RE: Brussels. It happened again, and we're still surprised

My heart aches every time innocent people are ripped out of life because evildoers do what they do. I weep for every family who suffers because someone, some group, some ideology thinks they can get what they want by harming others. How perverse can you get.

But, perverse is also thinking that we -- you and me -- are guiltless. We're not, no matter how much we want to be. Why? Because we allow those who have every interest at heart but our own to decide what is right and what is wrong.

What just happened in Brussels is a tragedy, no doubt about it. What it preventable? No. Could we have done something about it? No. Can we do anything in the future to prevent such tragedies? No, but we can do a lot to reduce the likelihood that we are victims of terror.

Terror is terror because it comes unexpectedly, violently, without warning, overwhelmingly. It shocks us to our core. Otherwise, it wouldn't be terror, would it?

The media love to tell us how terrible it all is. Politicians are the first to rant and rave and rail against the pain. But, in the end, those who cause it should be the last to condemn it.

A little story, a blast from the past: when I decided to stay in Germany after my tour of duty, the country was firmly in the grip of terrorists; that is, zealots who would stop at nothing to get what they wanted, regardless of what it cost. In those days (the 70s), the hounds of Hell were domestic, home-grown; our own (the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Red Army Faction) ... their color was different, to be sure, but their rhetoric and their love of violence was the same as we find today with Daesh. Change the colors, change the words, but you can't change the message, and you can't change the mindlessness. While I was studying at a near-by German university, every week a bomb exploded, a car blew up, sometimes with casualties sometimes not, but with wanton disregard for innocent life. And what did we do? Nothing. Because it was the right thing to do.

People were dying, violence was being wrought, but no one, and I mean no one ... neither the populace at large not the politicians in power ... thought of curtailing rights, instituting massive surrveilance, or creating extra-judicial gray zones to fight against the insanity. All of those are standard fare today. Why? Because we've lost sight of the goal: a free and open society which embraces values that are worth standing up, and even dying for. No, today, we've become cowards and victims of our own making.

It doesn't matter whether terror strikes in Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, London, Athens, or anywhere else. Terrorists can only terrorize if we allow ourselves to succumb to fear. When we do, they win. It is that simple. In that moment in which we allow the power that be to curtail our rights, restrict our freedoms, impose their own will, we have lost the struggle for humanity. It is that simple.

It's not about safety or security or surveillance or anything like that at all. Either we have values we believe in and are willing to die for or we can merely choose whom we would like to be our masters and enslavers.

I find it particularly interesting that those who profess to have the strongest faith -- evangelicals and fundamentalists -- who are the first to call for more restrictions, more protection, more repression, more whatever, to save or protect their already petty lives. If you cannot live in the face of death -- the fate of every single living organism on earth -- you haven't really lived and chances are you never will.

So don't make life miserable for the rest of us. We live and we die; everything that lives, eventually dies. Just because your own belief makes small of this fact is no reason to cry for the protection of another because you personally are afraid.

I choose freedom. I choose life. I choose a world that allows me to be me and you to be you. I choose being over fear. I choose going down with my head up rather than cowering with my head down.

You can choose more police, more military, more violence, more killing, more aggression ... that's your choice, but do know that I will fight you every step of the way. I am willing to die knowing that I lived, in freedom, rather than dying never knowing that I lived.

True courage

Anybody can start a fight. Just about anybody can get into a fight without really trying: sometimes the wrong place at the wrong time or the wrong facial expression in the wrong situation. There are lots of ways to get into a fight.

If you're really smart or if you are lucky enough to have the gift of gab and can talk your way out of it, you are one of the very fortunate few. For the rest of us, it's fisticuffs. And that, dear reader, is one of the sad facts of life even in the 21st century.

What's worse, this logic applies regardless of whether it is only individuals involved. It could just as well be gangs, football fans, political parties, demonstrators, or even countries. The logic is the same, regardless of the size or the seriousness of the parties involved.

