It's no wonder the world's in such bad shape

For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that has gone on in the last week, we've got damn little to show for it. That little fiasco did, however, make a number of things clearer than most would like to admit, but they're not necessarily the ones we like to think.

You may not want to admit it, but Emma Goldman was right: If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

Great Britain said they wanted out of the EU. There's not even the slightest hint that the process is even being seriously considered. The Tories apparently have to get their house in order. Why? What as it in before? It wasn't this vote that split it. The pranks and psychoses that were there before are now simply going to involve other people. None of this has anything to do with sovereignty or immigrants or lack of democracy on the Continent. The Brits have just as much democracy as anyone else: none. We're simply back to business as usual.

Believe me, I'm not picking on the Brits. They merely brought a couple of issues to the surface. As I noted recently, the US can't even pretend to have a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word. Though that doesn't stop them or their pundits from piping up. Both Juncker and Merkel this week have shown they have absolutely no intention of getting democratic about anything. Even people who think they did things right get to do them over again if the right people insist on it. Nothing to see here: it's just business as usual.

Hell, the only people I can see trying to make a point at all are the French, and we can't won't hear a thing about it because the European Cup (the European Soccer Cup for my American readers, and believe me, it's a big sports deal, in all senses of the word) is being played and the media isn't about to ruin such a fine sporting event. After all, there are advertisers to consider on the one hand, and ... well, you know, that is even more business as usual.

It's not really my place, but I have to tell you: democracy has nothing to do with voting or elections. Nothing. They like to tell us that the term "democracy" comes from the Greek and means "rule of the people", but you should know that ever since the term has been coined, the demos was considered a "mob" and there is no self-respecting elite in the world who is going to put up with mob rule.

Personally, and I'm as about as far away from an elite as you can get, I see their point, and I also see how well they can turn us into a mob when it suits them. Just look at the Brexit fiasco. Don't get me wrong, it's the not the end result I'm calling into question, it is the process of getting there that stunk to high heaven. We really need to think twice about getting into bed with racists and bigots (with a wink here to my American friends supporting Trump) if you don't want to be lumped in with racists and bigots. Voting, though, referendums, elections ... all those nice respectable outlets we're allowed to have ... they're just games were allowed to play to get us to think we have something to say. We don't. If we did, why are the French out in the streets? They have every reason to be: their government doesn't listen to them any more than yours listens to you. They have also experienced -- up real and personal -- just how much difference an election makes.

My question is: just when are we going to get it? just when are we going to realize that all of this "working within the system" is just a rather underhanded way of keeping all of us under their thumb?

Oh, I know what a lot of you are thinking ... especially the more paranoid and those of you who consider yourself smarter and more critical than the average mob person: he's seeing conspiracies, this one; maybe we ought to get him a tinfoil hat. That's OK. You are allowed to think whatever you want regardless of how silly it is. I'm not saying that there is some organized cabal planning the oppression of the rest of us, some nefarious and shadowy group plotting our enslavement. Here is what I do know, however:

• There is not a Western government that isn't dominated by special interests.
• There is not a Western politician who isn't influenced -- for or against -- by those interests.
• There are large corporations who are willing to spend a pittance on lobbying knowing full well their return-on-lobbying-investment will be worth every penny.
• There are very, very rich people who aren't going to share a penny with anyone else if they can help it.
• Those powerful corporations driven by profit and those rich folks have much more in common with each other than the rest of us think we have with each other, even if it is only their love of money.
• Neither of these groups is what we might call "democratically inclined".

But that's "the system", as we all know it. But, you should know that I know this as well:

• The last thing they want is for US to think we might be able to do anything about it.

And they succeed, not in some grandiose, concerted, focused effort at suppression, but because it is simply too easy to get us quibbling amongst ourselves, to get us angry at each other, and to have us at each others' throats. It's so easy because they have convinced most of us that we're nothing more than individual egos seeking our own self-interest, and that we're really nothing more than losers if we think otherwise.

I'm sorry, folks, but it is really not any more complicated than that.

