others.

The fact that we can become outraged when it happens to us simply indicates how hypocritical we are. If it's not OK on the personal level, why in the world would it be OK on a national or political level? The truth of the matter is, it isn't OK. It's never OK, but if you don't acknowledge that it's not OK, if you don't make others aware that it is not OK, then you are, I'm afraid, just as guilty as the perpetrators. Silence in almost every culture is a sign of assent. Yes, you may not really be for the crime, but if you are not brave enough to speak out against the crime, in the end you simply share in the guilt.

So, how do you feel about it now?

How do I really feel about ...?

So, did you give our little Twilight Zone scenario some thought? What did you come up with?

My guess is that you were pretty much outraged. Where does this company get off just coming in, taking over your place, changing its appearance and sticking you with bill? That can't be right, can it? Could you think of any arguments that could justify their actions? I doubt you did. I've been thinking about this for some time now and can't come up with any. I find the whole thing utterly disgusting and insanely wrong.

Actually, just thinking that anything like that could possibly happen makes my blood boil, and I'm willing to bet - even though I'm not a betting person - that you feel a lot like I do. So, let's extend the scenario a little:

The company realizes that they're not getting the benefit they expected from the whole action, so they inform you, they're going to take down the sign. The send in the construction company, dismantle everything, and although your house and property are not quite like they were before they showed up, it's never going to be the same, but at least the company is gone. Well, almost. They present you with the bill for taking everything down, but they've been kind enough to include the amount in the already agreed-to monthly payment; you'll only have to make the payments a little longer.

So, how do you feel about the whole thing now? After all, things are almost back to normal. You've got your house back. Your life is almost as it once was. There's just the matter of the small monthly payment. What about that?

And, oh, apropos debt:

You realize you are, for better or worse, stuck with the payments. You wade through the small print on the contract you had to sign and realize that they can change the interest rate for the smallest of reasons, all by themselves, because you have no say in the matter. You suddenly realize, you may never repay the debt.

And now? How do you really feel about all of this? Give it some thought. We can think about it together next time.

How do I feel about ...?

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that we all share the view that a better world than the one we have would be desirable. There's lots about life in the industrialized West that is good, and there's no reason why we shouldn't want to keep that, so we're not talking about turning everything on its head. All I'm suggesting is we give some thought to what we want and what "better" might mean.

The only way to do this, I think, is to stop and reflect on what each of us believes. We often think we know, but this really isn't anything that many of us often do, and it can reveal a surprise or two if you're willing to take the time, make the effort, and be serious about finding out a little about yourself. Of course, I wouldn't want to leave you alone with the task, so I'm here to help. Yep, I like to help, so if I can be any assistance at all, I'm more than willing to do my part. I've even given some thought on where to start. Consider the following scenario:

You live in a house that you have paid for. It's yours. A major corporation comes along and decides they like your house so much that they want to use it as an advertising and marketing site. They come in uninvited, tell you they are going to put a big sign up on the roof. They make a call on your phone get the construction company in and erect a massive stand, that includes your house and put this huge, neon-lit thing up on top withe corporate logo and sound system to announce new products and services it offers. Then they tell you, oh by the way, that was a really expensive operation, you'll have to pay for the construction, so they present you with the bill. Even though you're not excited about it, and knowing you certainly can't just pay it, they also tell you that they've already thought about that and since they're such nice people, the have already arranged with your bank to deduct the payment automatically every month from your account. See, they've thought of everything, so you don't have to do a thing, really. You see, it was all for your convenience.

How do you feel about that? Now, do me a favor: don't get all lost in the details. You'd like to sue but you can't find a lawyer to take your case, the police say they talked to the company, but apparently they have a document from you saying you wanted to participate in a marketing action, you don't want to go to jail, and after all, everyone tells you, it's only a couple of hundred a month, learn to live with it. Just give some thought about how you feel about it all.

What's next?

Now that all the excitement is over, how does it feel waking up in a whole new world? What? Not noticing any change? I wonder why?

