And now a word from our sponsor

That's how commercials were once introduced. It was almost an apology that whatever it was you were watching on TV was not going to be interrupted so that someone who thought they had the right could try to sell you something .. or at least entice you to perhaps buy it the next time you went shopping. Those days -- by no means, the "good old days" are long gone. We're no longer asked, we're told. Times change.

Circumstances don't. We still get broadcast all that we need to know, that much is true, but while the machine spews forth unceasingly, those of us "down here", are having trouble swallowing it all. After all, there's only so much you can allow through your craw, whether you like it or not.

There was a time when news was news and commercials were commercials, but those times are no longer. Now we get commercials for news (that is, what we're supposed to think) as much as we get commercials for what we should buy. The content should be different, but it isn't. The reactions thereto and our own behavior should also be different, but it isn't.

A dear friend recently asked me what I thought of the so-called "refugee crisis" here in Europe (and Germany) in particular. He figured I wouldn't be opposed, given my disposition toward others and life, and he was right, but I suspect that he truly wanted to know how I could still remain positive in light of a situation that was, well, by all standards, threatening. He was right about the threatening part and he was right about my reaction.

Truth be told, the crisis with which we are confronted is a pseudo one, a contrived one, a made-up one, not a real one. Oh, there's no denying that millions of people are on the move, looking for safe havens in times of imminent and life-threatening danger. But, as is so often the case, it's the "little people" who have to suffer when the "big people" (the "important" people) decide the world should be a certain way.

Neither I nor anyone I know believes that all those fleeing towards Europe are really refugees, in the traditional sense of the word. Some are really so-called "economic refugees", people looking for a way out of their current hopeless morass. Some are hopefuls, looking for half a shot at something "better", whereby what that means differs from case to case. Some of them are truly asylum seekers, fleeing from inhuman and violent conditions, simply trying to save their own lives and that of their children. And, whether we like to admit it or not, some are subversives, simply using the current situation to further own personal, religious or political agendas. That's just the way it goes. That's the reality of the situation, but it's not the actuality.

All these people streaming toward Europe are not taking on these hardships because they have nothing better to do. If we -- and by "we" I mean all of us in the Western industrialized world -- were serious about what we say we believe, we never would have created the situation that forces these people to flee. Given half a choice, just about everyone would rather stay where they are than move, but our "leaders" have decided what is better for us -- and by default for others -- is best, and now we've got this situation.

Don't blame those who flee. Blame those who make them flee. But, it is always easier to side with those in power than with those who have been victimized by it.

Lest we forget

Make no mistake: the events of September 11, 14 years ago, were unnecessary, tragic, shocking, damnable, disgusting, and devastating. There is no way that anyone can "justify" what happened. It was an destructive and frightening act of terror.

We should remember, though, that we still don't know who was responsible. We were told who was responsible, and this was different people or organizations at different times, but we do not know with any certainty. There are, to this day, too many unanswered questions. I'm anything but a conspiracy theorist or practitioner. I yearn for clarity, for transparency, for uprightness, and for honesty. Things that I'm sure many of you would agree are lacking today.

Almost 3,000 people lost their lives, needlessly on one single day. Death tallies like that are normally the result of war, but war was "declared" on "terror" in the wake of those events. And that, my dear reader, is what is so troubling.

The government has spent years trying to convince us of who was behind the attacks, but their arguments and proof are unconvincing. The commission report is laughable and contradicts itself. Nevertheless, we attacked Afghanistan, which was not behind the attacks, even if they were allegedly sheltering Bin Laden. We attacked them for revenge. The country was in chaos before and after the Russians were forced to leave. It wasn't Pakistan, our ally. It wasn't anyone with whom we had friendly relations, but we had a bone to pick with Saddam Hussein and that was the "trump card" eventually played. We attacked Iraq only a few years later, a second act of revenge. We may have been threatened by Al Qaeda or some similar organization, but we attacked countries ... out of revenge.

Since time heals no wounds, as yesterday's Facebook activity will attest, what is it that we have actually done? We've killed, maimed, wounded, traumatized, more than one million human beings. A few of them were from "our side" (about 7,000) if you count 9/11 itself. But the remaining 999,993,000 were "them". No more, no less. Just "them". We weren't defending ourselves, we weren't being attacked. We were attacked once. We, on the other hand, have been attacking ever since.

What does that say about us? About us as a people? About us as a civilization? The old Kabbalistic adage states it clearly: you become what you hate. And we hate. Over 1,000,000 people have lost their lives directly because of this event, another 1,000,000 are in the process of being killed, more than 50,000,000 people are fleeing for their lives, and we have the cold-hearted audacity to glorify the killing, allegedly in the name of the killed. What has become of us?

Two (or more) wrongs have never made a right, and they never will. We gave up our moral high ground long ago, but we still refuse to acknowledge that we're not a damn bit better than those whom we despise, detest, and hate. I'm sorry I have to say it, but for all you so-called good Christians out there screaming the loudest at the Muslims, don't forget that, by your own standards, you will be judged by what you have done, and not by what you have said.

If we want to maintain that Life (whatever you may perceive that to be) is somehow sacred or of high value, then it is time we started acting like it. You can turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the crying and anguish of the suffering, but there's not enough pathetic (in the sense of unjustified pathos) patriotism to cover it over or tune it out. You can act like you are in the right, but to find glee, happiness, or pleasure in the suffering and death of another human being is sadism, pure and simple.

And that, dear reader, is something I don't think we should try to forget.

If not reading, how about reflection?

While I do have my optimistic moments, I'm not the fool many take me for. I know well that most people I know wouldn't read much that is antithetical to their beliefs. The authors of those texts might have a point ... who knows? they might even be right ... and what do you do then? When our beliefs are challenged, the vast majority of us simply reject what we're being told (or what we're reading). It's a lot easier to simply deny than it is to change our minds. How sad is that.

