Maybe we just can't change ... then we deserve everything we get

There are a lot of people who -- and quite a few of those I know -- think the world is the way it is because it reflects, what they call, human nature.

Think about it: death, destruction, mindless devastation of resources and the environment, wanton disregard for human life, crime, oppression, lust for power, greed, brutality, glee over the pain and suffering of others, violence of all kinds (verbal, psychological, social, physical), insatiable desires ... everything that turns the world we know into the hell we fear. That's the natural way of things. The world is as it is because it is simply in our nature to be that way. It's in our genes. It defines who and what we are. What an interesting view of one's fellow man. But, it seems to be the dominant perspective. Every time something goes wrong, someone gets killed, someone's oppressed: well, that's just the way we are. We are evil by nature. That's got to be the crappiest of all possible worlds.

In spite of all that's wrong with the world, there are still glimmers of hope: wanton acts of kindness, altruism, compassion, empathy, people willing to sacrifice (sometimes, big) for others, not to mention the sheer breathtaking beauty of just about any place on this planet that hasn't already been despoiled by the other humans who don't give a care about what's going to happen to us. The contradiction couldn't be more obvious. The paradox of life -- especially human life -- couldn't be more apparent. What are we to make of all this?

Given the fact that there are some -- albeit few -- people who don't believe the world is to be despised, and given the fact that there are some -- albeit few -- people who believe there is more potential for good than we're led to believe, and given the fact that there are still plenty of individuals -- albeit few -- who are more than willing to make sacrifices for things generally considered positive, it is difficult to draw the absolute conclusion that the world is the way it is because our nature as humans dictate that it must be so.

This is the part that has always fascinated me.

In a similar vein, I have a few (very materialistic-minded) friends who never tire of reminding me how closely we are related to our not-so-distant simian cousins. This doesn't bother me, to be perfectly honest, for I am thankful and actually happy about our closeness. We're not the same, that's for sure, but we're similar, and this is a good thing. We humans are different -- and that is not to say "better" in any sense of the word, but that's not something my friends have grasped yet. They -- I believe -- want to impress upon me that we are simply, or just, or only, animals. But, we're not. we're different. Very different, and it's this difference that captivates me, that captures my attention, that makes me ask all kind of "why" questions.

For the longest time, we've (and by that I mean, we humans have) interpreted this difference as "superiority". There is a "more" involved, of course: Koko attained the (sign) language equivalent of a three-year-old, but most of us have more comprehensive vocabularies and communication abilities. Great apes have learned the significance and value of fire, but we humans have taken this to ends that are -- I'll be the first to admit -- questionable at best (e.g., what good is nuclear power if it creates waste that can't be disposed of safely). "Better" or "worse" are ethical categories that apparently only we humans are capable of, even if we don't deal with them well. All that interests me, I can assure you, is that there is a difference and that, when all is said and done, that difference obligates. We're not meeting, let alone fulfilling, that obligation.

It would seem, then, that we humans are capable of great (and even, good) things, but we don't often give ourselves the extra push to turn potentially damaging ideas and actions into beneficial ones. It would seem to me, then, that we are not inherently "evil" or "bad" or even "sometimes harmful" by nature, rather, given half a chance, we'll take the path of least resistance and when it turns out to be less than optimal, or even desirable, we'll make use of that other human-only characteristic, namely rationalization: we'll use every communicative strategy and ability we've ever acquired to "make clear" why it had to turn out as it did. In other words, it would seem that we're just fundamentally lazy.

Our animal cousins, for better or for worse, but in accordance with their nature, have to find food, eat, and, as any good biologist will tell you, reproduce in order to keep the species going. They really can't just lay back and say, "Screw it, I'm not foraging today, and I'm not copulating next mating season." We can. There are those who do, I know, but they are not nearly as plentiful as our conservative friends would have us believe (and by that I mean all of my friends who are so upset by how good welfare recipients have it while they have to work overly hard for anything and everything they get.) Generally speaking, I would say, that given the slightest option, most human beings will opt for less than more when it comes to expending energy for gain. I'm sure it contributes more often than not to the sad state of the world in which we find ourselves.

In the lower levels of the society (or social economy) we've created for ourselves, this is viewed as parasitical. In the upper echelons of that same society, this is considered evidence of efficiency. When we stop to think about our behavior, we find rather quickly that we all pretty much act the same but some of us are permitted more leeway in judgment than others. This selectivity of perspective becomes a problem as soon as it becomes a public way of thinking (i.e., political). What's good for the goose is never, ever good for the gander, regardless of what the old saying says. And here we start getting closer to the real problem when it comes to so-called "human nature".

Humans have a notion, if not a concept, of "power". Our animal cousins don't. Whoever is the alpha male or female of the group gets there through very, very different rules than whoever becomes an alpha male or female in human groups. Our animal cousins have very grounded, biological, instinctual determinants at play that we humans have transcended quite a long time ago. We like to point to this or that behavior and compare it to this or that behavior of our animal cousins, but the behaviors, due to the motivations underlying them and the psychological, affective, and mental abilities enabling them, in humans are quite a different thing. And this is, in the end, what we need to recognize and acknowledge: humans are simply different from other animals. Yes, we share a lot, up to 98.5% of our DNA and all that goes with that, but there in that 1.5% difference is more challenge than most of our human compatriots are willing to deal with.

The mere fact that we know that we are oppressing/causing pain to/dominating another makes us different. The mere fact that we are aware of the discomfort/pain/anguish we are causing another makes us different. The mere fact that we can conceive of ways of domination that go beyond mere physicality attests to the fact that we are different from our animal cousins. The actual fact that many people choose the non-oppressive, non-painful, empathetic path in their relations with others underscores the fact that we are, in the end, different. We are capable of being different, even if we most often choose not to be, and choose to be, unfortunately, mere animals.

