We should learn from tragedy, but somehow we can't

Very early on while learning to write, I was given some sage advice and learned a valuable lesson: don't write about something if you're too emotionally involved. You should know I'm not heeding that advice right now.

What happened in Nice two days ago was a shocking, horrific, abhorrent, gruesome, atrocious, and terrible act, but it was not an act of terror, try as we might to make it one.

Terror, for those of you who may have forgotten, is the use of excessive, random violence for political ends. And as things stand at the moment, there is no political connection to be found, regardless of how badly the authorities and media want us to believe there is.

A foreign-born, but French, petty criminal with more personal and family problems than most of us can begin to imagine takes a truck and drives amok into a family event, wreaking unimaginable harm, injury and death upon everyday men, women, and children -- families and friends who wanted no more than a bit of joy in their lives. This is a tragedy. You can't know how deeply I grieve for victims, their families and their friends. France was not attacked. Families were attacked. And you can't believe how irate I am that this tragedy is being instrumentalized for other, much less honorable, purposes.

The perpetrator is dead. He can never tell us what motivated him to commit such a brutally horrendous act. There is no mention of the situation in the socially volatile and disadvantaged hot spots in most large French cities. It doesn't matter that we've imposed an economic system that is more exclusionary than capable of meeting even the most basic human needs. And what is more, there are questions about the level and types of security being provided for the event, especially in light of the fact that France is essentially living under marshal law. But all of that is merely brushed aside.

The French prime minister has already declared an Islamistic connection, without offering even the merest shred of evidence. Without claiming responsibility, Daesh is thrilled with the result. Why is that surprising but how is that even newsworthy? The media has been abuzz with one special report after another parading out an endless stream terrorism experts in blatant disregard for the known facts of the case. Even Hollande promised in his initial remarks to increase military retaliation in Syria, and civilian deaths that will result will be the consequence of real, not imagined, terror.

Are we ever going to learn anything? I have my doubts.

When people snap mentally, they go on killing sprees, be it when they used to "go postal" as we referred to it America (because it seemed to happen more often to postal employees than others) and shot up their co-workers or be it when they drive a truck into a crowd of people out for a celebration. Until 9/11 no such event would have labeled as terrorism, but since then there is no killing spree that is not.

9/11 didn't change everything. We changed. We became frightened and fearful and allowed our rights and civil protections to be taken away because of an unavoidable event. We packed it up in the package of terrorism and we've been terrorized ever since. We've dug ourselves in so deeply that we can't see anything anymore without it having a terrorist tint. And if it doesn't have one, we're more than willing to give it one. We're so concerned with what might possibly, perhaps, unexpectedly happen to ourselves that we don't have it in us, it would seem, to stop and mourn for those who need it.

We're in the process of making this about us, when it has to be about those who have been killed and those who have been left to suffer.

Listen! Enough is enough, and enough is too much

Sometimes enough is just too much.

Sometimes you just can't find the words.

I don't know about you, but life even as a dispassionate, detached observer is getting hard to take. It makes you wonder. Well, it makes me wonder, I can tell you that.

Back in my carefree days, I studied literature and was amused by the Theatre of the Absurd. It was crazy, but insightful, purposefully not making sense to entertain. OK, I was young, naive, and a good portion stupid, I'll admit: Beckett and Pynchon weren't writing to entertain, they were rubbing our noses in our own stuff; they weren't just insightful, they were brutally honest; they weren't crazy, we are.

Most of you, dear readers, didn't even stumble over the "carefree" in that last paragraph. You all knew what I meant and most of you smiled inwardly and waxed nostalgic about those days. Truth be told, the vast majority of human beings on this planet never had a carefree day (let alone years) in their lives, but we're too sheltered, too pampered, to out-of-touch to know that. All right, add ignorant to my list of non-virtues.

One day, you (possibly) wake up (and I think most of us have) and you realize this isn't some silly play on the stage that you're watching: damn! Shakespeare was right, all the world is a stage, and every last one of us is a player. Are we just screwing up our parts, or are we really playing our roles? And therein lies the rub, as Bill would also say.