Having said that, however, I'm not convinced that most people know why they believe what they believe. A lot of our beliefs are simply carry-overs from our childhood. Our parents believed certain things, we accepted them, and we believe them now as well. In our teen and young-adult years, our friends or people we admired or looked up to believed things and we decided to believe what they believed because we thought or felt or believed that we were like them. In our adult lives, we believe things sometimes simply because we would like things to be a certain way; our world would be much less threatening and stressful if things are as we believe. What all of these modes of coming-to-beliefs have in common, it is clear, is that they are passive in nature. We don't have to do anything to come to these beliefs, we merely need to accept them and make them our own.

That's fine in as far as it goes, but it's a rather weak foundation, especially when we think of how many people are out there claiming, arguing, hammering home, and trying to impose their beliefs on others. If someone wants to make a strong case for his or her beliefs, then I would like to think that they had at least thought about them seriously, that they had invested some energy in understanding what it is they believe and that they knew why they believed what they believed. Unfortunately, that's hardly ever the case. Beliefs are funny like that: all you have to do is believe them. Personally, I prefer people with convictions (thought-through and grounded beliefs), even if I don't share them myself.

So, now that summer is upon us, and now that many of us are thinking about time off or vacations or just lying out in the sun or going to the beach, I have little illusion that most of you will be taking a book with you. For those who are, I commend you, and I certainly hope you read it. For those of you who are not choosing that option, may I suggest a less strenuous, but I believe more challenging, and, perhaps, even more rewarding activity: reflecting. Yes, why not take the time in which you're not really doing anything else, and think about what you believe. Ask yourself why you believe it. Do little thought experiments about what it would be like, or what the world would be like, if you, or most people or anyone else, didn't believe what you believe. You really ought to try it. It can be a very enlightening experience, if done intensely and seriously enough.

No one's asking you to do anything but think ... about what you think and why. Who thinks they can handle it?

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 myth of freedom

As promised last time, I'm going to turn to the other half of Ben Franklin's equation: liberty, or freedom, as we most commonly call it. No, I'm not going to go into a discussion of the details of differentiation between the two. We all have a general understanding of the word, and we all profess with certainty that we are, in fact, free, but just short of an outright, apparent dictatorship, we couldn't be more wrong.

Another wise man, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, once remarked that "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." I would maintain that this statement applies to some degree to just about all of us, but it hits the proverbial nail on the head as far as Americans are concerned. Going back even further, no one less than Aristotle noted, that whoever prefers security to freedom is rightfully a slave. That pretty much describe post-9/11 America.

You can't voluntarily gut your own Bill of Rights, limiting or suspending your rights to freedom of expression, speech, and assembly, eliminating of the right of habeus corpus, allowing yourself to be arrested on mere suspicion of terrorism only to be potentially turned over to the military and suspension of all legal rights, gutting the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, allowing your elected representatives to gerrymander you out of the value of your vote, standing by while certain segments of the population are denied even their right to vote, and introducing so much money into politics that only those who have have a say and think you are living in a free country. You can't see one video (since you don't often see it on the news) of the dispersal of an Occupy demonstration or almost any demonstration for that matter and think that you live in a free country. And, especially if you are a person of color, you cannot begin to imagine how tenuous your own existence is should the State decide to clamp down on you, as was the case in the wake of the Ferguson demonstrations, for example.

None of that, my dear friends and readers, speaks of freedom. None of it. Each and every one of these is evidence of how severely your rights, and hence your freedoms, have been restricted. The worst of it all, of course, is that Americans, at any rate, demanded that it be done to them. They voluntarily gave these rights and freedoms up, in the name of -- quite ironically -- national security. Mr. Franklin was right all the way around.

One important point to keep in mind, however, is that none of these rights is ever coming back. Oh, we were all told that these were temporary steps necessary to get the situation under control, but I'm going to let you in on a little secret: power never relents; once you give up anything, especially your rights and your freedom, you never, ever get it back. Mr. Franklin said you don't deserve them anyway, and I happen to think he is right.

Enter Mr. Goethe. Yes, those who took all that away from you have not tired since telling you, impressing upon you, suggesting to you, convincing you that nothing has really changed. But it has. Those who took all that away from you lied to get it, just like they lied to start the wars that would increase your fear which would demand more action and more restriction and more control. Enter good old Aristotle: keep me safe and I'll do your bidding.

Americans, for the most part, have never really been all that free, but they are less free now than they have ever been. Depending on where you live, you know which sports teams to root for, which church to attend (and you'd better attend one of them), which religion to believe in, which party to vote for, and whom to associate with. Peer pressure has never been writ larger than in America, and, I have to admit, America is really good at it. But whether you're pressured by your peers or by the police or by the legal system, it doesn't really matter. In the end, you adjust, adapt, and submit. You like to think you're free. You love to tell yourself you are, but in reality, you're just grist for the mill.

The myth of security

Since I left off with Ben Franklin last time, it seems fitting to, in a way, pick up where I left off, with Ben again. Among the many other notable things he said, he pointed out that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Let's just deal with the latter of these notions; I'll come back to the other one next time.

What Franklin described as "safety" in his day is what we call "security" nowadays. A little less than a decade-and-a-half ago, my fellow Americans fell for this one in a big way. The events of 9/11 drove the stake of fear into their isolationist hearts and they were confronted with a dose of reality that made them more than willing victims. Total data collection, unwarranted wiretapping and evesdropping, computer-analysis of all email communication, the rise of unchecked police power, the suppression of rights unseen since the founding of the country, and for what?

Nothing, really. Oh sure, go to the airport and you'll be inconvenienced, but are we safer? Are we more secure? Are we better protected? Not in the least.

In spite of all the invasions of privacy, the intrusions into our personal lives, the repression in public spaces, and other inconveniences we've been made to suffer, not a single terrorist act, in the US or anywhere else in the world, including the most recent attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, was prevented. We've even toppled governments (elsewhere of course), carried out physical assassinations (e.g., Bin Laden) or have murdered countless innocent civilians (the drone program), and we've still got an Islamic State and Boko Haram and a vast number of wannabe organizations that are threatening all of us in ways that we couldn't imagine not all that long ago.