Irrespective of what our materialist compatriots would like to believe, we humans are capable of "more". And since we are capable, it is incumbent upon us to find out precisely what this "more" is and act accordingly. We can't merely fall back on some nebulous notion of "human nature" and maintain that the world is in such bad shape because we can't do any better, or that our "human nature" prevents us from being better than we are. There is a "more" that defines what it means to be human, and it would serve us well to find out just what that is. But, instead of letting it go to our head (as it has in the past) and using this difference to justify all the death, destruction and devastation we've visited upon the planet, maybe, just maybe, it would be worth our while to think about what that difference means in "being human" and rise to that challenge.

I'm convinced that the sooner we start acting (truly) human; that is, in accordance with our potentialities, not our actualities, the world could -- and would -- become a better place. Who knows, maybe it could become a place worth living in.

But, that would take energy and effort, and what lazy sod is going to invest that?

You can't fix stupid, but stupidity can be fixed

We've got a problem. By "we", I mean those of us who find ourselves in what we like to think of as the 1st World -- and I'm not the first to ask somewhat naively, where's the 2nd one? Yeah, you, almost all of your reading this, and your friends, and your friends' friends, if they have any, and the people around you, like family and neighbors, and all of us who have too much time on our hands, too much money in our pockets, and too little sense to know what to do with either.

Now, before you go off all insulted because you're struggling to make ends meet or you're starting to sweat all the debt you're carrying around or whether there is going to be anything left for your kids or grandkids ... if you're concerned about any of that, you are precisely whom I'm talking to. Your problem isn't insufficient funds, it's insufficient gratitude. The vast majority of human beings on this planet would swap places with you in a heartbeat: and you'd die having to deal with theirs, and they'd think they'd died and gone to heaven. It's a matter of perspective, true, but also relativity. According to popular, widespread, and most oft proclaimed ideology: you chose your problems; the vast majority of humanity had theirs dumped on them by people who care more about themselves than even you do. If you've got a conscience, you'll never make it into the top 10%, let alone 1%. You're not cut out for it. Or sell your conscience. At the moment, however, you're just in the way ... of progress to make a better world or your just another wannabe for those at the top who want, and will eventually, get what you have.

You might get the impression that I'm a bit miffed at the moment, a bit irked, a bit bothered, a bit off-center. And you're right. I am. But, I firmly believe that I have every reason to be. Oh sure, I've cobbled together a fixed-income existence; I don't own anything other than a car of good middle age; I've got family around me, a couple of friends (who at least people who tolerate having me around); I've got a roof over my head, enough to eat and access to the world's largest cesspool of information, the internet. I haven't got a single reason to complain about anything in my life. But I'm also not only not the only person on the planet and I'm not the only person in my immediate environment. I'm part of a larger whole that varies in size depending on time of day, phase of the moon, and societal configuration.

In other words, I lead a relatively normal Western life. And I'm thankful for that, believe me. I'm thankful that I have the wherewithal, the inclination, the talent, the time, the opportunity to share my thoughts with all of you. But, I must admit, I'm rather bothered by the echoes that are finding their way back to me. Like most of you, I've got a real life and an online life, and the online life has to do with social media to a large extent, and regardless of what you think about either in general, I can assure you that, in particular, the online part is causing me more and more concern with each passing day. That's why I'm bringing this up here, with you, with all of you who obviously have an online life as well. The number of people with online lives is growing daily. The "society" that these online denizens are forming, however, is not exactly what I had hoped it would be way back when 95% of the people on the internet lived within 10 miles of my home. Yeah, I've had a chance to watch all this develop, and I'm not all that excited about what I see.

I'm going to out myself right up front: I don't believe the least in "human nature", but I believe unboundedly in "human potential". I believe -- deep, in the very heart of my own being -- that human beings are the living expression of the possibility of all possible possibilities. (That's the optimist heart that beats in my breast.) And I also believe, unreservedly, that the low end of those possibilities is the world we have thought out for ourselves, the world in which we're all -- at the moment -- forced to live. Stated succinctly, we're the biggest of all of G-d's failures. (And thus beats my cynic's heart in that same breast.)

We are, and have shown, that we're capable of the most exhilarating flights of brilliance: fire, the wheel, more-than-sufficient food production, disease eradication, alternative energies and explorations to the stars. At the same time, we have demonstrated that we're capable of the most terrifying horrors imaginable: war, genocide, unimaginable physical and psychological violence, greed, selfishness, self-absorption, and lack of empathy that there are moments when I find myself almost yearning for that last affront to occur so that we all go down the tubes the blinding fire of nuclear annihilation. And therein lies the rub, as the bard so eloquently put it.

You should be aware that all of G-d's children don't have the same intellectual capabilities and capacities. And that's OK as far as I'm concerned. Some of the nicest people I ever had the honor of dealing with weren't the sharpest pencils in the box, as they say, but they were Menschen, in both the true and Yiddish senses of the word. They cared about others, were kind, generous, helpful, supportive, and chock full of empathy and sympathy for the plight of others. I don't consider these people stupid, however. No, to me, stupid is when you think you know something, when you think you are smarter than you really are, or when you let external, non-personal "attributes" drive your actions.

Three of these are particularly dangerous: money, guns, and power. You can be bright, but once money (or in its most fundamental and nefarious form, the love of money) takes over it's good-bye smarts. Money is a prime cause of stupidity. You think your money makes you better, and smarter than everyone else, but it doesn't. It makes you think you're an authority on things you have no idea about (e.g., Bill Gates and world health or education). Guns are also a classic, and they (or the violence they represent) is a key feature of the gangster/Mafioso boss Hollywood has infected us with for decades. The propensity toward violence or violent behavior, the willingness to use it so "resolve arguments" is prototypical of stupidity in general. And finally, power ... often some vague combination of the previous two attributes, or "actual" power, like a political office (here, Bush the Lesser jumps out as poster child for what can happen when the intellectually challenged get it in their heads that they're better than and worth more than others) ... is the worst of all. And it's the one that has the most disastrous effects on the most people.