If change is going to come ... that is, change that in any way, shape and form is, or may be beneficial for ourselves or our children or our grandchildren ... we've got to wake up and not smell the coffee, but smell the stench of deceit, distrust and defeat that they shower upon us.

There are times when the bravest thing you can do is to just say "no". Now is one of those times.

If you don't like the world as you find it, if you don't like the world as it's being shoved down your throat, if you don't like the world that others have made for you, then it's your move. No political candidate is going to "work for you"; they're going to work for whoever pays them enough to get re-elected. No elected official is concerned about you; they are concerned about their constituencies and getting re-elected. Am I saying that there are no elected officials or politicians who are trying to make a difference? Not at all. What I am saying is that "system" is broken, so let's stop trying to fix it, but instead try setting up something new that works. What does that "something new" look like, how does it work? I have no idea, but it doesn't matter. Since when do you need me telling you what is good for you?

If you don't like the world as you find it, stop whining (or whinging, as my British friends might say) about lost opportunities and wasted votes. Get informed, get smart, get active. Most of all, start talking: to family, friends, neighbors ... figure out what is important to you and find like-minded people to help you achieve your common goals. Think big and start small, but start. And when in doubt, ignore the system. It wasn't set up for your benefit, that's for sure.

There is no one that can make a difference in the world other than yourself. Like it or not, it all starts with you. It's time you realized that and did something about it.

You become what you hate

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case of mistaken identity

We need to get a couple of things straight.

In the world in which I live there are religious, not-so-religious, and non-religious people. There are those who abhor the label "religious" and prefer to refer to themselves as "spiritual", which I accept, and there are also non-spiritual people as well. In the world in which I live, there are capitalists, free-market advocates (if not, devotees), socialists, anarchists, humanists, and just about every other kind of "-ist" you can imagine. Some people are fervent in what they believe and advocate and others are lukewarm. Hell, I even know quite a few individuals who could give a care one way or the other about anything. There is, in other words, a merry, colorful patchwork of thoughts, ideas, ideologies, views, Weltanschauungen, feelings and desires that make up the world in which I live. And I would have it no other way.

Having said that, I am, above all else, prior to anything else, deep down inside, at heart, a human being who loves my fellow human beings, all of us as imperfect as we are. My most fundamental belief (which I believe, with a little bit of effort, I could "prove") is that all of us human beings have much more in common that what makes us different. At least that which we have in common, makes us human. Everything else is, well, irrelevant details.

It is against this backdrop that I look out into the world and react to whatever comes my way. These days, there are so many different "things" that people believe and hold to be true that I have trouble following them. What is more, I am (literally, and honestly) shocked at how much how many people are willing to invest in what they "believe". (I put that last word in quotation marks intentionally. There is very little in this world that we actually know, but there is one helluva lot in it that we believe.)

There are so many people who believe that what they believe is right. That's fine as far as it goes, but in that moment when you encounter another who may not, who most likely does not, believe (and "know") what you believe, well, you have to decide whether you are willing to engage this person or not. I say, let's explore; let's exchange ideas, thoughts, notions, beliefs; let's talk about, discuss and, if necessary, debate, those things; let's understand why you believe the world is one way and I believe it's another. Why? For the simple reason that my experience has shown me that given half a chance, I can learn something that I didn't know before, that I can grow in some way that I had never even imagined, that I might become, given the right set of circumstances, a better person -- and we might even (hopefully) agree on what "better" means in this context.

But, I will be honest, I'm having trouble finding anyone who is willing to engage.

What I -- and so many others, I am sure -- am left with is a whole bunch of know-it-alls, people who think they know what's what. Unfortunately, they don't. They only think they know, but they are damn sure about it nevertheless. Too bad. There's a world of difference between knowing and believing and those yacking the loudest don't know there's a difference at all.

The case of the unchecked clerk

Some things simply boggle my simple mind. OK, I spend more time on Facebook than I should, but it's like driving past a nasty road accident: you know you shouldn't look, you might even have to throw up, but you just can't turn away. Yeah. I know. _mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa_.