Of course, it's not only national security that is at issue. Though the rates of violent crimes is declining throughout the Western world, America in its gun fanaticism is seeing an increase in the number of accidental homicides. The more guns, the more people are going to be killed. Anyone can be shot, given the flimsy nature of house construction or the thinness of the walls in apartment dwellings. Without a system of health insurance, anyone and everyone is exposed to health dangers that can't be addressed, and the recent outbreaks of previously eliminated contagious diseases are cause for concern. And then we have the lack of labeling of food products, the machinations of the processed food industry, the secrecy surrounding fracking company chemicals, the multitude of accidental poisonous spills, the decline of environmental protection worker health and safety regulations and, well, you've got the perfect combination for a high probability of death by just about anything other than old age.

Americans, for sure, but increasingly we in Europe, are facing a noticeable lack of both safety and security, both generally and in Mr. Franklin's sense of the word. The world has always been something of a dangerous place, but the illusion of safety and security we have created for ourselves is probably the greatest danger of all. Our surest thing is a blatant false sense of security.

The myth of unity

You can think what you want about America's Founding Fathers. I have -- I'll be honest -- more than just mixed feelings. Yes, yes, yes, they might have been products of their times, but history is replete with great thinkers and doers who looked beyond and were not just victims of their own particular time and place of birth. That's part of my dilemma, I suppose: if these guys were such great visionaries (as is so often claimed) why couldn't they see beyond their own cultural context, why couldn't they envision something more universal, why were they tripping over their own feet to set a standard for the world to come?

To me, the most enigmatic of all the Founding Fathers is Benjamin Franklin. I'll admit it: he has been ever since I was forced to read his autobiography in 11th grade. Granted, I didn't always do what I was told, but I waded through that one. I was taken aback by the contradictions and enthralled by the moments of genius. I couldn't believe any text could be that boring, but found such inspiration for life, that I live quoting the man.

It was Uncle Ben (not he of rice fame) who inspired me for this post. Ben, when arguing before the Continental Congress on what the colonies should do in regard to the Crown, let loose a most impressive statement: "Either we hang together, or we hang separately." What wise words.

Right here at the beginning of American history, at a time when the idea of the individual was concreticizing in the Enlightenment mind, Mr. Franklin quipped out a truth that would stand the test of time. He knew, and the circumstances dictated, just as they do today, that it was in togetherness, in overcoming petty differences, in seeing the bigger picture, in cooperation in the face of adversity, in solidarity that something new could be achieved. The world recognizes the French Revolution, which transpired 13 years later, as the irruption into modernity, but it was Mr. Franklin's simple statement that made that other revolution possible. Yes, in the Enlightenment, in the Age of the Individual, in the transition from collectivism to individualism, Uncle Ben reminded us that we are only strong and capable of survival when we band together, when we collectively react, when we cooperate, not when we compete.

Since then, as history as patently demonstrated, the individualists have done what they could to gain the upper hand. Our own current, post-modern attitude is that the individual is supreme, but Ben knew, and we know deep inside, that the individual is nothing without the collective to support him (or her, as the case may be).

The antithesis of the Roman adage to divide and conquer is Mr. Franklin's admonishment to pull together. Not quite 100 years later, one Charles Darwin would generalize this idea into his theory of evolution. It's as obvious as the noses on our faces, but there is a significant number of individuals these days who would like the rest of us to think otherwise. And they are doing a damn fine job of it, I hate to admit.

We -- America, any modern, Western country, any significant political organization or grouping -- praise the individual, raise him to almost godly status, but we know, and have known for quite a long time, that real strength lies in coming together. That's why our ideal of unity is a mere myth. It does not and cannot exist. We mouth the words, but we live our actions: me first, everyone else second; as long as I have mine, you're free to try and get yours; it's every person for themselves.

No, Ben was right. if we don't hang together, we'll hang separately. It really is that simple.

The myth of justice for all

If you don't have shared values; if you erroneously believe that you can do everything yourself; if you refuse to recognize that where and when we are born has a lot to say about what's even possible in our lives; if the notion of personal responsibility is perverted into a justification that it's your own fault if things are better for you; and if you believe that only the individual is capable of anything positive; it is, well, simply beyond my ability to imagine, let alone comprehend, how you can think that we're all treated equally in the eyes of the law.

In the United States, money is free speech, though there's no hint of that in the First Amendment. In the Western World in general, there is the legal precedent that social standing, background or history, may not be considered in assessing your standing in society. For anyone who wants to see -- and I realize that means "damn few" -- it is clear that different measures are applied to different individuals in our everyday reality.

To me, the most emblematic, the most telling, the strongest statement of the negation of the notion of "justice for all" is the notion of "affluenza". Don't get me wrong, I'm quite a fan of linguistic dynamics, of the ability of a language to change and adapt to the world around it, of neologisms, and more, but "affluenza" ... well, that one, I must admit, stopped me in my tracks.

It was, I believe, a judge in Texas (otherwise not known for its forward-thinking decisions) who declared that a young man who was drugged and drunk and who drove into a crowd of people, killing several of them, was, in fact, innocent (and sentenced accordingly) because he suffered from "affluenza": he came from such a rich family, that he was no longer able to determine the difference between wrong and right. It wasn't an isolated incident; the defense has been successfully invoked since then. How, in the name of all that's holy, does that make any sense at all? How can money absolve you from moral responsibility? Well, in a "society" in which the only real value is money, money talks, and the guilty walk.

There was no outrage. There were no demonstrations against the injustice. There was no outcry, no anguish, no speechlessness, unless you take the silence that thundered across the land as speechlessness. It was just another day in paradise, just more business as usual, another instance of "nothing to see here". It passed as good as unnoticed. And all of us, whether you like it or not and whether you want to admit it or not, had our hands stained with blood that day. Some community service, a few hours doing something for others so that maybe, just maybe, it starts to dawn on you that there are other people on this planet other than yourself ... that was it.