For Americans, this was supposed to be the election that determines the future of the world, but my guess is that the rest of the world isn't all that impressed. After all, what's really going to be different? What should be different? We'll probably never know. No, the world today is a whole lot like the world from yesterday, and I'm guessing it's going to be a whole lot like tomorrow, unless we start doing some soul searching.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty much fed up with all the business as usual. I mean, how do we go about putting things on more solid footing if those "in charge" are more concerned with their own position and "power" than with anything that really matters. I think it is high time that we just acknowledged that politics as we know it is part of the problem, and from that point, you're just never going to get a solution ... to anything. It's just not possible. If nothing else, the American election should have been a lesson to us all: traditional politics has outlived its usefulness. There's not even small incremental change. There is only the perpetuation of the powers that be doing what they do best: looking out for their own interests.

Well, believe it or not, I'm here to let you in on a little secret. Since they're all only in the way (and I don't care if we're talking about American, German, French, Chinese or Iranian politicians). It's time to just leave them to themselves (which is where they feel most comfortable), and it's time for the rest of us, the reasonable part of humanity, to just do what needs to be done. The real problem with political solutions is that they simply enable us to shirk our own responsibilities. We kick the problems "upstairs" and then complain when nothing happens. You can't rely on them, so why even start? I believe that if you ignore them, they eventually go away.

We really don't need them for much, and for the little we might be able to use them for, we can deal with those cases when they arise. No, the first step is simple and painless: just look around, identify what's broken, and start thinking about how to fix it ... yourself, or even better with others who have to deal with it too. Talk. Discuss. Find those of like mind and then start talking with those who haven't seen the problem yet. It doesn't have to be big, it has to be personal. It has to matter to you, to your family, to your friends, to your neighbors. Talk. Decide what needs to be done and just do it.

If you want a better world, start acting like you want one. It's really very simple.

The ultimate privatization?

I wasn't going to say anything else about the election in the States because, as should be obvious by now, I'm simply glad the freakshow is over. However, one thought did strike me that I just can't shake: the two parties, together, spent more than $6,000,000,000 on their campaigns. I don't care who you are, that's a proud chunk of change. Of course, it's an obscene amount of money. Of course, it's the most that's ever been spent. But, we have to ask ourselves what it actually means. I'll tell you what I think:

What we just witnessed in the US was the privatization of democracy. Oh, they've been trying hard in all kinds of areas, such as education, water, prisons, regulation, Social Security, Medicare, and privatization is a staple of American foreign policy (just look at what the IMF is requiring of Greece if you don't believe me) and, of course, the military and security (about a third of US intelligence operatives are private contractors). Americans love privatization, and now they've managed to privatize their elections as well. Who would have thought?

You think I'm exaggerating? Think again. Where did all that money come from? For the past four years the Teabaggers and the Republicans have been raving about the deficit. Cut! Roll back Reduce! Slash! Save! That's all we've heard. Americans don't have money for anything. They're facing serious infrastructure problems - very clearly revealed by that blowhard Sandy - community after community is going into insolvency (I would be they're giving the Greeks a run for their money ... or is it a run for their debt, no matter), and even earned benefit programs are being squeezed. There's no money for anything. But, there's more than enough money for elections. Where do we think all that cash came from? I can assure you that the people who fronted the cash, particularly those who hedged their own bets, know exactly where it came from. And, they know exactly whom they have to talk to in order to get their money's worth. I'm not a betting man, but I'd bet you a dollar to a doughnut without a hole in it that they're already calling in their chits.

No, I think for anyone who wants to see, it has become clear what democracy in America means. Money talks, and private money talks loudest, I guess. And what I hear is that a huge investment has been made in making sure that the same-old really remains the same-old. I guess you really do get what you pay for.

A new beginning?

Well, it would seem we now know what we're dealing with. Even though the votes haven't all been counted ... and it wouldn't be the first time if all of them aren't ... it appears the result is clear enough. I have to say, though, I'm terribly disappointed: Mickey Mouse didn't even place. I knew I had my hopes too high. I suppose my countrypeople are simply not as courageous as they would like to think they are. Oh well, at least they used to talk a good game.

Of course, the spin machines are red-lining right now, not just to "explain" why the loser lost but why the apparent winner isn't one anyway. No, it's not just a manner of who wins and who loses, it's apparently more about arrogant winners and sore losers. What a display of maturity this has been ... again.