Even the most superficial gloss over the history of humankind reveals that it has been those awash in stupidity who have been in charge. We don't know who it was who figured out "fire", but we know practically everybody's name who used fire -- in one form or another -- to ensure that hundreds, thousands, if not millions of people had to suffer to satisfy their own egos. And we praise them, look up to them, remember them, and as school-children are forced to memorize their names, but in the end, they were stupid, self-absorbed, self-serving egoists who forced their personal mentation on others. Alexander the Great, the Roman Caesars, the British and other European royal houses, from Stockholm to Madrid, and, most recently, a whole bevy of American presidents (not starting with but particularly egregious since Reagan), have tortured the life out of countless human beings for the greater glory of , and we laugh and gloat and cheer and pat ourselves on the back for being so "great". But why? What's so smart about being able to kill untold human beings at will? Why do we think -- at this point in history, here, at the beginning of the 21st century (since we've agreed on counting years) -- that this is a good thing? Sure, it enables you to sit there in your room; fat, dumb and happy that you can look down upon the vast majority of humankind; but you need to explain to me what about this is good.

Recent history has shown us what's going on. Whether is was Thatcher in Britain or Reagan in the US, or Clinton (who could cover it over better than most), or Blair or Bush the Lesser (if that wasn't the tip-off, I don't know who was) or Merkel, or Cameron or Juncker or Schäuble or Gabriel or Obama or that it's not the bright ones who are leading the way and seeing to it that the proper shots are called. No, among this limited selection of individuals there are those who -- on their own, in a normal conversation -- would come across as half-way intelligent and reasonable, there seems to be the overwhelming propensity, if not compulsion, to blow any and all alleged inherent intelligence to the wind and strut forth as a contender for the crown of Village Idiot.

This -- not the results of neoliberal economic policies -- is what trickles down. We then find the same behavior patterns in the general population, be it in alternative political parties (like the AfD in Germany) or alternative political candidates (like Trump in the US (though Hilary isn't much better) and his followers) or just plain misinformed-and-proud-of-it welfare-bashers, gun-nuts, evangelicals, flag-wavers, sports-fanatics, and small-minded bleaters would rather complain about others than actually do something for or with others to make a difference. And I'm amazed each day at the number of people for whom this description applies.

No, I don't have a very high opinion of the general quality of information available on the internet, but there is a lot of good, sound, reliable information to be found there. But you have to go looking for it, and you have to wade through cybermiles of sludge and jungle to find it. There are good, sound, and inspiring insights to be found there, but you have to be able to weigh and evaluate, compare and contrast, and, well, think, to figure out which they are.

Of course, you have to be willing to explore thoughts, ideas, opinions, and views with which you don't necessarily or immediately agree and you have to be willing to assess their validity, their impacts and maybe even their worth. But that takes both time and effort and, well, with all the important stuff so many of us have in our lives that needs to get done, who is going to ensure they do this as well? But, most importantly, you have to be willing to communicate what you find and discuss it with others, not just with people whom you agree with. You need actively engage other ideas and notions if you are ever to come up with thoughts and ideas of your own. And who, pray tell, is going to be willing to do that? There are some thank goodness, though they are few and far between. There are some who haven't yet given up, even though they are reviled and ridiculed by those who have chosen stupidity and their particular way of life.

The point is that we don't have to be in the messes we're in. We don't have to deal with all the ignorant nonsense which pervades most of our lives. We don't have to allow stupidity to rule our lives ... but we are, we do and we will, because to change any of it, we might just have to change ourselves. So, don't complain about stupid (and all that is wrong with everybody else) if you choose stupidity yourself. And that is the choice too many people are making.

You become what you hate

This is a special time of year in many regards. We're between holidays that are not so important anymore and perhaps the biggest American holiday and the universally Christian holiday of Christmas which is right around the corner. It is fitting, I think, that these all occur when they do, here at the end of the solar year, after the harvest, and in preparation for the retreat before the winter. This is a time of turning inward -- or it should be -- a time of reflection upon who we are, what we believe, and what we are doing.

There's an old mystic's adage that is particularly appropriate given all that I've been posting about lately: "You become what you hate."

Yes, speaking of hate at this time of year seems a bit incongruous, but only at first glance. The world seems to be full of hate these days. It's directed toward all kinds of "others": immigrants, political opponents, particular lifestyles, adherents of other religions ... you name it, there is a good number of people ready, willing, and able to stand up and decry just how evil all those others are, even if loudly decrying, and hating generally, are values we (and more often our religion) proclaim not to have.

Hate -- and it is actual hate in most cases -- is a dangerous emotion, not only because it is inherently destructive, but because of its insidious power to change us in such a fundamental, essential way. Someone who hates invests a lot of time and energy (and given the short spans of our lives, rare and precious resources) in that hate. The object of one's hate plays an essential and central role in our thought, speech, and actions. We are offended by the slightest of details which we come to see as ever more proof of the rightness of our hate. We end up knowing more about what we hate than we know about ourselves.

In the wake of WW2, it was the Communists who reaped our ire. Those God-hating, atheist oppressors and suppressors of freedom. But who is it these days turning on whistleblowers, passing legislation to rescind basic rights and persecuting dissenters? Oh, we still claim to love God and can't reaffirm enough our religious values, but ignore every precept which that rebellious Nazarene carpenter put so much trust in. We hate Muslims, those bellicose terrorists who want to turn the clocks back to the Middle Ages. But who is it that places religious values above so-called democratic ones and who worship a constitution that is centuries old itself? In place of the KGB which we held high as the prime example of suppression of freedom, we have the NSA and CIA who can't pry broadly and deeply enough into our own lives. In the place of humane values of community and cooperation, we have raised the values of competition and money to religious ideals.