Falcon Heights, Baton Rouge, Dallas -- just the popper on a long, long bullwhip of absurdity. Thoughtless, needless, senseless, feckless, heartless murders, every one of them, and all I can see and hear are tongues wagging, fingers pointing, and knees jerking. We'd might as well face it: we can't fix it. No, it's not because the situation is so broken it can't be fixed. No, it's not because "they" are to blame. No, it's not that "we" are to blame. The reason we can't fix it is simple: we don't want to. All the yelling, screaming, and wailing is just as thoughtless, needless, senseless, feckless and heartless as the murders. There is so much hot air and heated passions being projected into the world that we may die of heat exhaustion before we gun each other down.

For the record -- not as if it will matter -- the vast majority of cops are honest, hard-working, dedicated people who are just trying to make their communities safe. We shouldn't condemn them all for the actions of a few. The vast majority of our fellow black citizens are decent, hard-working, dedicated people who are trying to make the best of their lives in the situation in which they find themselves. We shouldn't condemn them all for the actions of a few. The vast majority of protesters are honest, concerned and active citizens who are trying to make those who are still unaware of some of the issues involved more aware. We shouldn't condemn them all for the actions of a few. But that's precisely what we do in all cases. The rotten apples spoil the barrel, and the few give the many a bad name, but it never occurs to us that what we decry in others 9 times out of 10 is merely what we ourselves do all the time. It takes one to know one.

One thing is for sure: this most recent absurdity is truly American. it's American because it's happening in America, not everywhere else; it's being perpetrated by Americans, not some vague foreign agents. No, the problem's as homegrown as you get; you're simply reaping what you have sown, and you're going to keeping on reaping till you own up to the fact that you've got no one to blame but yourselves, collectively, of course, but personally as well.

Yes, we're all to blame, and it's time that we all just face up to it. Did it ever occur to you that you are never part of the problem, it's always"them", or at least someone else. Did it never occur to you that you are always right and "they" (or at least someone else) never is. My Facebook and Twitter feeds have been overflowing with one-breath analyses, one-line conclusions and zero solutions. I don't know what is more absurd, to tell the truth: what's going down or what's being said about it.

But, in all the din of accusations, counter-accusations, blame-fixing no one is listening.

That's the biggest problem of all: no one is listening.

Of course, there are two other problems that play in here that we cannot afford to ignore: The first is America's race problem. It's there, and it's deep-seated, that's for sure. Very deep-seated. It's so much a part of the culture that not a thing is going to change until we own up to it. This isn't a matter of artificially construed and inappropriately applied statistics. Having a race problem, is all the more absurd, of course, now that we know there is no such thing as race, but the label used is the right one because it's the one we can connect with. It was apparent in the fake debate about the flying of the Confederate flag. It's to be found in the the voter restriction laws being passed. It's in the simple, fact that in the year 2016 the KKK is making a comeback. How can that even be? It's time to own up to the fact that no where on earth do people of color have so much working against them as in America. Oh, I know the excuses; I was brought up with them. The ideal is a land of equal opportunity but the reality is an unequal as you can get. The ideal is equal rights under and before the law, but the reality is anything but. Stop screaming, accusing, blaming and start talking ... openly (for a change), honestly (maybe for the first time), directly ... but more than anything else, start listening.

The other problem is the violence problem: There are more murders, more violent crimes committed in American than just about anywhere on earth, and this doesn't take into consideration how many actual deaths were caused, for example, by the wrecking of the economy by capitalist speculators. Ball-point pens can be as deadly as any gun. Just this week we saw murders committed by those within and those outside the law. Americans, it would seem, are more willing to accept all sorts of violence as legitimate, but there is no such thing. There is legalized violence, as when the state allow itself to execute those it deems undesirable, but legitimate violence doesn't exist. It should always be the last resort, not the first one, as we are seeing.

And by the way, this isn't a gun issue, folks. Guns are a red herring. The absurdity we're dealing with is a simple, fundamental and deep-seated acceptance, if not love, of violence. Guns are tools, nothing more. They complicate the matter, but they don't define it. Yet physical violence, while the most obvious, is probably the least of the problem: the everyday psychological violence perpetuated on the populace, both collectively and individually, is mind-boggling to say the least: the unbridled, gloves-off brutality of business competition, the cold, calculating oppression of social-service recipients, the wielding of debt as weapon of suppression, be you a home-owner down on your luck or a student trying to make a better life for yourself. Get on the wrong side of the system and you'll be crushed, mercilessly. There is no mercy for losers. Fear is the prime motivator and threats the weapon of choice. But of course if that doesn't work, there's always physical violence as a last resort. It's just around the corner ... or in your face. You see it in its favorite sports, you see it in political campaigns, you see it in the rapaciousness of casino capitalism, you see it in its foreign policy, and you hear it in everyday language. It's time to start listening to what's really being said.