So, have we got a new beginning or not? What do you think? I know what I think: not even close. We're in for a whole lot more of the same old same-old. The three parts of the puzzle haven't really changed a bit: Obama knows his address for the next four years, a couple of whackos were kept out of the Senate but the balance of power hasn't changed, and the House remains, for all intents and purposes, the same. No, nothing has changed, it's simply the day after.

More than anything else, though, I think what was shown most clearly is just how split the United States is. I don't want to hear all of the shifting-to-the-center crap: the US isn't the center of anything and they have no center, just a dividing line. The expect status quo was maintained in 43 states, only seven were even contested, and the results show how undecided they were. No, after all the hype, all the ranting, all the rhetoric, things haven't really changed a bit. I think that's what we need to take from this. Another four years of the same old same-old.

I suppose we who live outside the states can be pleased that American troops won't be invading anywhere soon, that no more bombs than usual will be dropped on unsuspecting heads. Anyone inside the states better watch their backs, though. We also know what we're dealing with and pretty much what we can expect, so I suppose that's a bit of a comfort as well. We can think about things that matter and what we want to do about them while the rest of the system just rots away from the inside.

So, the people have spoken, but they don't have the last word. That's a responsibility left to others. The Republicans will continue to whine, the Democrats will continue to scratch their heads, and the people, well, they'll just be left to themselves, as always. Nah, I don't care what you say, it doesn't look good for the home team. Where is Mickey Mouse when you need him?

At a threshold?

Tomorrow, the Americans are going to do (or not do) their little quasi-democratic thing. It's not nearly as significant as most Americans think it is; it is not nearly as unimportant as most Europeans (and other folks in the world) would like it to be. There's a lot at stake, as is so often the case, not enough people are aware of just how much.

While the US president is often characterized as the most powerful man in the world, this is simply an exaggeration. The president is for the most part only as powerful as the American Congress allows him to be. He's simply a lot more show than go, but, he can, we should at least recognize, cause a lot more harm than good. He's a button-push away from fundamentally changing life as we know it, but he's not nearly as near doing anything positive. What he does, or doesn't do, will affect Americans much, much more than the rest of us living outside of America. It will catch up to us eventually, but at least we have some time to prepare for it.

What is different about this election is that it has a lot more to do with the future than the present, and it is significant insofar as many other countries - for whatever reasons - have tied their own fates to that of the US. It's a foolish thing to do, even if it seemed like a good thing to do at the time. Given the simplicity of the American system, though, it is at least possible to think about the consequences.

Think about it: if Governor Romney is elected, all that is wrong with America will be the new order of business and the out-and-out lying and blatant hypocrisy that have characterized his campaign will become institutionalized; everyone outside the US must know that America can not be relied on in any way anymore. That's not part of his agenda, and it is not why he was elected. If President Obama is re-elected, all that we don't want to be wrong with America will continue as before and the illusion of someone who claims he can will continue be confirmed as the one who just won't; everyone outside the US must know that the behind-the-scenes selling out of American morality will continue unabated. The agenda you see is not going to be the agenda you get.

Truth be told, it will be interesting to see how the voting public in America decides. More importantly, though, it will be interesting to see how the reactions of everyone else are portrayed. No matter what the outcome tomorrow, the spin machines will be operating in high gear, mirrors will be set up and smoke will be blowing like rarely before. What each of us has to decide - whether we're living in the US and directly confronted with the results or living elsewhere and directly impacted by them - is just how much we want to be affected. That choice is still ours, regardless of who we are or where we are.

I wish my countryfolk and I wish the rest of the world all the best for tomorrow. There's little to hope for, that is true, but it's an excellent opportunity to start thinking about what it is we really want for our lives.

Beliefs

In Act I, Scene v of Hamlet, Shakespeare has his eponymous hero tell his friend, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I'd have to say I couldn't agree more.