And so, you stand your ground, blow up your chest, you "act like a man", take your knocks, and save your face (more figuratively than literally, of course), but you've preserved your honor. Of course, it really could be countries involved and it could be that there is collateral damage running into millions of lives, or the whole world -- what the hell -- what's important in the end is that I've saved face, I've shown you what I'm made of, I've demonstrated my courage ... or have I?

Truth be told, you're just another one of those sorry, ever-adolescents who either can't or refuse to grow up. You're just another one of those faux bravehearts who think that a black eye and a bloody nose are some kind of badge of honor. They're not. They're mere indications that you'd rather be an actual coward than be called one.
And that's where we are these days: image is much more important than substance (or as the Germans would say, "Schein ist wichtiger als Sein"); appearances are more important than reality and what you think of me is much more important than what I think of myself or what I stand for.

Turn it around. Get out of the mirror. Face up to the fact that it takes way more courage to take a punch in the nose than to give one, that it takes way more courage to say what you think than to say what others want to hear, that it takes way more courage to stand up for what you believe in -- in light of, not in spite of, the consequences -- than just saying something's important to you.

The world as we know it honors violence. The world that we desire will honor courage.

Apocalypse soon ...

... at least that's what a lot of people think. I can't blame them. As the last two series on "responsibility" and (shared) "myths" have shown, we're not in very good shape. We don't want things the way they are, but we're reluctant to do anything about it. That's not a good combination. But, as the old saying goes, if you don't decide for yourself, someone else will decide for you.

It could be someone, or, maybe, something else, though. The options on the "people" side aren't all the inspiring. We've got a hooligan-leaning group with too much power, too many weapons, of which too many are deadly, no, downright destructive who are dead set on having a little guy with a massive ego and a deep-seated rejection complex pushing back for all he's worth. There's no sign at the moment that either side is willing to back down, and so we find our long-dead, almost forgotten Cold War suddenly heating up again. And, speaking of which, we've got way too many people -- too many of them in positions of authority and some power -- who not only deny the planet as a whole is warming, but that their own limited, ignorant view of the world needs to be imposed on everyone else. And, on the imposition front, we've got two huge, fundamentalist, religious blocs squaring off, whereby it is not the religions per se that are threating each other, it is a loud-enough minority of blind-faithers on both sides who aren't willing to compromise because they insanely believe they all have get-out-of-hell-free cards and are going to go to heaven, regardless of how much bloody death and destruction they unleash. And finally, we have a small elite of insatiably greedy gluttons who would rather the whole world implode before they share anything they think they've "earned", when in fact, they're little more than pesky, life-threatening parasites sucking the life out of everyone else.

Yes, at times, it's almost as if you can hear the pounding of the hoofbeats of the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse rising in the distance.

That's it folks. The outlook is anything but rosy. The crash, implosion, explosion, whatever you want to call it is not a mere possibility. It is a reality that is going to become more real than any of us desires, and it's going to happen sooner than later. It is no longer a matter of whether, it's merely a matter of when.

There are more than enough optimists in the world who are willing to believe and tell you that we can still turn back the doomsday clock. What should have become clear over the past few weeks is that the number of people who are willing to make that happen constitutes a disappearingly small minority. They get no media time, they get no attention, they get laughed at and abused, verbally and otherwise, and they're seen as weak, tree-hugging, trail-mix-eating, soy-milk-drinking hippies who have no clue. But, in the end, they're the only ones who have figured it out. They weren't always the way they were. They changed. They changed themselves. They stood up, gathered up all their courage and told themselves that when they went, at least they'd go with the knowledge that they did whatever they could, regardless of how little or seemingly ineffective, to make a difference, to make the world a better place.

Yes, you can think of them however you want, but in the end, it is they who are going to go out with integrity and dignity.

Chapeau.

The Guy II

So, why do I think I understand that guy, and what difference does it make?