It's enough already. Really. It's time to stop accepting this absurdity as the way things are. None of this has to be the way it is. Things are as they are because we have either made them this way or allowed them to become that way. And while you personally may never have been shot at, while you personally may not have suffered injustice, it is time to wake up to the fact that there are too many who have and too many who do. When are we going to get it? When are we going to see that we are involved whether we like it or not? When is this absurdity going to stop? Well, it can't stop until you do everything you can do to make it stop. It's your move.

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.

Paradox paradise

When choosing the lesser of any number of evils, aren't you are still choosing evil?

If "by their fruits you will know them", why is so much emphasis placed upon credos?

Can good guys be allowed (or even expected) to do bad things and still be good guys?

If G-d is the ultimate judge, why do so many of His followers spend so much time judging?

Why do alleged lovers of freedom coddle ruthless leaders who suppresses those in their power?

If you are sanctioned for exercising your rights, do you even have rights at all?

Did I miss a memo or since when is there such a thing as "good" (or even "moderate") terrorists?

Is stealing someone's heart a crime?

If gamblers are looked down on, why are speculators looked up to?

Why does Justice act like she can see even though we're all equal in the eyes of the law?

If truth is arguably relative, why do we argue about it at all?

How is it that might make right but right can never make might?

If knowledge is power, why are so many stupid things done in our name?

Given that certain truths are self-evident, why must laws be made to enforce them?

If actions speak louder than words, why do we put so much faith in what people say?

Standing up for what is right

Before anyone gets the wrong impression (again), I would like to point out that everyone is free to believe what they want. I don't really care ... as long as it doesn't affect me, or anyone I know, or, well, anyone else. You see, beliefs are all well and good when taken for themselves, but problems arise when our own beliefs start interfering with others' beliefs.

What too few people have are beliefs that can stand up against others' beliefs. Kim Davis wasn't any more a representative of "religious freedom" than the Pope, who met with her, is a representative of Christians everywhere. The Westboro Baptist Church is no more representative of Christianity than the IS is representative of Christianity. The chicken hawks advocating bombing Assad into the Stone Age are not more representative of a reasonable Middle East policy than are the dumb-down doves are representative of the position that Russia will bring peace to the region. No, everybody has a stake in the game, and, by definition, everybody is spinning the tale to make themselves look good.

Truth be told, what I find most amazing in all of this is the fact that facts, actual verifiable and documentable happenings, statements, and signed agreements mean absolutely nothing at all. What matters is what one side wants you to believe, how one side is interested in having you believe a certain way, and how what is must invariably yield to what others want.

Everyone involved in the current "crisis" is a jerk (I would say "asshole", but I'm trying to remain at least implicitly impartial); everyone has an agenda; everyone has a definable interest, but none of the players have the least concern for the everyday people involved.

The entire Middle East is underlaid with oil and that's what we -- and probably everyone else wants. Whether the people sitting on this resource are democratically inclined or subject to brutal dictatorial oppression is irrelevant. What WE -- the USA, or the Russian Federation, or the EU, or whomever -- want is all that matters. The cost, the consequences, the collateral damage, the ... makes absolutely no difference at all.

The so-called fact of the matter make no difference at all. What matters, in the end, is what any given country with any given interest believes is their "right" to act as they deem appropriate given the current situation and compilation of power.

The human suffering, the human casualties, matter not at all. Somehow national interests and national pride are more important than anything that may happen to any given individual or population. How proud we must be. We define the world. We define what is right and what is wrong. And in the end, we are always right. Oh, how proud we must be.

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.

True courage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The anathema of caring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Why beliefs trump reality

Before anyone gets the wrong impression (whereby I'm fairly sure that this plea comes a bit late), I would like to reiterate something I never tire of saying. I am not just beating up on my home country. I am merely using them as an example, for in many cases, the USA is simply the best example of what I'm talking about. The root causes, the root feelings, the root beliefs and the root reactions are evident across the entire world, both West and, mutatis mutandis, East. We're all human beings and no one is exempt. We all have similar moral potential, and we all have inherent weaknesses. That's what makes us human. But it is always easier to ignore than to acknowledge, let alone accept.