Most of us don't believe in much of anything anymore. Well, I know I still have some pretty firm beliefs, but I'm not so sure about a lot of other folks I know. When I watch the news, surf the net, or simply converse with colleagues and friends, it becomes increasingly apparent that there are just not a lot of things that are believed in anymore. Oh sure, there's the one or the other who profess a deep and abiding love for "the Lord" or Jesus or Mohammed ... but just between you and me, I can't help but think it's more fear than love, but I've always had trouble telling the two apart.

Be that as it may, the hubris of so many people, even those without many beliefs, troubles me even more. If were honest - especially honest with ourselves - we'd admit that we really don't have much of a clue at all. I mean, the universe is a big place and we hardly know anything about it at all. We like to act big and bad and brag about all we know and how Einstein and those guys figured it out and how we're here because of the Big Bang and Darwin clarified how we got here, but the folks who are saying this can't tell you the difference between theory and fact, so they're really making things worse, not better. Their die-hard opponents aren't any better, just pushing all the responsibility on the Creator and maintaining (without even a shred of evidence ... at least the scientific types get a few points for trying) that people and dinosaurs harmoniously cohabited the planet not all so long ago. I'm not convinced there's much hope for these folks at all, though I am surprised at how many seek - and obtain - public office in the United States. Scary thought.

Of course, since we don't know much, I don't think it's a good idea to make a sport out of knowing even less. That's why I find it disturbing when I read tha 18% of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth, that 63% of young Americans can't find Iraq on a map, 9 out of 10 can't find Afghanistan (even if you give them a map just of Asia), 75% can't locate Iran or Israel, and more than a third of Americans of any age can't identify the continent in which the Amazon River, the world's largest, is located. (By the way, the numbers haven't improved in the last five years, regardless of school choice.) No, we have to believe we can do better. We have to believe that real change is possible. We have to believe that it's worth the effort to try and make that change. We have to believe in ourselves. We have to believe that the society in which we live is worth saving. We ... oops.

Sorry, I got carried away. I forgot we traded in our society for a mere economy. My mistake. And in light of that, and since we all have to believe in something, I believe I'll have another beer.

The day after the night before

Yes, today is the day after the night before. Not just any night, mind you. Yesterday was a very special night for lots of folks. There's not a more American holiday than Halloween, eh? Wrong. Oh, it's a big deal in many areas of the States, but it's certainly has its roots elsewhere.

The name itself is a running-together of the Scottish variation of All Hallows' Eve, that is that night before All Saints' Day in the Roman Church. (The day that follows is All Souls', just in case you were wondering, so the themes of life, death, and spirits certainly fits in well. Some believe it's related to the Celtic Samhain (pronounced SAH-win) which marked the turn to the "dark half of the year", bringing in the harvest, slaughtering, and preparing for winter. The similarity of themes lends to credence to the idea, to say the least.

It was held that All Hallows' was the last chance for the recently departed to finish up their tasks on earth, perhaps taking revenge against those who had done them wrong, so nothing made you safer than dressing up as someone or something else, disguising yourself so as not to be recognized. Sweet cakes were baked and the poor collected them too, so it would seem that all the features of the holiday, as such, are accounted for. Though All Hallows has been around for over a thousand years, the more modern version of Halloween, really didn't start to take off until the 19th century.

Oh, don't get me wrong, Halloween is one of the kiddies' favorites, what with all that candy and all, and it is reason enough for adults to finally get into costume and pretend to be something they're not, outside of work that is. I suppose it's wholesome, harmless fun, for the most part, though there are strains of Christian fundamentalism that take a dour look at the frivolity. Of course, they look dour most of the time anyway, so they don't count.

Though celebrated worldwide (though it never really caught on in my current neck of the woods), I have to say that the Americans have outdone themselves in promoting this particular holiday that really isn't. The decorations, the sales, the parties that will be thrown, the trick-or-treating that will be done ... it's a one-of-a-kind celebration, to be sure. It also seems so fitting that my fellow countrypeople would be so into it, for it combines two primary themes that stand in stark opposition to one another: death and fun.

All the imagery is about ghosts and goblins, skeletons, spirits, witches and "the other side", and death is the doorway to that world. But, in good American fashion it can be trivialized, mocked, and made fun of, for if there were ever anything that most Americans never want to get serious about it's death. How morbid is that?