Most of us like to think we're that guy, but we're not. Most people aren't even close. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. That's just the way it is. We'd like to stand out, but we don't want to feel the heat. We'd like to oppose, but we don't want the pain. We'd like to be the one who's different, but we don't want the rejection. Most people I know would be cheering and saluting. Why? Because they are merely everyday people like everyone else, like most of the people in that picture. We think it's the Germans, but it could be anybody. It could just as easily be Americans.

No? Think about this:

The leaders of America (for the past decade at least) are guilty of war crimes, just like the German leaders back then. America engages in unjustified and unjust military actions to further its own interests (e.g. Iraq), and it will exert great pressure on countries which dare to resist falling into line (e.g. Iran). The government has passed a number of laws that suppress, if not oppress, its weakest and most vulnerable citizens (or why is Social Security on the budget-bargaining table?). The State is anything but adverse to using excessive violence against anyone who takes it upon themselves to call them on their misdeeds (e.g. Occupy and Bradley Manning). It has instituted and enforces draconian laws that target certain ethnic minorities (e.g. highest incarceration rate in the world and a disproportionate number of these are Blacks and Hispanics). It is also willing to manipulate its own legislative and judicial processes to benefit certain, selected, special interests at the expense of the greater population (e.g. the 0.1%). It indoctrinates its young with revisionist history (e.g. was the US' treatment of the Native Americans genocidal or not?), and it declares unabashedly that its own patriotism is of far greater value and of a higher moral quality than anyone else's in the whole world (e.g. the Global War on Terror) ...

Oh, I could go on, but being able to come up with so many parallels so quickly, so easily, truly unsettles me. Americans today are really not all that different from Germans then. The motivations, the causes may be different, but the effects are too disturbingly similar to ignore.

It's hard for me to believe that Germans now are all that different from Germans then. I find it difficult to believe that Americans then are so different from Americans now. But, appearances can be deceiving – both then and now. I can't help but wonder what someone like me sixty years hence is going to be thinking when he looks at a picture of Americans now?

The guy in the picture stands out in his crowd. Are you standing out in yours? It would seem to me that if you're not condemning what is wrong, your condoning it. Now, more than ever, we need to be that guy.

The Guy I

A picture someone posted on Facebook is haunting me. It showed a circle highlighting an unsmiling man standing in the middle of a crowd, his arms folded demonstrably across his chest. He appeared annoyed. Everyone else was standing with their right arms extended, palms down, giving the now notoriously infamous Nazi salute. Many were cheering.

The picture's caption was simple. It said: Be this guy.

I can't get that picture out of my head. I'm assuming the people in the picture were Germans. They don't have to be, but it really doesn't matter. Just about everyone who sees that picture is going to think they are Germans anyway. That's just the association most of us will make. We like to think Germans – Nazis – nasty – cruel, mean, violent, vicious.

It's not a good thought. It's not accurate. It's stereotypical.

Not everyone in that picture was a Nazi. Not everybody who was saluting was a Nazi. Not everyone in that crowd was a bad person either. But, that also doesn't matter. Most of us think: you're saluting, you're cheering, you're a Nazi, you're guilty.

That's not a good thought either. Be the guy. That's a good thought.

We cannot know whether any of those saluting and cheering was doing so out of conviction or only because they didn't want to draw attention to themselves. We know where one guy stands. The rest? It's all speculation. But, even that doesn't really matter.

We think we know, even if we're not sure. We act according to what we think we know. That's what we believe.

For a long time, most people simply thought the Germans were not very nice people. There are a lot of Germans today who still think they not very nice. These folks feel like they, as a people, should have tried harder, and because they didn't, they let a lot of bad things happen. I can tell you that it's going to take a long time for all of them to come to terms with that past – whether deserved or not. Some of them will never get over it completely.

The Germans are, though, at heart, good people, as people go. They are warm, hospitable, friendly, open, curious, interested, and socially minded. Their basic life philosophy these days is "if my neighbor's doing well, then chances are that I'm doing pretty well too". Sure, they can be direct to a fault and they may not laugh at every joke (or even know a joke's been told), but they mean well and they try.