It's not surprising, at least not to me, that we have come this far. And, it is even less surprising that most people I know would argue that I couldn't possibly be speaking to them. But I am. The change from one to the other is slow and subtle, but it's apparent nonetheless. The mystics were right then, and they're still right today: you become what you hate.

The anathema of caring

People who care have it tough: they're laughed at, derided, criticized, maligned, and, worst of all, ignored. Still, there are not just a few of us who are concerned that the current trajectory of developments may bode ill for us all. No, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist. In fact, most conspiracy theorists aren't ... they're just called that, and then we don't have to deal with them. Truth be told, we're being beaten down by our own silence.

A lot of things in our world are broken, from our economic system to our idea of society, from our idea of community to our notion of something as simple as sharing, or even caring. The world suffers as we sit idly by and lament that there's nothing any of us can do about anything. We couldn't be more wrong.

If you care -- about anything -- you have to know that you will have a tough go of it. Most folks don't care that you care and most folks, when push comes to shove, will try to prevent you from caring. Sometimes it's a simple "it's not your problem", to the more general "you can't do anything about that", to the grotesque "why should anyone think they can live off my dime"? Oh, we love to sift and sort, to pick and choose, to declare these folks are "in" and those are "out", but all we're doing is demeaning ourselves.

We can't solve the world's problems, but we can solve our own and the problems of those near to us, and by this, I just don't mean those related to us. In the English translation of the Bible, there is lots of talk about "neighbors", as in "love your neighbor as yourself" and more. In German, this is translated as "the next one"; that is, the one to whom you are in closest proximity, physically. In other words, your neighbor (and this is clearly laid out in the Parable of the Good Samaritan) is whoever is near you, and, especially, who needs you at any given time.

Popular wisdom will tell you that you'll only be taken advantage of. Most of your neighbors will tell you not to get sucked in by the con. And almost everyone else will tell you that you are a fool for even thinking about caring in the first place. What kind of world is that?

Most people thrive on the acceptance of those whom they care about, be they relatives or actual neighbors. If we want the world to be a better place, we have to get beyond that. Whether you are put down, ridiculed, or looked at askance for helping others in need, doesn't matter in the end. It only matters whether you were willing to stand up and to act because you knew it was the right thing to do.

Personally, I don't care where you start, be it in our own family and neighborhood, or be it in the country in which you live or the world at large. At some point, we all have to care about more than just ourselves, regardless of what others may think. That, of course, takes courage. And you need courage to care. You need even more courage to do something about your feelings.

And I know that most of you feel you are doing your fair share already, but I'm here to tell you that you are not. None of us do enough. All of us are capable of more. And all of us will be guilty, if we don't follow our hearts instead of our brains. The choice is yours

Re-thinking is necessary

We grow old, we become lax, we get lazy. We get sick, we get tired, we become sick and tired of fighting. I know. I feel it, I see it every day. Nobody said it was going to be easy, but everyone of my generation knows that we were led to believe that it wouldn't have to be this way. Our parents wanted us to be better off than them, but that hasn't happened. My father, rest his soul, was able to live on his retirement. I won't be able to live on mine. My children will most likely not have one to worry about ever having one. Neither did my great-grandparents. Sometimes I wonder in which direction we're really headed.

It's funny, but I know lots of folks who think that soldiers died for their well-being and their freedom. Maybe those in the Second World War, but since then, every war that's been fought has been questionable at best, criminal at worst. No, those who died for all you have were those unionizers, suffragettes and civil-rights workers who arrested, beaten, maimed, and killed so that rights that were promised to all became real. It's their blood that washed you clean.

When my great-grandparents were born, unbridled capitalism was raping the environment, pillaging the poor, and plundering government. Just like now. But there were strong, courageous, dedicated men and women who simply fought back. In spite of the odds, they formed unions, got women the vote and survived two attempts at European mass suicide. But for what? Those for whom they fought never appreciated what they had been given, and now it's as good as gone. If the young people want it, they're going to have to get it themselves, I suppose.

There are two primary reasons for and reactions to this. On the one hand, we've got those who have all they need, and they're not giving it up; that is, the selfish reason. On the other hand, we've got those who don't have enough, but are too old, sick or tired to do anything about anything; the sick reason. Neither of them are good reasons for anything.

It's simply wrong to leave the young people on their own. That's the first item that needs to be changed. In other words, every one of us who simply accepts things "as they are", have become complicit in the destruction of their future. No, most of us won't be able to save ourselves, but we could possibly save some of those who come after. If you're not at the top of the heap, whatever it is you think you have to leave to those behind you is a mere drop of water on a hot stone. In case you hadn't noticed -- and there's good reason to believe that few people have -- the haves are coming after whatever it is that the have-nots have left. It's only a matter of time till they get it, and we're not talking about a long time either.

Being old, being lax, being lazy, being sick and tired, feeling overwhelmed or helpless ... these are mere states of mind. Merely changing these is a step in the right direction. It's not all that hard, really: just think a bit more of someone other than yourself. That's a sound first step, and it's a much bigger than step than you think. You just have to do it.

Haves and have-nots IV

The difference between the property discussed by Locke (physical) and the property I discussed last time (intellectual) has not escaped me. It is nevertheless important to consider them in the same vein. You will recall that the Romans redefined "freedom" in terms of "property" and we've been following this line of reasoning ever since. Locke's contribution to the discussion was that what we work should be considered ours, but when this line of thought is pursed back to its roots, it becomes questionable at best (and it is why Proudhon so convincingly argued that property is ultimately theft, but that's another story). What I would like to have you think about is what it is that is actually "ours".