Wrong? Wrong.

Once again, it all seems so very simple. Most of us don't know who we are, who the others are, what they want or what we want. We have our heads filled with other people's ideas and lose sight of who we are ourselves and why we might even be here to begin with. Granted, all of these "problems", if that's what you want to call them, are not of the simple kind, and the answers to the questions they raise are not always comfortable either.

Some psychologists say we're simply running from ourselves, and while it may not be absolutely true, there is a certain relative truth to it still. We all lead overly hectic lives, lives of non-stop whatever: work, activities, events, lunches, social events, home repairs, car repairs, children's activities, parents' night, Sunday school, church, sports events ... the list just goes on and on and the fuller our lives become, the emptier everything seems to be. We go off in search of more and more, never satisfied and never content. We're tired, worn out, run down, stressed, and in the end, depressed. Oh what a wonderful life we've made for ourselves.

The simplicity of the solution is baffling: we've fallen victim to quantity, we have no understanding of quality; it's not just that less is more, rather at bottom we have to be different. And there we have the rub. That's what we ultimately fear the most (other than death, I suppose, but we'll leave that to Heidegger): ourselves. I think we're so adamant about what we "believe" because we know, deep down, we don't know what to believe anymore, we're simply afraid that what we've been led to believe really doesn't have the value we were told it had. Welcome to modern life.

Yes, in the end, it's all so very simple. There is no leader, no political party, no company, no organization, no club, no group, no movement that is going to save you from yourself. What the deluded rugged individualists have right is that when all is said and done, it's just you; you are all you have to fall back on. What they have absolutely wrong is that it ends there. The fact that in the end there is only us is what each and every one of us on this planet have in common.

What we have in common should bring us together not drive us apart. We should find comfort in the fact that everyone else is really not so different from ourselves. If we don't - and apparently we don't - all that's holding us back is fear. Fear that we're not who or what we think we are. What we should know, however, is that we are not really different than anyone else. If you ever want to get over your fears, you have to face them.

Wrong? Right.

Did you give it any thought? Did you take a moment and think about what you really think about other people? I doubt it, to be perfectly honest, even if I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's face it: we don't like to think about what we think, most likely because we'd realize what it is and how silly it is as well.

Aristotle once quipped that the unexamined life is not worth living, but we've spent millennia trying to show him he had no idea what he was talking about, but to no avail. If our lives were all so worth living, why are we obviously trying to kill ourselves in so many slow and painful ways? OK, the world-war thing was a bit more active, I'll grant you that, but when that didn't work, it seems we resorted to more torturous means.

For you humanists out there, the behavior we see is that of the most highly evolved creature on the planet; for you fundamentalists, we're talking about the pinnacle of Creation. In either case, it's a pretty sad state of affairs. Really. The world we've made around us is the best we can do? We're (and I mean each and every one of us) all being all we can be? I don't think so. I think we're making a pretty sad showing. We'd better hope their aren't aliens out there observing us. This is pretty embarrassing behavior we putting on display.

Yes, you are perfectly correct in observing that I'm not sounding very optimistic about us as a species. I'm not. I think it's sad that the best we have to show for ourselves is envy, distrust, anger, and aggression. Oh ... sorry ... I forgot greed. Can't forget greed, you know. Or maybe you can: what is most obvious is what we take least notice of. We just assume that's the way things are.

Which brings me back to last-time's Menschenbild: did you think about it? I doubt it, to be perfectly honest, even if I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. No, that would require effort, to begin with, and what would happen if we found out that what we think of others isn't in line with everything else we think we believe? Right: that's the guaranteed beginning of a psychological crisis, and we wouldn't want another one of those now, would we? No, I don't think so.

No, the world is simply a terrible and violent place; one we'd like nothing more than to get away from. Our own interests are OK, those people we like are OK, most of the family can be tolerated, but other than that, well, there are just too many people thinking too many weird things. At least I'm different, you are thinking. And you're glad you're just you ... even if you are like everybody else.

Right? Wrong.

Was the last post a little depressing for you? Good. It should have been. We're the only species that knows what a free lunch is, but we can still screw it up. Why is that?