On the same day, not a small number of people of color were frisked, searched, pulled over from traffic, arrested, incarcerated, sent to prison, and executed for alleged crimes that they may or may not have committed. (When you have an error rate of 5-10% of innocent people being executed, you can't really claim anything for the "system" other than it doesn't work.) And there was no outrage, no demonstrations, no outcry, no anguish, no speechlessness, just business as usual.

You're a person of color in America, you're an immigrant, most likely Muslim, here in Europe. You're different in that you are not what we aspire to be. Too many want to suffer from affluenza. They dream of it. They long for it. Justice should be blind, but only so long as she doesn't see me.

Groundhog Day

Today's a special day for the denizens, and those who hail from Western Pennsylvania. In a little town, known for nothing other than a cranky rodent, each year on this day, Phil, as he is affectionately known, comes out of his burrow after his long winter's sleep. If he sees his shadow, I suppose he's happy, because that sight sends him back underground to wait another six weeks for winter to end. And so the legend goes, year after year, time and time again (which was the inspiration for the movie of the same name).

Over the course of the movie, for all the wrong reasons, the main character, played by Bill Murray, does the right thing(s) in order to become a better person and win the heart of the leading lady, played by Andie McDowell. How touching (and humorous) it all is, but how true as well. Einstein -- no slacker in the thinking and intelligence department -- is credited with saying that doing the same thing over and over again in hopes of a different result is a sign of insanity. If Uncle Al is correct, then I guess we're all insane.

OK, I may not do the same thing over and over again, but it has come to my attention that I say the same things over and over again. It's not really that I expect different results, but any result would be OK with me. Still, I can't help but feel that what I do, and what Al was talking about aren't really all that different.

Today, I included a picture -- a word cloud, to be exact -- to show you what I keep talking about. The cloud is a visual rendition of the frequency of key words or labels for my blog, from the very beginning to the end of January this year. I sort of like the picture, it tells me a lot.

I wonder if it tells you anything.

Same difference

If there is anything I love about this life and this world, it's the diversity. Really. It can't be colorful enough, diverse enough, multi-culti enough for me.

Here we are, all of us, on one small planet, somewhere in the middle of a rather small solar system, somewhere at the edge of a galaxy, in the endless vastness of space. The universe is huge and we've got pea brains. How is that supposed to work? Still, those pea brains produce enough whatever to allow us to go to the moon, cure some diseases, think about weird stuff, and also pollute the planet, destroy the atmosphere and bring ourselves to the brink of destruction. Tell me why that is, in and of itself, not worth contemplating?

In all of my musings, of course, I keep coming back to one point: even though we're all so different -- actually unique as individuals -- there is so much about us that is still the same: our feelings, our sorrows, joy, pain, desires, wishes, hopes, and aspirations. We'd all, it appears, like to live a decent life (whatever that means) and not have to worry as much as we do about as many things as we do. I get the feeling that we'd all just like to know that our children are doing OK, that they are healthy and (at least sometimes) happy, that they have enough to eat and, when the situation calls for it, can celebrate and be happy about births and marriages and birthdays and whatever else is reason for joy.

OK, I'll admit it, I haven't been everywhere. But, wherever I've been, this is what I have seen and felt that people want. From all the TV shows, documentaries and travelogues that I have read, I get the impression that this is what most people want. I'm beginning to think -- though admittedly all evidence is not yet in -- that this is somehow a feature of the human condition. I really don't know what the difference is between me, a Wall Street banker, a worker in a German factory, a French civil servant, a peasant in China or an Aborigine in Australia. Oh, our circumstances are very, very different, but how we all feel about the world around us ... well, I can't really see how different it is. We feel the same joy and pain, we suffer from the same diseases ... where is the fundamental, existential difference? I just don't see it.

On the outside, we're very different: our hair, eyes, skin, stature, build ... you name it ... are very, very different. On the inside, our intelligence, our attitude, our self-understanding, our face-to-the-world ... if you know what I mean ... are very different as well. But deep down ... and I mean really deep down, at the core of our being, at that space-time that defines us as being "human" ... well, I'm not sure there's all that much difference at all. I haven't been able to locate that difference, but I've sought far and wide. I've tried to find it in every person I have ever met. But, as it turns out, the more I look, the more I find out that in the most important, essential and deepest ways, there just isn't a lot of difference between Mike and Jane and Michele and Rolf and Dimitry and Joanna, and Jose and Qiang and Kwame and ... well, you get the point.

It takes a while before you realize that we're really not all that different from one another. And it takes a little longer to realize that we're all more alike that different. But once you do, I can assure you, the world becomes a simpler place, and as a result, it becomes a better, more livable place as well.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program

The world goes on, regardless of our involvement. The path it takes in its "going", well, we do have something of a say in that.

It would appear that over the past couple of posts, I've digressed, gotten off the beaten path, if you will, taken an unexpected turn (and you'll note that all of these phrases are, yes, metaphors), but that's not the case at all. Truth be told, I've simply continued with what I was saying, but tried to relate it to the real world in which (at least) most of us believe we find ourselves. If we only knew. Yes, if we only really knew where and when we are.

Let's face it, we haven't quite got this consciousness thing figured out yet. The materialists can't explain it, the metaphysicians are probably too enthusiastic about it. We only know what we know and that is what we experience, but somehow we suspect that that's not all there is. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool materialist knows that there is more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in any of our philosophies (with apologies to William). Yes, my dear friend (or occasional reader, I can't know ... though it doesn't make a difference), we are a strange species. And that, more or less, is what the past few posts (and probably most of my posts) have been about.

We have trouble -- and by "we", I mean all of us -- with uncertainty. Our lives are full of it, but we wish they weren't. We'd love to know what is what, to not have to worry about every little thing, and to be able to get up every morning and face the day with renewed vigor and confidence. Of course, we're in a very privileged and exalted position: we don't have to worry about where our next drink of clean water comes from or our next bowl of rice, or if the radicals are going to show up with blood-lust and machetes, or if we have to sign up for Obamacare or not. No, we don't handle uncertainty very well, but just when was the world certain at all.