We know that physical property has its problems, but what about intellectual property? Why do we think that this is solely and completely our own? There are a couple of ways of approaching the issue. One -- a favorite today -- is financial (that is, money-based). Someone writes a song, it becomes popular and a naive teenager downloads it without permission. It would seem to me, and my experience with adolescents bears this out, that a simple "that's wrong, don't do it anymore" can be more effective than suing the parents for tens of thousands of dollars that they cannot ever pay. Or, what about so-called scientific publications? These are almost exclusively produced through public funding (i.e., grants). Why do the rights to these then reside with the authors or the publishers that arrange for their distribution? This seems highly questionable since the public has in essence paid for the results, so why does the public have to pay to obtain them? (If you think this is made up, search for "Aaron Schwartz" and ask yourself why he was facing 37 years in prison.) The reasoning that allows this absurdity to arise, of course, is Locke's. That's why the two kinds of property, at bottom, are really not all that different after all.

There was a time, and there was an attitude that most things were there for the common good. Granted, the nobility and aristocracy of all times tried to convince us otherwise, but with the dawning of a more democratic understanding of reality, it became clear that some old ideas needed to be thought through again. Maybe those who have gathered more than others now think that this entitles them to more as well. This would be erroneous. In a society, there may be richer and poorer citizens, but that should have nothing to do with their rights as citizens. If it does, something is fundamentally wrong. And if something is fundamentally wrong, it needs to be set right.

At the latest when we traded our society for a mere economy, we tacitly changed the way we view people. My guess it was unwittingly, but now that we are aware of what we have done, we need to think this all through again. Property is questionable, property rights even more so. What remains are human rights, and they need to be re-established to their proper position in our thinking. Human rights take precedence over property rights.

And, that's the first step. No more, no less. Once we get the order right, many things will change all by themselves, and we'll be at least headed in a more just, more humane direction. The first step isn't a revolution, it is a mere change of mind. Change your mind.

Haves and have-nots III

First of all, the disclaimer: though I find property rights questionable in general, I am not naive enough to think that we're going to eliminate them in one fell swoop. I'm not sure this would be either good nor productive in the long run. What we need to do, however, is wean ourselves off of them. But, we've got to start soon and we've got to get serious about it.

There was a time -- in my lifetime, in fact -- when you could register a copyright for your artistic and scientific productions. It lasted less than 20 years and it could be renewed, for a slightly shorter term, just once. After that, the work entered the public domain, it became the common property of all. Patents, which apparently have greater economic potential were also protected for a brief period of time (currently 20 years) so that the owner has the opportunity to reap the benefits of his or her thoughts, or so the theory goes. Now, copyrights, depending on country can last for up to 100 years after then death of the copyright holder. This makes no sense anymore.

Even under the less restrictive version of copyright, legal contention is about to cause severe damage. There are miles and miles of celluloid film in the "archives" in Hollywood, none of which can be digitized because there is no way to clarify who holds the copyrights on parts of those productions. Yes, they were produced with less regard for those property rights we all hold so sacred, and now they lie in legal limbo awaiting their own demise. The film itself is degrading and will soon turn to dust. Some classic, excellent cinema will be lost forever soon, because the alleged rights to property of some individuals prohibit their preservation. It would take a mere stroke of the pen to save it, but we've escalated property rights to such a height even doing a good deed, such as preserving a piece of artistic history, would have ramifications that would shake the foundations of our economy.

The greatest good for the greatest number was the utilitarian mantra, and as weak an ethical argument as it is, it is still more productive and more beneficial than the sacredness of property. We have made property rights much more valuable than any other rights that we have (or thought we had). Those unalienable rights that the Declaration of Independence so proudly declared -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- are apparently only inalienable if no property is involved.

This is the consequence of the Citizens United decision, it is what allows banking criminals to go unpunished while those in need are scorned and further oppressed, it is what lies at the root of the utterly ridiculous discussion about tax rates, it's what encourages the offshoring of profits, it what justifies environmental destruction in the name of dirty energy, it permits the persecution of children for naive ignorance, it is what ultimately destroys our entire society so that certain select individuals can have more.

It leads to the utter absurdity that what we have is much more important than who we are.

It is shameful, to be sure, and I'm ashamed that we are not more ashamed.

Haves and have-nots II

Freedom, rights, and property ... how easy it is to get them all mixed up.

Yes, you guessed correctly: I'm not exactly in agreement with the good Mr. Locke, and I'll tell you why.

First, let's get clear on what Locke was up to, and I will admit that I have singled him out because he had such a strong influence on America's so-called Founding Fathers, and their legacy is haunting not only Americans, but the rest of the world today. Locke decided that if you made something in nature productive (or useful) you then had a right to call it yours. For example, say I find a long, sturdy stick in the woods. I take it home, work on it, shape, sand and shellack it, and I then have an impressive staff that could be used as a walking aid on long treks or as a weapon of defense. According to Locke, it is mine and I can use it or sell it as I wish. Intuitively this seems very reasonable (which it should, as it's coming out of the Age of Reason). By a similar token, there's a patch of land, only lightly wooded, so I clear it, plow it, plant it and then harvest the crops I have sown. Is the field mine? Am I entitled to the products (in this case, the crops) it yields? This is more difficult scenario than the one with the stick, isn't it? Whose patch of land was it to begin with. That depends. If it were today, it could certainly belong to someone else, and you would be required to determine who that is then come to an agreement with that person about using it. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that we're on the North American continent, say, somewhere around Pittsburgh, 250 years ago. What about now?