So, what's haunting me?

I identify with the guy. I've been told often enough in my life to get with the program, to get back in line, to get in step, to stop being the oddball, to, well, conform. I don't particularly mind people (parents, pastors, teachers, coaches, commanding officers, bosses, to name a few) telling me that. It doesn't bother me all that much. As far as I'm concerned, if they're telling me that, well, then I must be doing something right. No, I may not be the guy, but I understand him.

Why? I'll tell you next time.

The morality of politics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I'm not the only one

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

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

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

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

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

Is that what we hold dear?

No, not far-fetched at all.

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

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

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

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

A bit far-fetched perhaps?

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, OK, what's your point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harming others is moral?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stealing is moral?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Killing is moral?

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

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

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

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

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

Morality, really?

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

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

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

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

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

We're not there yet, are we?

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

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

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

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

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

Is this going somewhere?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does it matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The courage to be foolish

Yes, I know, I'm being foolish. Expecting folks not to be afraid is just plain silly. I know most of you are saying to yourselves, "I have no idea what he's talking about. I'm not afraid of anything." You couldn't be more wrong. Take this scenario:

In just under three weeks Americans are going to go to the polls. Most of you, I'm sure have already made up your minds how you're going to vote, simply because - as I said before - you're afraid to vote differently. Seriously. I know there are a lot of you voting for Romney because you don't like or want Obama. Mitt, however, is heartless, cruel, mean, deceiving, conniving, and ruthless. He has no idea what he's talking about, I have no idea what he stands for (other than money and moneyed interests) and his running mate is every bit as bad, if not worse. I also know there are a lot of you voting for Obama, because you don't like or want Romney. Obama, however, is weak, ambivalent, misguided, deceiving, conniving and, in domestic policy, at least, ruthless. He does know what he's talking about, but I'm only sort of clear on what he stands for, and his running mate is harmless. I don't think I need to remind you all that neither of these descriptions are reasons to vote.

Granted, the Republicans are trying to make an unreasonable voting system even more unreasonable with this whole ID thing that has no basis in reality, and there are some of you who are even contemplating - perish the thought! - voting for a third party candidate, just to protest. And that, my dear friends, is about as courageous as the American voting public will become. In the secrecy of the voting booth, they'll pull the lever for someone else. But to what avail? None.

Regardless of how the election turns out, it will be the people who "wasted their votes" that will have screwed everything up, just like Nader was accused of in 2000. First, we have to realize that the very concept of "wasting a vote" only exists in America, and it is far from the concept of "democracy" as you can get. So, here's my suggestion, here's how you make your wasted vote count:

Vote for Mickey Mouse. Write him in on the ballot. It's that simple. Let's face it, he gets votes in every election anyway, but never enough to get electoral votes to really make a difference (because, remember, Americans aren't even trusted to elect their own president ... how insulting is that!). So here's your chance. Forget the Greens, the Libertarians, the Socialist Workers. Rally for Mickey Mouse! Take a stand, show the system how silly it really is and for once in your life, cast a vote of which the system is worthy. Why? Because if you all did it, you'd finally get the much-needed discussion started to get things sorted reasonably. Maybe, just maybe, you could even turn your electoral system into a democratic one.

But, I know that most of you just don't have the courage, so you'll bow your head, lower your eyes, "do the right thing" (which in this case is wrong), and pull the lever for who you believe is the least of all evils. But remember, that's still choosing evil. You need courage to face up to evil ... or are you just too afraid?

Mongers

I'm sure there are some of you who are upset right now. Good. I'm sure there are some of you who don't feel you've been spoken to. Not so good. And, I'm sure there are some of you who don't know how you feel about any of this at all. Bad. Sooner or later you have to wake up and put the old brain in gear.