I suppose the answer to that question depends on what you think we are - as a species - or why we might even be here, or whether there's a purpose to all of this, or perhaps whether it doesn't matter in the end at all.

The Germans have a word that I just love (well, they have a number of words I love, but this is really one of my favorites): Menschenbild. A Mensch is a person; a Bild is a picture, so in simplest terms its a picture of persons; that is, it's our view (and understanding) of what a person really is, what makes a human being a human being. It's our view of what people essentially are.

Be honest. Most of you have never stopped to think about it. Oh sure, I'm convinced that every single one of you has a Menschenbild, and I'm guessing it's pretty much your own. I'm also just as sure that you have no idea how you got it, when you developed it, or why it is the way it is, but you have one nevertheless. What's so fascinating about taking a foreign-language approach to something you take for granted is the fact that it can get you looking at something quite everyday in a new light. Having a word, a concept, to describe it, it's very simple to ask someone, So, what's your Menschenbild? Have you ever thought about the answer? You should.

Why? Because no matter what it is, that Menschenbild of yours, it determines, forms, shapes, colors, and influences every single action you take when dealing with another human being. Now, I'm not talking about some grand or grandiose image of the meaning of humanity. No, I'm simply talking about what you think makes a person and why. We all have such an image, but we don't all know how we got the one we have, nor why we have it, and most importantly, just what an important role in our lives that image plays.

For some of you we're all sinners, for others selfish, greedy grubbers; for some we're all deep down fundamentally good, for others fundamentally bad. If you've never thought about it, maybe you should. You'd be surprised what might come of it. Your Menschenbild lies behind all your dealings with every other human being, and for that reason, it's worth knowing what it is. More importantly, though, whatever it is says more about you than anyone else.

Right? Right.

It's fairly obvious that there are a number of things that bother me. Little things perhaps. Or, maybe, not so little things. I think you'll have to grant me that I do think about a number of things, and this perhaps more than is really good for me, but it's hard not to.

For as long as I can remember, I've wondered why we have so many problems. For longer than I care to remember, it seems that things are just getting worse. To be perfectly honest, I don't know why. I have my suspicions, and I'm sure a lot of other folks have their suspicions too. Yet, in the end, it's just damn hard finding someone you can actually talk to about anything. I think that's sad.

Let me phrase the "problem" a little differently. If we're so smart, if we're so advanced, if we're so technologically savvy, if we're so insightful, if we're so on top of things, why do we have so many problems to begin with? Everywhere you look things seem to be broken: banks, schools, politics, government, law, corporations, work in general, child rearing ... and the list just goes on and on. Why is that? Why can't we get anything to work?

Is it really because life is so complex? I don't think so. Complicated ... I might be able to buy that, but complex? Nah. Is it because crazy ideas are being propagated at an frightening rate; that is, ideas like radical, religious fundamentalism, neo-liberal economics, or neo-conservative politics? There have always been differing ideas on how the world should be interpreted and understood, so why should it be different now? Granted, we have tools and instruments that can cause a lot more damage than those of by-gone days: biological and chemical agents, nuclear bombs, high explosives that people are willing to strap to their bodies, drones, fragmentation rounds, chemical and biological agents, and people willing to strap this stuff to their bodies. A bit extreme, don't you think?

No, I suspect we cant's get our stuff together is simply because we don't want to. We're tired of it all and just can't seem to get out of it. Last century, we tried violent mass suicide - twice (the two world wars), and when that didn't work, we tried to deep freeze ourselves (Cold War), and failing that, we've tried poisoning ourselves (pesticides, GMC, pollution), ruining the climate (global warming, crop failures) perhaps hoping to starve ourselves to death, and we even sabotaged the financial system (I think in the hopes there would be enough personal suicides to get the wave really going). And nothing seems to work. We're still here, we've still got the same old problems, and we're not one step closer to a solution to any of them than we were when we first came down out of the trees.

You know what I think? I think we're simply a pretty disappointing species ... as far as species goes. What do we really have to show for all our supposed talents and abilities. Not a whole helluva lot, if you ask me. I think we're right to want to pack it in. The trouble is, we can't even get that right.