But ... lately I've seen so many things, especially comments, that almost leave me speechless. The most vitriolic, nonsensical, uninformed, hateful, spiteful, vociferous, and, well, ignorant ones have had to do with the county clerk down in ol' Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because it violated her religious beliefs.

Now, for those of you who have lost your watches or calendar, we're writing the 2015. You'd think we might have learned a thing or two by now, but apparently not. It just so happens that the Supreme Court of the United States, of all institutions, recently ruled that same-sex marriages are allowable and that laws forbidding them are unconstitutional. That's their job, which -- I'll be the first to admit -- they don't often do very well, but that's what they decided. When they say you can't forbid something, that's all it is: what you did wasn't right so it doesn't count. That's not legislating, that's judging, and that's what why they are there whether we like it or not. What's more, it's a completely secular institution, as are the legislative and executive branches of government, not just in the United States but pretty much worldwide these days.

Our not-so-friendly county clerk refused to issue the licenses by arguing that it violated her personal, religious beliefs. Now, in case you didn't know, I'm a big fan of personal, religious beliefs, even if they are bothersome, and even though some folks are favored in theirs over others. (That's a topic for another time, so forgive me if that's all I have to say about that here.) However, However, she is (apparently) an elected public servant and she gives personal reasons for not being able to do her job. After all the back-and-forth, a judge, who had directed her to fulfill the public responsibilities associated with her job, finally decided that since she still refused, she had to go to jail. That is, as far as I can tell, the so-called "facts of the case" (described, I hope as neutrally as possible).

So, here's my question: why is this such a hot-button issue? We don't have more important things to concern ourselves with (anybody happen to see the picture of the lifeless, Syrian three-year-old on a European beach)?

I know it is difficult for people with strong religious beliefs to realize that not everyone is as religious as they are. I know it is difficult for some people to realize that with us here in the West, there is some kind of separation between "church and state", or more properly the religious and the secular. I know it is hard for a lot of people to come to terms with the fact that standards and values and even what we consider to be moral -- as a society -- changes over time. I know that we humans are fallible and don't always make the best decisions when it comes to legality and morality (e.g., slavery, Jews in Nazi Germany, blacks in America prior to the civil-rights accomplishments). And, I know that it takes courage, fortitude and dignity to accept that we have to deal with what we have, not with what we would like to have as a society.

Still, that's the least we can expect of you as a citizen of today's world in this day and age. And that's why we expect it. Grow up.

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.

We interrupt our regularly scheduled program ... for torture

This week, the Senate Committee's report on torture was released. I would have liked to have ignored it, but I can't. I would have liked not to feel compelled to say something, but I can't. I would have liked that it didn't turn out like it did, but it did.

Disclaimer: Unwillingly, I was a soldier in the United States Army on active duty between 1971 and 1975. My Military Occupational Specialty was Interrogator of Prisoners of War. In other words, there's a part of this post that is simply personal.

Two things, in particular, bother me. On the one hand, there are voices that say the report should never have been made public. I couldn't disagree more. While I know it's not true in reality, I still believe that a government should be the servant of the people, and the people have a right to know what those who are acting in their name are doing. I know from first-hand experience that far too much is classified and too often it is because we simply don't want others to know what we are doing. But we know anyhow. On the other hand, there are those who assert that the release of the report could tarnish America's image in the world. It is already tarnished, by its own actions. My mother told me that if I did something wrong, I should own up to it and take the consequences. I don't know why this wisdom would not apply to supposedly adult representatives of one of the most influential nations on earth.

And, oh, for all of you national-security paranoids who believe that the release of such information could be a threat to the safety and security of the nation: wake up, get real, and get a life. The United States has never been more threatened that it is right now, and this report had nothing to do with that. The people who authorized the actions that are the focus of the report bear the full responsibility for that threat.

There is a fairly strong consensus across what little there is of a political spectrum in the US that the actions which were investigated did in fact take place. It might have been the Nation or The American Conservative or the wire agencies or the mainstream press or so-called liberal news or journalistic services on the internet.

But the list wouldn't be complete without at least one voice that would like to play it off as nothing more than a partisan ploy by the Democrats to distract from the "real issues" facing our country. Oh yes, there's always one. How calloused and, well, ignorant does one have to be?.