Don't get me wrong. I know exactly how difficult it is to be courageous when faced with the violence that civil authorities can bring to bear. And more importantly, what will the neighbors think if you get picked up somewhere for dissenting? Yes, we shouldn't forget the neighbors.

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest cause of violence in the West -- especially in the US, but elsewhere, like Spain or Greece recently -- is fear. The government is afraid of the people. The people are afraid of their governments. How sad is that in 21st-century, allegedly democratic societies? The problem in America is compounded by the fact that there are almost as many weapons in private hands as there are private hands. There are a lot of guns and a lot of potential for violence, even if it may be in some way in self-defense. No, with so many guns and so many people on edge, I think everyone has every right to be just a tad uneasy. No, they have every right to be downright afraid. Fear is our biggest enemy.

I'm not the first to say this (nor will I be the last) and a friend of mine recently nailed it in his blog, too. We're being told to fear everything: authorities, others, strangers, illegal immigrants (legal immigrants will soon follow, believe me), radicals, extremists (especially religious ones), and the list goes on and on. Why? It really doesn't take all that much effort to turn just about anyone or anything we don't particularly care for into some kind of bogeyman. That's that way were raised, I suppose. Be afraid of whatever it is you don't know. We didn't do anything else our parents told us, but that ... well, we probably learned that lesson all to well. The one lesson that wasn't worth learning at all.

Most often, we're afraid of whatever we don't know ... the unknown. The easiest way to overcome that particular fear is to get to know whatever it is that is unknown to us. Instead of simply rejecting things out of hand because we're afraid of what we might find (what happens if what we envision to be so "bad" turns out not to be bad at all ... or even worse, what if we find out we like it?). The solution is easy: stop, look, listen (just like crossing the street, remember?) and when in doubt, ask. It really is time we got serious about being critical. The only thing you have to lose is your fear.

Courage? Right.

There are a few brave souls out there who will think seriously about thinking critically, but they are a dwindling majority. Most of you are thinking to yourselves, "Yes, what's wrong with those cowards who won't take a stand for tomorrow?", whereby you who are thinking this may be the most to blame. Just how critical is your own thinking? Have you ever really tested it? And if you have, have you done so publicly? I think most likely not. Don't get me wrong: I'm not accusing anyone of cowardice, but I know how most of you are feeling. Yeah, but ... and it's always the "but" that gets you and it's where you end up getting kicked as well.

Take this freak show going under the guise of a presidential campaign: How many of you have already made up your minds? Good. Now how many of you have thought about something substantial in making that decision? Right. Now, for all of you who have made substantial decisions, have you seriously investigated any of Romney's policies? I doubt it, because if you did, you'd find out he really doesn't have any. He campaigns well enough against Obama, but he is as backhanded as they come. Or, for you Obama fans: have you seriously thought about his policies or are you just against Romney? Probably not. Our proud Nobel Prize winner has as much guilt on his conscience as the war-mongers of Bush II & Co. Why is none of this an issue?

It is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person that the best you can do is put up these two guys and then expect that the world take you seriously. Is that the best you can do? Obviously, because that's who you've got. The only folks who got close to getting it were the Occupy crowd, and we all saw what happened to them. Legitimate dissent will be crushed - literally crushed - by the powers-that-be. Police departments ... yes, police departments ... are buying mid-sized armor and drones, for crying out loud. The police, mind you. Bloomberg even brags about having one of the world's largest armies, and he's talking about NYPD. Tell me that's not downright bizarre.

And every single one of you who found a rationalization for this, everyone who thinks that you have do something before things get out of hand ... well, you guys are not thinking critically. In fact, you're not thinking at all. All that America seems to know anymore, all that America is being seen for anymore, is the amount and intensity of violence they are willing to perpetrate on themselves. We already know they are not overly sensitive to inflicting it also on others.

Might does not make right. Never has, never will. What is right can only be determined by thinking people debating serious ideas, and you can't get to serious ideas without questioning what is. I hear a lot of saying, but as good as no questioning at all.