There are those who would argue that, yes, first come, first served and the one who makes the most productive use of that land is entitled to it. Well, what about the Native Americans who used that land as part of their hunting grounds and where they gathered other things to use and eat? According to Locke, since the use of the land for agriculture produces a greater value, it's the farmer's. He arrives at this conclusion by simple economic reasoning: the wheat produced can be used to bake more bread to feed more people than the "mere" use of that land for hunting and gathering. And it is here that any thinking individual will see there's something of a problem. He uses a utilitarian argument (the greatest good for the greatest number of people) but that is rather culturally determined. The loss of that land, of course depending on the size, reduces the quality of life for the hunter-gather culture. Utilitarianism is used to culturally define what is "more" or "better". It's not a convincing argument. The pragmatists among you will say, well it didn't belong to anyone, so what's the problem?

My question is why is something not obviously owned by a specific individual not owned by anyone? Why don't we consider it owned by everyone? That is more or less how the Native Americans were viewing it: whoever was passing through could use it for their purposes. The notion of "ownership" doesn't make a lot of sense, yet it is the notion of "ownership" that drives almost all of our thinking about everything these days. Property rights are a very big deal. They were (and are) at the heart of the financial and economic crisis from which we have not yet recovered. Property rights are something we need to think about seriously and deeply.

Mr. Locke was, among other things, an administrator of one of the American colonies. It is not hard to surmise that he may have had a person, vested interest in viewing property as he did. It was certainly to his advantage, and he used his arguments to morally justify what was happening with the Native Americans. We have every right ... in fact, I believe we have the obligation, to re-look at this position today, not because we're smarter now than we were then, but because it was questionable then, and it is still questionable now.

The next time I'll go into why this is so.

Haves and have-nots I

Recently, I've been listening to a lecture course on Justice by Harvard professor Michael Sandel. For a Harvard professor, he's not all that bad. At least he doesn't come across as a know-it-all, and there is none of the smug eliteness that we often find in people in his position. No, he appears level-headed and patient, and he gives you the sincere impression that he's more interested in what you are thinking and why than in what it is you think you know. That's why he gets points in my book.

He's also an interesting enough lecturer and I admire how he makes it possible at all for a discussion of any kind to arise in a lecture that is being attended by over a 1,000 students (face-to-face). He takes you through a recent history of ethical and moral thinking, and invites you to explore just why some thinkers have thought the way they have and what that could or might mean for us today. Let's face it: we're faced with many of the same problems that faced Socrates, Aristotle, Meister Eckhart, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Kant, Nietzsche, Rawls, and many others. The more things change, the more some things remain the same.

In one of the lectures, he spends a bit of time with Locke. Now, I'm not the world's biggest Enlightenment fan, though I see a lot of positive things that can be derived from this break with tradition. What caught my attention, however, was his attitude toward property. What does property have to do with ethics? Well, actually, a lot, and not the least since the line between what's just and what's legal has become increasing blurred (cf. my last post). You see, it was about the time of Locke that we moderns picked up again on a really fairly ancient idea, namely that property rights are important. In ancient Rome, by about 50 BC, the master of a household, the dominus (related obviously to our word "dominate") had complete power over his property, which included not just his lands and money, but his wife, children, and, of course, slaves. In fact, his power was absolute in the sense that he could do what he wanted with the things and he could even execute the people, if he so desired, without fear of legal repercussions. This was a form of "having" that probably makes some people drool, even today. It is difficult, however, in our modern minds to justify this, especially where the people are involved, but the artificial relationship it creates towards the things has hung around for quite a while.

In the second century AD, then, the Romans actually redefined what the word "freedom" (Lat. libertas) meant, making it in essence indistinguishable from the rights of dominium (that is, the rights of the master over his property) (cf. Graeber, 2011, pp 198ff). And I mention this because it was fellows like Locke who dug deep into our past to find ways to break the authority of the Church which had been dominating the ethics business for centuries. It became a matter of reason, not faith, that things should be one way and not another. Even that other great Enlightenment thinker, Kant, based his entire philosophy of morals on the notion of "freedom" (though he defined it as the ability, no the duty, to obey only those maxims which one gave to oneself; he assumed every human being was in the end, by virtue of his being in existence, free). It doesn't take a genius to recognize that there is a very thin line in our modern minds between the notion of "rights" and what is in fact "right" (or ethical).

But what does all this mean for Locke and for us today? More next time.

References
Graeber, D. (2011) Debt: the first 5,000 years, Melville House Publishing.

What are we thinking?

Even if we don't want to really think about the other three-quarters of humanity, our own little worlds are not completely up to snuff. Sure, most of you have more than enough, and believe me, I'm the last person who wants to take anything from you. I'm not a big fan of taking for taking's sake. That's simply wrong in my book. But, I question how right it is that some have more than they'll ever need and others don't have enough at all. Not only do we have this in our societies, we're getting ever more of it. Things aren't getting better, they're getting more disparate.

It's not a big step from disparity to desperation.

The way things are set up at the moment, it is perfectly legal for some people to have everything and other people to have absolutely nothing. But, just because something is legal doesn't make it right ... right in the sense of moral. We can sit back and say it is our corrupt politicians who skewed the game or the playing field or whatever, but in the end, whether we like it or not, we put them in office, we keep them there and they allow themselves to be bought and sold to the highest bidder, and we put our hands in our laps and tell each other, "Well, you can't fight city hall." Oh, how proud our parents must be of us now.

I would maintain that fairness is not the issue. "Life isn't fair" is perhaps one way to put it, for as we've seen, luck has a lot to do with a lot of things, and some folks have more luck than others. But, regardless of what unfairness there may be in the world, there is no reason that world in which we live should not be just. Justice and fairness are two different things. And, when I speak of "justice", I don't mean anything near "legal". Things may be legal, but that doesn't make them just.

The Romans made the distinction in having different words for laws. The word lex was used to describe human law (and it is from this word that our own "legal" derives); the word ius was used to describe divine law, a higher law (and it is from this word that our own "justice" derives). We materialistic moderns, of course, have banned anything divine from our lives, but even in our rather basic mundanity, we know that there is something "more" than the mere legal. We've got more than enough lawyers to tell us all about that, but what we are missing, I believe, are a few good people to tell us about what is just.