There is something that unites us all. It doesn't matter if you're a dirt farmer in deepest Africa, or a day laborer in China, or an executive on Wall Street, or a production worker at the Daimler plant in Stuttgart. What we all have in common is that we have absolutely, positively, definitely no idea why we're here.

Oh, we're here all right. We get up every morning. We go about our business. We do what we have to do, whatever it may be, but in the end, at night, before we go to sleep, we all have that moment when we ask ourselves, just what the hell am I doing here? Where did I come from? Why am I? The true believer asks him/herself this, as does the atheist, the agnostic, the materialist, and the forlorn and forgotten.

Oh, you can -- from your privileged position of so-called knowledge in alleged developed Western society -- think that you know. But, late at night, when the lights are out, when all is dark and quiet, you know that you simply have no idea why you are.

The wonder, the mystery, of life is that we just don't know. The comfort, the surety, of life is that we suspect (rightfully) that no other human being on this planet knows either. We're simply all in it together.

Aren't we so proud of ourselves

Today's a special day, of sorts. No, it's not a holiday, and in these parts nobody is celebrating, I can assure you. For better or for worse, most younger folks don't even know that it is a day worth remembering. No, it's not National Fluffy Bunny Day nor some celebrity's birthday, it's what was once known in the US as VE Day (that is, Victory in Europe Day). It was on this day, 69 years ago that Nazi Germany surrendered to the Allies ending World War II in Europe. (It's good to remember when wars are ended. It's too bad that they have to start in the first place.)

As with most commemorations of this sort, it's all done for the wrong reasons. We like to celebrate victories (if that's what they are) even if these victories are pyrrhic (and if you don't know what I just said, look it up). Don't get me wrong, it's good that the Nazis were stopped. What I'm troubled by is that we didn't stop them before they got started.

We love to blame the Germans. Really. The Nazis, the Holocaust ... their militarism in the First World War ... yes, there are lots of reasons to look down on them. Sure, we have a bit of a problem with the fact that they are now successful (in relative terms), build great cars, love the environment and solar energy and nature, but when push comes to shove, we can always pull out the "Nazi" card. We certainly don't want anybody getting uppity.

To be perfectly honest, I'd have less of a problem with all of this, if we non-Germans weren't so holier-than-thou about it all. Really. Many, many Americans loved Hitler and sympathized with the Nazis. Even today, as recent events have shown, anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jews is still a motivating force; the Bush family got wealthy catering to the Nazis banking-wise; the world tolerated them right up until the war; how many people even today would welcome a strong leader (Führer) to take charge and protect them from their own freedom? In the center of it all, of course, are the Jews, but who among us knows the difference between the ethnic group, the adherents to a particular religion, and the State of Israel, three very different, very distinct entities? No, we'd rather lump and stomp. It's all so much easier that way.

Yes, we like to think that "it couldn't happen here", that what happened in Nazi Germany was a "German thing". Unfortunately, it's not, it was a human thing. People who are downtrodden look for strong leaders. People who feel betrayed, look for a savior. People who feel they have nothing left to lose look to someone else to get them out of their misery. And, the easiest way to do that, of course, is to appeal to humanity's most base instincts: I have got to be better than somebody (anybody) else.

It was not a flaw in the German culture or character that allowed Hitler to come to power. The very same overarching, being-suppressed-but-feeling-superior, isolated and lonely feeling is more than present in Americans today. When someone can demonstrate to me the difference between "We're #1" and the Master Race, between "My country right or wrong" and "Deutschland über alles", between the imperialism the US demonstrates to the world and that which the Nazis failed to achieve ... well, then, I suppose, I'll think about this all a bit differently. Until then, however, I'll just note the day with a sense of bitter-sweet humor.

It can happen anywhere ... and some places more probably than others. And the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Hey, it's just a figure of speech

Yeah, that's what we'd like to think, but that's not the way it is.

The theory that describes this close relationship between speech and thought is called the "Whorfian Hypothesis", after the cultural-linguist Benjamin Whorf who first proposed it. Like anything else in academia, it isn't uncontested, but even if it isn't precisely accurate, it is generally a good description of how things are. Anyone who has ever learned a foreign language knows there are certain ideas or notions or concepts or, well, just simply words that are untranslatable. These folks also know that there are somethings, that even if they are similar in meaning are said in very different ways.

For example, the Germans have a word (one of my favorites, by the way), hinterfragen which is untranslatable. Literally it mean "to question behind" (fragen = to question; hinter = behind). What is means is to be critical about something, to question the assumptions upon which a statement is made, to try to get to the bottom of the matter, to find out what is really going on. On the other hand, we English-speakers can be "cool as a cucumber", and I can assure you that calmness and cucumbers are not two ideas that the everyday German would bring together like that.

The point is that both of these notions: the questioning and the self-assuredness are being expressed in metaphorical terms. There is no "space" behind questions any more than cucumbers can be calm and self-composed. Again, these are metaphors that help us express what we want to say.

And this is the point: there are many more instances of these kinds of things in all languages than there are instances of literally saying what you mean. "Hinterfrager (those who tend to "question behind") are called doubting Thomases; "smart cookies" know a lot; almost universally we all "go through Hell" when things are bad and find ourselves "in Heaven" (sometimes numbered, e.g., 7th) when things go well. The more you look, the more you dig into the language -- any language -- the more figurative (for metaphors are but one figure of speech) it becomes. Language is, at heart, figurative, not literal.

So why do I care? Well, if how we speak reflects how we view the world, and if how we view the world is reflected in how we act, then an increasing number of commercial, business-related, impersonal metaphors would indicate that we are becoming more commercial, business-related and impersonal in our thinking. If our thinking becomes more commercial, business-related and impersonal, then it is only a matter of (very little) time until our actions become commercial, business-related and impersonal. That's not good for us as people, because, well, human beings are deep down neither commercial, nor business-bound nor impersonal. Human beings are in trouble when there are no other human beings around. Robinson Crusoe didn't lose it because Friday showed up. John Donne told us clearly that no (hu)man is an island unto himself. And this is why, in the end, prolonged solitary confinement is rightfully considered torture.