It just so happens that I agree with Einstein that patriotism is an infantile disease. We are born where we are born by virtue of an inexplicable cosmic accident. To use that as a basis for unquestionable allegiance to one's birthplace is, in my mind at least, just silly. We are made into unswerving loyalists, we weren't born that way, so when you place your own country, for example, above all others, it is not a fact, it is simply a belief that you have taken on for any number of reasons, some perhaps OK, others questionable.

The point I really want to make is that we buy into this belief because it makes us feel good, it makes us feel worthwhile and it makes us think we have a purpose. We want to believe we are the good guys, that what we do is good and right and proper and admirable. And, there is nothing essentially wrong with any of this, as far as it goes. The problem is, however, that it goes much farther and deeper.

When confronted with evidence that contradicts this most fundamental view of the world that we have, we become fearful and insecure. We simply don't want to believe that things are different than the way we want to think they are. We will do everything in our power not to look these facts and this possible evidence in the eyes. Why? I don't know for sure, but one reason is certainly because we think we will no longer be the person we once were. That may be true, but it's not bad. Sure, it may be unpleasant, even painful, but closing one's eyes to reality doesn't make it go away. No one ever said the truth would make us happy, but it is truly the case that it is the truth which sets you free.

FDR once noted that we really have nothing to fear but fear itself, and he had a point. Whether you like his politics or not, he still had a point. I believe that now, more than at any other time in my short life, we are being called upon to face our fears. We can't give in ... or can we? Fear is more often that than not the root cause of hate, and when you begin to hate on the basis of your beliefs, for whatever reason, you have removed yourself from the world of reason. Hate is a powerful emotion, one of the most powerful in fact, but it is destructive, not only for others but for oneself. Hate is a poison that destroys one from inside every bit as much as the actions it calls forth wreak destruction on everyone and everything toward which it is directed. And, I must say that it saddens me to see and hear as much hate being spread about as I do these days.

As cynical as I may be, I would still like to think that we're better than that.

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.

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.

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?

Wandering and wondering

Some people think I'm a pretty smart cookie. There are others, however, who think I'm pretty much of a jerk, idiot, know-it-all, and loud-mouth. I can't help but think that the latter group is being more emotional than rational, but, hey, as my friend Julius Caesar used to say, de gustibus non disputandum. You can't please all the people all of the time, so you have to settle for maybe pleasing anyone at any time. I'm not always successful, but I'm still trying.

What gets me -- and it's been getting me for I can't tell you how long -- is how little progress we are making as a species. I'm actually very impressed by the intelligence of some people, by their brightness, their insight, their understanding, the scope and depth of their knowledge ... well, you know what I mean. Of course, I only have to turn on the news any evening to be reminded how foul, ignorant, simple-minded, self-centered, cruel, and inhumane we, as a species again, can be as well.

Oh, sure, we've accomplished a lot, I suppose. We've come a long way since the control of fire and the wheel, and most of our so-called advances have been in technical areas. We can create all kinds of new materials and applications, and scientifically, we know a lot more than we once did. We've penetrated into the secrets of matter and we can cure diseases and provide healthcare in ways that our forebears couldn't even imagine. But, in spite of all of this, I can't see that we've really come all that far in two primary areas: interpersonal relationships and war.

That's an odd couple, to be sure, but let's face it. Just about every technical and scientific advancement we have ever made, we have made because it made killing more efficient. No, I'm serious, give it some serious thought. Even great thinkers like Leonardo da Vinci -- whose art is at times downright inspiring -- spent a lot of time thinking up war machines as well. A contradiction, or simply a fact of human nature? Personally, I think it is the former. As for interpersonal relationships, there is no species on earth that can hate like humans. And, it's frightening to think of how often we do it. The slightest bit of difference can set it off, too. It doesn't have to be a different culture, a different religion ... no a different skin color can still do it for lots of folks, and when you get right down to it, simply rooting for another sports team can do the trick for others.

What's important to keep in mind, though, is that we know -- all of us know -- that it doesn't have to be this way. There is nothing that compels us to hate. There is nothing that compels us to wage war. (And for those of you who get all irate about self-defense, ask yourself how often this was really justified since WW2.) No, the more I think about it, the more it seems clear to me that we, as a species, are simply not living up to our potential. We're not being all that we can be. But, I can't figure out why.

It simply boggles the mind at how little human progress we have made.

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.