I would like to think that we're all capable of figuring that out, if not individually perhaps together, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find anyone who is willing to take the time to even think about it. Oh, I run into more than enough opinions, that's for sure, but unfortunately too many of those are simply an excuse for thinking instead of a result of it.

But thinking makes it so

For those of you who aren't convinced, I'm not necessarily trying to persuade you to believe anything in particular, rather, I'm only asking that you stop for a moment and think about what it is you believe, and even more than that, to think about why you believe whatever it is you believe. That's really not too much to ask, is it?

What we think we deserve, what we think people are responsible for (whatever "responsible" means in that context), who we are accountable to, or if we're accountable at all, what it means to have "earned" something, what role luck plays in our (and everybody else's) lives ... these are all topics (or issues, if you will) that we all need to think about. Why? Because they form the basis of the kind of world we end up living in. The world in which you find yourself is just there ... it happens to be where you woke up, if you will recall, but does it have to be the way it is? Is there anything we can do to make it different?

Most of you know full well that things do change and can change and that individuals, or at least groups of them, can effect that change as well. That's what the Civil Rights Movement, for example, was all about. It's also what Nazism and fascism in general was about. It's what feudalism and capitalism are all about as well. All of these things "just are", on the one hand, but they are also things that were not there once, were there, and are not, or may not be there at some later time. We all know things change, some in and of themselves, and others because the changes are consciously made. Change just is, as well. It can be a good change, it could be a bad change; it could be to our advantage, or it could be to our detriment.

Shakespeare, of course, has something to say about this, just like he has something to say about most things that matter. To him (as he puts it in Hamlet, Act 2, sc. ii:

... for there is nothing either good or bad,
but thinking makes it so.

Yes, "but thinking makes it so". Yes, we decide. It is our duty to decide. But, as I look around these days, I don't see a lot of deciding going on. I see a lot of accepting. I see a lot of averted glances. I see a lot of folks looking down at and shuffling their feet. Yet, not only don't I see a lot of deciding happening, I don't even see much of discussion going on either.

What does that say about our own thinking? What does that say about us? What does that say about what we might "deserve"? The extent of injustice, inequality, unfairness, and illegality that we see in abundance around us says a lot about who we are and who we have become. I don't like what I'm seeing. Do you? If not, what are we going to do about it?

What we deserve

Don't you find it strange that so many of us love to take credit for things that we shouldn't really attribute to ourselves. I mean, after all, if it is a matter of luck that I have certain talents or predispositions, and, if it is only a matter of luck as to where I happen to be at a particular point in time, then isn't all this talk about what people deserve and how much they deserve a bit stretched?

I, for one, think it is. I'm not against anyone having talent. I think that's a good thing, but I don't see why one talent is "better" or "more desirable" or "worth more" than some other talent. It's not like we have any kind of objective criteria to determine this difference. What is more, because certain talents and attributes are arbitrarily determined to be better, doesn't this necessarily make them unjust? I use the word "arbitrarily" quite consciously. Whatever doesn't conform to some principle or law or maxim or rule or what-have-you is, by definition, arbitrary, just like luck is arbitrary. We never know who's going to have it where or when. So, doesn't it strike you as odd that we should base our society -- or our economy, for that matter -- on something so arbitrary as luck? I do.

Oh, sure, there are lots of you out there who are thinking, "Hey, life's simply unfair, get over it," and while I don't fault you for thinking it, I do fault you for thinking the sentiment makes sense. I would be willing to bet that anyone of you who is thinking right now isn't so bad off as three-quarters of the world's population. You are obviously doing well enough to have internet access and a computer or smartphone. Since you do, I'm going to stick my neck out and figure that you also have a place to live and clothes on your back and enough to eat. That's what makes you different from those other three-quarters of humanity, because they don't have any of those things that you simply take for granted. Why is that? Just because life's unfair? Seems a bit cold-hearted and arbitrary, if you ask me.

All I'm saying is that perhaps we should be a bit more reserved in proclaiming what it is we think we deserve. What have you really done to deserve what you have. You worked hard, I agree, but all those without work hard too, to simply survive. You played by the rules, I agree, but the rules were made easier for you than for them. Part of your advantages is simply due to dumb luck: you were born into a richer society in a particular place at a particular time and used whatever talents you had within the system you happened to be born into as best you could to do the best you could. So did those others, but you still have more and you have it easier. Why? You were lucky, I guess.

Before we start thinking that everybody only gets what he or she deserves, maybe we should ask ourselves just what it means to "deserve" anything at all. It would seem to me that all of us who have enough, or even a bit more, are sitting on a pretty high moral horse.

It's still your lucky day

The question implicit in the last post was: what does your luck in being born in a particular place at a particular time entitle you to? It was a rather arbitrary happening, don't you think? I think the answer has to be, not anything in general, but maybe there is some particular advantage to be derived from it.

Everybody is good at something, whether we want to admit it or not. My wife has one of the greenest thumbs I've ever seen, while I am any living plant's Grim Reaper. I have a fairly well developed ability to read quickly and a talent to remember a lot of what I read as well. I have a friend who's a math whiz (even higher mathematics) and I know a couple of well-above-average sports folks (golf, soccer, tennis), and some outstanding musicians, too, some of whom could have gone professional but decided against it for whatever reasons.

The question that has been plaguing me since thinking about the accident of birth and what it might entitle us to has now infiltrated this next layer of life. Maybe being born in a particular place at a particular time doesn't entitle me to much, but don't I have to play the game by whatever rules are in place there? Shouldn't I be rewarded in some way for my talents?