What we say matters, and how we say it matters even more. Listen to yourself. How are you engaging the world? What vocabulary, phraseology, and which figures of speech dominate your own communication with the world?

I can assure you that whoever is (truly) listening already knows.

The "bottom line"

... that ain't.

Language has always fascinated me. Oh, sure, it is amazing to learn another one and get a true, inside look at the ways of thinking of different language community and culture, but it is also breathtakingly wondrous to take a step back and look at one's own language with fresh eyes.

The title today is an everyday, common, often-used phrase, to be sure. "The bottom line": what it all really comes down to, the heart of the matter, whatever it is that makes the difference; the bottom line.

While we English-speakers all immediately understand it, a lot of us really don't know where the phrase comes from. This one comes right out of business. The phrase is a simple, direct reference to the balance sheet: you look at what you took in, you look at what you had to spend to get it, and what's left over is profit, it's the last thing on the balance sheet, it's the bottom line.

Now, for those of you not schooled in the intricacies of business theory, this is what is generally known as "net profit". Profit is -- and most people don't know this -- just like temperature: it's of one bolt of cloth; it may be positive and it may be negative, and so it is with profit as well. (Negative profit is generally referred to a "loss", but that's another story.) Yes, the bottom line in the actual, real, factual, calculated what's-left-over-after-all-is-said-and-done; it's, well, the bottom line.

Of course, none of this is particularly special, is it. After all, it's just a phrase, we all use it, and now, we all know where it come from, but so what? To me, we now come to the interesting part. This is a phrase from business, commerce, from the economic sphere. It doesn't have to do with people, emotions, personalities, feelings, justice, correctness, morality, or any other of those fuzzy, hard-to-identify-and-agree-on notions folks are always throwing around. No, the bottom line is the razor-sharp, intricately calculated what-it-is. We take a cold, impersonal, calculated concept, and apply it willy-nilly to just about any situation we can think of. We use it in our daily affairs, in our marriages, our relationships to kin, with our friends, enemies, partners and competitors. We're not really talking about "profit", we use it to mean what is, in the end, important enough to take special note of. This way of using words (for those of you who were asleep in English (or any other native-language) class, is what we call a metaphor: we use a word to mean something other than what it actually means because it makes the point better than whatever other word we were thinking of using.

What I find so interesting about this is that we -- especially in the English-speaking world -- are using an increasing number of such metaphors (that is, those coming from the business, commerce, economic sphere) in our everyday speech. We've not only commercialized our society, we're doing it to our language as well. This is not a comforting development.

While all language use is, ultimately, metaphorical, it might be a good idea to take stock of where we're getting our metaphors from. There's a too-close relationship between how we think, how we speak, and how we act.

With a small caveat

It should be clear where I'm coming from, but I'm guessing it is not clear to absolutely everyone. I also think, quite seriously, that there's still a chance for some confusion, so let me clear that up as well.

First of all, yes, we are all created equal and endowed with some inalienable rights. That part of the Constitution the founding fathers got right. However, ...

We don't all show up in equal circumstances. Some people have it a lot harder in life than others, and this for any number of reasons. We don't all have equal opportunities.

What is more, since we have ranked (rigged?) our priorities in favor of the economy over the society, this inequality of opportunities is a double hit for those left out. When it comes to economic forces -- which are valued higher than any other in our modern-day, consumerist, capital-driven, money-loving world, those without are at more than just a disadvantage: they've been shut out completely. Consequently, we can't judge them by our otherwise money-prejudiced standards.

Facebook, for example, abounds with sappy, pathetic drivel about how our lives would be better if we made better choices. That's vague enough to agree with, but it's too vague to be true. For all of those born with a gold, silver, or even stainless steel spoon in their mouths, talk is cheap. Before you disparage the poverty-stricken, the weak, the disenfranchised, the oppressed, and the have-nots (i.e., those without spoons, so to speak), you should give your personal pathos a second thought. I would like to see all those well-enough-off-to-think-they're-more-deserving-than-others manage under the same circumstances as those for whom they no longer feel responsible. Yes, we like to think that responsibility is a personal thing, but that's only part of the story ... a very small part of it actually.

In an age of unbridled, rugged individualism, too many John-Wayne wannabes like to think that they got to where they are by their own efforts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Your social background, your skin color, your fitting or not-fitting into legislated categories, your upbringing, your diet, your family circumstances all play a part in which breaks you get and what breaks you. Recent studies have shown that even random determination of a privileged position leads quickly to the assumption that the benefiters are getting what is their due. Once "there", these people almost invariably tend to get less compassionate quickly as well. Could it be ... I mean, is it perhaps just possible, that you're not being objective about your stance on rights and responsibilities? Could it be that you're just opining from a rather privileged position?

Now, while I still believe everyone needs to make the best of what they have, there are still too many folks without enough for "good", let alone "best". This is anything but a one-size-fits-all matter.

What Alfie doesn't know

Most of you will miss the allusion in the title. It's OK. It's not that important.

In a recent discussion with a friend, one of his observations about the sad state of current affairs was simply that what we're seeing is just humans being human. That seems to be a reasonable statement, but it got me thinking, and I'm not exactly sure how reasonable it is.

It assumes a lot. For example, it implies that things are as bad as they are because that is all we, as humans, are capable of. It intimates that given half a chance, humans will make the wrong choices. It insinuates that humans are inherently defective or deficient (or evil? or degenerate? or nasty? or ...?) in some way. It struck me that my friend doesn't have a very high opinion of his fellow humans.

Oh, I don't blame him for harboring incorrect notions or drawing false conclusions or anything of the sort. After all, we; that is, humanity in general, have a pretty rotten track record when it comes to good things. A lot of blood has been spilled, a lot of people have had to suffer, and we never seem to tire of finding new and obnoxious ways of making other people's lives miserable. What I think I heard him saying was, there is really nothing we can do about any of this; it's simply hardwired into the system, if you will. And it's there that I don't agree.