I, for one, am appalled that it took this long to get this far. As an interrogator, I was trained not to torture for it was well-known in those circles that the only thing torture gets you is inaccurate intelligence. There were, I will admit, some heartless, nasty, immoral, and downright sadistic folks in the branch who looked for every excuse to satisfy their own dishonorable desires. Unfortunately, they weren't send home (or anywhere else where they might have got some help), and so they remained, and, as it appears, eventually gained the upper hand.

What the (the executive summary of the) report tells us is that we, as a nation, are guilty. We betrayed our own values in the name of expediency. We committed acts of inhumanity and violated the human rights of others for our own trivial ends. We might like to think we are the beacon of hope to all freedom-loving peoples of the earth, but we have shown our true face, the twisted, distorted grimace of power-addicted bully.

But, we still have a chance. We can own up to our actions and face the consequences, just like my mom once encouraged me. The perpetrators need to do the same, and if they are not willing to do so on their own, they need to be brought to justice by the rest of the world. If we, as America, fail to act, we forfeit every right we ever thought we had to the moral high ground of international politics.

Are we able to do the right thing? I can only hope so.

It's that time of year, again

The Church Year has run its course; the calendar year is approaching its end. And although time has passed far too quickly (at least as far as I'm concerned), we're not a bit better off than we were the last time I found myself reflecting on "the season", what it means or could mean, and why it would be to all our benefit if more people would reflect with me. Maybe it's because I'm getting older (aren't we all?) but there are times when I wonder how often you have to say something before another actually hears what you're saying.

Oh sure, most readers/listeners are well intentioned. And while I appreciate that for what it's worth, you'd think that after so many years and so much effort, you'd see a bit of a change somewhere, but there's none as far as the eye can see in any direction.

As this is a season of rejoicing, you can all rejoice that you're not going to get any uplifting or (hopefully) thought-provoking, Christmasy, or spiritual, lectures. If you're interested, there are almost 40 posts in the December blogs of the past three years where you can get your dose of that if you need it. For those of you who have read them, or most of them, or even some of them, you'll know that I don't care so much what you believe as long as you believe in something; I really don't care about what you do as long as it's not harmful or destructive; and I could care less if you are offended by others who believe differently than you. Get over it and get over yourself.

We need to face up to the fact that we use the "joy of the season" to distract us from things that matter and things that could make a difference. We who can are going to eat too much, party too much, buy too many things we don't really need with money we don't really have to impress people we probably only marginally like in the hopes of getting a bunch of useless stuff ourselves. We're going to drive more, have the lights on more and more lights on, we're going to spend a lot of time and energy trying to one-up a lot of others, and as a result, we're going to increase are carbon footprints significantly, produce tons of waste and refuse that has no where to go, pollute the steams, rivers and oceans, and ensure that we're not a bit better off than we were before the whole diversionary delusion started. Yes, we can certainly be proud of ourselves.

Meanwhile, the poor are getting poorer - around the globe; the numbers of the poor are growing too as are those of the homeless and incarcerated. The hungry are going hungry; the sick are not getting healed. The strangers are being shown no hospitality, rather are being shown the door. Although crime in general is decreasing, violence is increasing, often institutionalized and authorized violence in fact. The threat of terror and epidemics is thrown in our face every day. We are bombarded by advertising every moment of our waking lives. No, if we were to be truthful with ourselves, we'd admit that things aren't getting better, they are slowly and steadily getting worse.

But, hey, we've got a whole lot of celebrating to do. We wouldn't want to get all sad and depressed just because others don't know how to have a good time, do we? No, I suppose we don't. It's that time of year, again.

And just who am I?

Too much is too little ... too little is never enough ... less is more ... how much is enough? We live in confusing times. We're somehow caught between overexposure and invisibility. Not everybody needs to know everything, but where does one draw the line? Where can you draw the line? Facebook. Linked-in. But I need the loan. And then there's the telephone company, the insurance company, my healthcare provider, my doctor, when does my employer get involved? Yep, there we are -- all of us -- right there, between a rock and hard place.