Green thumbs give you an edge in the realm of horticulture, being able to remember a lot of stuff helps you win at "Trivial Pursuit" (but after a while nobody wants to play with you anymore). When my math friend came of age, nobody really cared (recently he could have made big bucks in the banking industry, but he was too old by then), and perhaps not the sports fanatics I know, but some of the musicians certainly deserved (in my estimation) to turn pro, but most of them never got "discovered". In other words, and I think my math whiz friend exemplifies it best, even if you've got the right stuff, if it's the wrong time, it just doesn't matter.

Don't you think that this is all a terrible waste of talent? I do. We certainly can't fault any of these folks for having talent no one wanted. That was again, more or less the luck of the draw. We don't have any more influence over when we were born than where. There are right times and not-so-right times for different talents.

What bothers me about all of this is that our current society heaps more-than-generous rewards on certain individuals who, by the very nature of how nature works, didn't get to where they were solely on the basis of their own hard work or inherent talents or anything of the sort. They had, for whatever reasons, luck, and a lot of it at that. On the one extreme, the person who wins the lottery ends up being rich, but does s/he deserve to be so? Most of us think "no" because they didn't "earn" it. But, if it is the case that a good number of those who have reaped such great benefits have done so on the basis of luck, why do we think that they deserve what they have?

It's your lucky day

There is something very comforting, I believe, in knowing that just about everyone else everywhere else in the world is in the same boat you are: you wake up one day and you're here and have to see your way through to the end. It can instill a sense of shared responsibility, or common fate, or a host of other feelings and ideals that could be of great value to all of us, if we were but to recognize them.

There is, however, a darker side to this as well.

When I woke up, it was in the middle of the 20th century in a small town in Western Pennsylvania. My wife woke up a little ahead of me, but six time zones to the east, in a small village near the geographical center of Germany, which was trying to dig itself out and rehabilite itself after a long and ugly war. I know a guy who woke up in a country to the southeast of my wife, a country that doesn't even exist anymore. I have a friend who woke up in time to experience Mao's Cultural Revolution.

What we have in common is of great value, to be sure, but what all us have recognized in the meantime is that we had very different starting points for trying to figure out our way through to the end. They were very, very different from one another, and I think it is safe to say they were -- and are -- very unequal. Does it matter?

There are many of you, I'm certain, who simply blurted out, "Well, no, not at all.", but I would caution you to restrain your enthusiasm for a moment and reflect on this a moment.

Here's the question: to what can (or should) we attribute the fact that we all have different starting points, unequal starting points? The answer to this question is, I believe, much more important than you may realize at first blush. How did I end up in the US, my wife in Germany, an acquaintance in Yugoslavia, and a friend in China? Yes, how? The answer is, however, rather simple, it just happened to turn out that way, it was some kind of accident, it was simply a matter of the luck of the draw.

Unless you have a convincing theory about how children are made and end up with their particular parents (or not) in a particular place at particular time, and if you are not willing to take the mythological step toward fate (which you would also have to convincingly justify), then I'm afraid you have little more left to fall back on than plain dumb luck.

What interests me most about this is how luck (of any kind) plays as good as no role in explaining anything about people. Oh, sure, you can say that you have to deal with the cards you're dealt, but to value one person higher (who really had an easier go of it) than some other (who made his or her way through circumstances that might have killed Mr or Ms Successful) just because they didn't "succeed", appears to me to something of an arbitrary call.

What also interests me is not just this first luck of the draw, but in reality just how many successes do we have in this world whose success is or could be primarily attributed to luck more than any other reason (such as ambition, talent, intelligence, and all the other things we like to attribute ourselves with)? My guess would be that there are many more than we might like to acknowledge.

Being human

My last post got me thinking. I haven't changed my mind: I still think we're more than capable of not only suppressing ourselves, but of holding ourselves back and getting ourselves into situations and circumstances that we'd much rather avoid. What is more, we're species that seems to delight more in fixing the blame than fixing the problem, and that gives me pause for thought as well.

Putting aside whatever beliefs that might comfort us and merely looking at the facts as they present themselves, it would appear that our circumstances are strange enough. One day, without knowing really how or why we find ourselves, well, really just kind of thrown into the think of things, just kind of thrown into life. (For you philosophers, this is what Heidegger calls Geworfenheit, and it's a big part of his whole mode of thinking.) We're just here, and by all appearances for no apparent reason at all. It's just a matter of happenstance. One day we simply wake up and here we are. Yippee!

We're not given any kind of operator's manual or book of instructions. It takes us years to develop even the crudest of theories as to why we might possibly be here. And through a lot of trial and error (whereby I personally think I had more of the latter than the former), we sort of figure out how things work, and try to get through the best we can. At least I'm ready to give everyone, at this point, the benefit of the doubt. How strange is that? What? The benefit of the doubt? No, that we simply try to get through life the best we can. There's not much more than that.

We find out quickly that there are some things we absolutely need (food, clothing, shelter, attention, help), there other things we want (recognition, something meaningful to do, security, friends), and there are some things we would just like to have (oh, shiny or pretty things, extra things, maybe things others don't have). What is more, if we take a moment and look around, no matter where we are in the world, if we think about others in these terms, we just as quickly realize that we all pretty much have this much in common.

Stripped to its essential core, every single human being on this planet is really confronted with the same requirements (needs, wants, and desires) and the same point of departure (not knowing why we're really here or how we got here in the first place). Yes, every single one of us, without exception. Every single one. This is what we share. This is -- in simplest terms -- what we are as human beings.

But, there is something else that all of share as well, namely the nagging suspicion that there must be more to it all than this.

Regardless of what we think that "more" can or should be, we would do well to simply recall to mind that when you get right down to it, we have more in common with our fellow human beings that traits that make us different. It is really worth keeping in mind.

The morality of politics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I'm not the only one

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

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

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

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

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

Is that what we hold dear?

No, not far-fetched at all.

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

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

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

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

A bit far-fetched perhaps?

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, OK, what's your point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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