Yes, I'm one of those hopeless (or is it hapless?) idiots who believe that we can do better than we do. I'm not convinced that we're born brutish or evil or sinful or anything like that at all. Granted, the major Western religions, the so-called Abrahamic Faiths, all postulate a defective creation, (Hu)Man, but I'm not sure that's a strong interpretation of the Creation narrative. This doesn't mean that I automatically agree with our Humanist brethren, for they, at least for the most part, are convinced that we're nothing but atoms, molecules and physical and chemical process that somehow randomly produces the epiphenomenon of consciousness that forces us to decide but completely influenced by external forces and natural laws that leave little room for actual choice. Yes, deep down, I believe they, too, think, we're simply not capable of more. I, however, can't help but think that we are.

Since we're on the topic of what we all believe, I'll tell you what I believe, namely that humans are, to be sure, capable of the most incomprehensible depths of stupidity, of brutality, cruelty, and depravation, yet, at the same time, we are capable of reaching the most unimaginable heights of wisdom, creativity, kindness and love as well. Our individual lives and the life of humanity plays out between these two extremes. While I don't argue that we have been giving the down side more than its due, I would argue that we have the chance to be better. If there is one thing about humans which I unflateringly believe, it is that we -- individually and collectively -- can choose to shape our destiny.

Yes, I believe that whatever happens to us is, to a great extent, in our own hands. We can destroy the world, or we can save it. We can decide. We have consciousness, self-consciousness, and more than just mere instincts and drives. We have awareness, self-awareness, intelligence and insight, even if we don't always put that particular foot forward.

In the end, it is up to us, but it is also up to us to decide what we want to do and how we want to do it. It's not an easy choice and but we can make it. We're not victims of the forces, powers around us and we're more than the combination of our genes. Until we recognize and acknowledge that, however, we'll continue to ... well, put in simplest terms, simply keep screwing up.

So, heads up out there. The hour, it is getting late. If we're to make something of ourselves, we need to start working on it now. Right now. If you're here, you're in. There's no escape. It's time to show ourselves what we're really made of.

Are we going to do it or go for it?

Sometimes things boil down to simple choices. This is one of those times. I'm not talking about an instant, a mere individual "now". No, the choice itself is simple enough, but it's timing is, well, a bit more profound. Any halfway reasonable person recognizes that we, at least as denizens of the modern, Western World, but maybe even humanity as a whole, are at a watershed. What we decide to do is going to affect us for a long time to come.

No, I'm not going Chicken-Little on you. I'm quite calm and collected, as a matter of fact, even though there are more than enough "reasons" for me to be simply ranting and raving. It's not about one thing, no single issue. We've painted ourselves into a corner and the choice is whether we want to get out of it or not. If we simply sit or stand around till the paint dries, the house will have been torn down by the authorities and we'll just get carted off for trespassing and obstruction. Nobody really likes to talk about it because too many others will just shout you down or declare you paranoid, but if you just stop, take a deep breath, and look around you will a clear, detached, unemotional view, you realize pretty quickly that we're in over our heads.

Too many things are broken to be fixed: you can't fix the government, because the game is fixed; you can't fix the economy, because the game is rigged; you can't save the environment, because of the fixed and rigged games; you can't expect justice in a world made up of just ourselves and our think-alikes; you can't get informed by watching Faux News or its equivalents; you can't get smart by only having your own opinions; you can't ask for or demand solutions to problems that only suit you; you can't be inclusive if you're an isolationist; you can't be tolerant if you're an exclusionist; you can't expect change if you're not willing to change yourself. And that, dear friends, is where we are.

This is, believe it or not, my 400th post. In almost all of them, I have been saying the same thing, but the responses I get (mostly offline, that is true ... or via other media) tell me that I'm not getting through. I am surprised how many people agree with most of what I have to say, and I'm just as surprised how unwilling almost all of them are to do anything about it. And that, dear friends, is the crux of the matter.

It is all well and good that you think something, but it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference unless you do something about it. If you're only interested in what you can get out of it, how you can benefit, then it is better that you do nothing at all. Too many of you -- maybe even most of you -- are willing to complain, fret and moan, and just about everyone I encounter has a bevy of "reasons" why they are incapable of doing anything about anything.

I have neither tolerance of nor understanding for that. It's a cop-out, as we used to say; it's merely an excuse, as we say in Standard English. The defining character of this moment is either putting up or shutting up.

Time to pack it in?

Sometimes I'm sure we all feel like there's just no use in fighting anymore. Things aren't getting better. What is any one of us, individually, supposed to do? After all, each of us is just one person. That's right. But, so what?

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but we humans are different from our animal cousins in a very important way: we can talk. We can communicate both concretely and abstractly. We can question and we can explore. Our language abilities give us a tremendous leg up in the evolution game, to say the least. But it is this special skill that we use to little.

There are a couple of preconditions to making talking effective, however. (For a lot of us, this is the hard part.) First of all, not everyone thinks like we do. Not everyone sees the world like we do. Not everyone believes the things that we do. And that's OK. In fact, it's an advantage, collectively, if we allow it to be. Second, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not all opinions are created equally. Opinions should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it, so just having one means nothing. We have to learn to provide support for the opinions that we have. Third, we have to be open to difference. This means not only allowing for other opinions, but also for other ideas and approaches. Sometimes it's not one thing but a combination of a variety of things that provides the best solution to a problem. Fourth, we have to be patient. We need to allow others to express themselves just as we want to be allowed to express ourselves. But, fifth, related to this, we have to learn to listen. I don't mean we have to find out what's wrong with what someone else is saying but strive to understand what s/he really is saying. Language is by its very nature ambiguous. We can think we've said something clearly but it may still be ununderstandable to someone else.