Nobody's perfect. Nothing we make is perfect. No system is perfect. What's the difference between Jane Doe in Kansas and Jane Doe in New York? Well, obviously where they live. My Ms Doe in Kansas moved to New York City and shortly thereafter one Ms Doe moved to Kansas from New Mexico, to avoid the police, it turns out. And, as fate would have it, Ms Original-New-York Doe gets arrested because of a mix-up in the search algorithm. By the time she gets it sorted, her reputation is in the trash and she's unemployed. The true culprit is eventually brought to justice (Americans like happy ends), but the collateral damage is great and due to the publicity, Ms Original-Kansas Doe really can't go home anymore. Sure, none of us has anything to hide, but that may not matter.

What's the point? The same one I make time and time again: we need to be aware and we need to care. It's not just enough that we look out for ol' #1 and not worry about the rest. What can happen to Jane Doe can happen to me or you or anyone else. Mistakes are not only possible, they are made all the time. We need to be aware of who knows what about us and who we share our information with and what those individuals can and may do with that information once they have it. We need to be aware of what we let others know and when and how. We need to care about having rules in place to protect ourselves and others and we need to take care that those whom we entrust with providing us protection are doing their jobs.

Of course, if you live in a world of mistrust and suspicion, in a world where the greedy are free to take advantage of the needy, a world in which competition is fierce and winning makes all the difference, in a world of enforced conformity and toeing-the-line, well, you may have a bit of tough going over the mid-term. The horse may be gone and you may discover that your barn doesn't even have a door. What's worse, you may not even know you had a horse, or a barn for that matter. Sometimes it seems like others know more about you than you know about yourself. But that raises the question as to what do you really know about yourself to begin with?

Do you really know yourself or do you just know what you want to know about yourself? It's not a trick question ... it's a deadly serious one. And today, it's a more important one than it has ever been before.

Beware, humans!

I would hate to think that anyone has got the idea that I'm condemning or belittling or making a case against a good number of my fellow human beings. A couple of points are worth noting.

Juat as they say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is most likely a duck. So too, if it walks like a human being and talks like a human being, regardless of how much nonsense that might be, it is definitely a human being. We can, and do, recognize those of our own species, easily and readily. It's hardwired into us, so to speak. And this is good so.

Of course, we humans are the only creatures on the planet capable of cruelty, of sadism, of unbelievable acts of depravation and violence, but never are these people not human, nor subhuman. In our rage and anger and sheer horror, we may refer to them as such, but that does not make them so. They're still humans. Bad humans, evil humans even, but nevertheless humans, and they need to be dealt with accordingly. The moment we allow ourselves to become just as cruel and depraved, say, out of feelings for revenge, we are really no better than they are, even if we like to think our reasons for our actions are justified. In all cases, where actual insanity is not involved, the perpetrators have also found a justification that permits them to do what they do. The line between right and wrong is always fuzzy. It would be nice if things in life were clear-cut and simple, black-and-white, if you will, but more often than not they are not, they're grey. It's always a good idea to keep this in mind.

You see, not only can we humans know, we can know better. We have conceptual -- often, moral -- categories of right & wrong and good & evil, preferences & dislikes, positive & negative prejudices, sympathies & antipathies, and more. If asked point-blank to explain the criteria for any of these, we most often soon have trouble making ourselves clear. They are not always hard and fast, clear-cut, easily describable criteria, and we soon realize that the boundaries tend to be fluid depending on context, prior history of participants, their closeness or distance to ourselves, and many other factors.

No one ever said it was easy, but I'm here to tell you that it is necessary to get a firmer handle on whatever it is we think we believe ... in regard to ourselves and certainly in regard to others. More often than not, even the best of us get in our own way. We can be our own best friends, and our own worst enemies.

Re-thinking is necessary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haves and have-nots IV

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

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

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

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

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

Haves and have-nots III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haves and have-nots II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haves and have-nots I

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are we thinking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But thinking makes it so

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we deserve

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

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

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

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

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

It's still your lucky day

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's your lucky day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being human

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

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

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

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

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

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

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