In other words, we need to relearn how to talk with one another, not just talk to, and especially not talk at ... no we need to practice talking with one another again.

Some of us are able to do this within our families, though Lord knows there are enough families in which this doesn't happen anymore. Some of us can do this with our close friends, but have trouble doing it with strangers, and this brings us to a sixth precondition, namely, all talk is personal. Every time we open our mouths (or write something like this blog) we are sharing part of ourselves with others. This takes a certain amount of courage. We can't be afraid to share.

The seventh, and final, precondition to be met is we need to be on the look out for what's common, not what separates. These days we focus too often what makes us different, not what makes us alike. For as different as we are, we humans have an awful lot in common. It is the commonalities that we find strength. In the differences we can find new ways to make the strengths stronger.

Why do I think this is an answer ... something as simple as learning to talk with one another again? I believe I'm on the right track for the simple reason that it is very easy to say, but we all know, it is extremely difficult to put into practice. That's a dead giveaway.

Afraid of the game?

Don't get me wrong. I know you are all readers of integrity and courage, of moral fortitude and strength of character. Still, I know, and you know that deep down, we shake in our boots. While putting on a calm, determined and fearless countenance to the world, inside we're mush. If we're honest, we're afraid of everything.

If we're working, we're afraid of losing our job because we can't live without the next paycheck. If we're unemployed, we're afraid no one will want us and we'll be forced onto welfare or worse. If we're healthy, we're afraid we'll get sick, especially if we're Americans (because we know a serious illness is the end of life as we know it). If we're successful, we're afraid we'll fail. Some of are afraid of appearing weak in any way, shape or form. If we have anything, we're afraid someone will steal it or tax it away. We are afraid of what the terrorists are up to. We are afraid of being mugged, raped, or killed just walking down the street. We don't like to admit it, but we're a fearful lot.

I hear this undercurrent in almost every discussion I have, with just about anyone, and the actual subject of conversation doesn't make the slightest bit of difference at all. The truth of the matter is, we live in constant and -- too often -- abject fear. We spend the better part of our waking hours just whistling in the graveyard. (You remember those times as a kid, having to walk through the graveyard at night. What do you do? You whistle. Why? Because even though you know there is no such thing as ghosts, a bit of sound overcomes the oppression of silence and the maybe-if-I-make-noise-they'll-leave-me-alone.) Oh, it's not reasonable and rational behavior, but we do our best to give it that veneer. Hey, whistling is harmless, after all.

This is what amazes me about life these days. We're supposed to be such an informed, enlightened, intelligent society. We Westerners have allegedly put all superstition behind us. We live in modern, democratic societies, where freedom is writ large, where liberty is a God-given right. Yet, we give up those rights voluntarily, we transfer our personal power to others willingly, and we shut up rather than put up. If we speak out, others will think we're jerks. If we're too adamant, others will think we're bullies. If we're passionate about issues, others will think we're obsessed. We worry a lot about what our neighbors think of us. Why? Because we never really talk to them about anything that matters, because most topics -- religion (most likely), politics (most definitely) -- are just taboo. After all, there's always the weather, the local sports teams, vacation plans, and yard work.

TPTB know this and they play on it readily. They can feed it (after all, they control the media and who goes searching for alternative news sources), they legislate it, they convince us that they are helping us out. They're not. They never have, and they never will.

It's a pretty hopeless situation, when you get right down to it. Well, actually, it's just sad.

But, but, but ...

Now, I know what a lot of you are thinking, and I'm no mind-reader. You're wondering just how whacked I must be to come up with a crazy idea like that. Maybe it's something in the water. Maybe, and maybe not. I'm a big fan of principles and this is one that is very, very fundamental.

We may complain about our representatives in government, but we elect them. We say the system that only counts votes that are cast is fair. We agree that the minority should have the say. Do you see how quickly we get from agreeing to hey-that's-not-what-I'm-saying? The current democratic systems that are in place -- regardless of how democratic they appear on the surface -- are all rigged to promote minorities. Those who are selected to do the governing quickly come to believe that it is they who should decide. They are all charged with voting their consciences, which is fine, in principle, but if their conscience is at odd with the so-called will of the people, then what? And, what if a substantial group gets together and decides that we don't need all these freedoms anyhow because too many people don't know how to handle it. Is it OK for those elected representatives to simply imbue themselves with more authority than they should and make decisions that are no longer in the interest of those they represent? Well, that's how it works now.

For all the complaining that I hear about "government", I rarely hear the complaint that we, the citizenry, are too complacent. I don't know of an elected body that doesn't have everything that most of us would like to have: full healthcare coverage, a good salary, an excellent retirement plan even if you don't work at your job a whole lifetime, expense accounts, reduced-priced services just for you ... the list goes on. How can we with good conscience say that they deserve all this if the theory says that these people are working for us. Isn't that the idea of democracy to begin with: the elected representatives are "servants of the people"? Well, yes, that's the theory, but welcome to reality.

The mere fact that they do what they do and get away with it and all the rest of us do is complain is pretty substantial evidence in my book that we have given our power to them ... freely, willingly, knowingly. You might want to argue about that last one, of course, but if you buy into the system, if you think that the way it is all set up is fair and just and equitable, if you glorify your founding documents more than you care about your neighbors, well, then I have to agree with George Carlin: you get the government you deserve.

There are others of you who will be quick to point out that if you get too far out of line, if you question the system too directly, the authorities will be at your door. You're right. Americans, for example, have sat back and allowed the "system" to remove habeus corpus, detain citizens as terrorists on mere suspicion, to restrict freedom of speech, to establish a system in which money replaces justice and democracy, and generally to put the populace on the defensive. America, particularly in the wake of the Occupy movement, has shown that it is not adverse to using excessive force to quell peaceful dissent, and I refuse to even get started on how they are conducting their foreign policy these days. What is more, too many other governments are willing to go along, if not try out some of these shenanigans themselves.

There comes a time, however, in every one of our lives, when we have to ask ourselves how we feel about power. We can't avoid it. We have to decide how to deal with it.