What's the big deal?

Good question: what is the big deal? I mean, after all, we're all grown up, mature, and tolerant people, right? No, wrong. OK, we've got separation of church and state and the Constitution in the US, for example, guarantees that separation, right? No, wrong. Well, OK, we're all just good people; we know what we're doing, right? No, I'm sorry, wrong again.

We're not all that grown up or mature. Consider the fanaticism with which, say, Americans (or now the the European Soccer Championships are in full gear, we could use a lot of Europeans as a similar example) get absolutely rabid about sports. That's adolescent, I'm afraid. It's a my-team-is-better-than-your-team; my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad mentality. Sports have their place, but it shouldn't be at the top of our priority list.

Well, OK, there's at least the separation of church and state, but that's an illusion, too. The moment Bush II can speak about faith-based initiatives from the bully pulpit of the presidency that line has been crossed. The moment that Falwells and Robertsons mobilize voters to vote their beliefs, not their reason, that line has been crossed. The moment it's about Biblical justification for the passage of laws (be it teaching of creationism or attacking Planned Parenthood), the line has been crossed. We love to point the finger at the Iranians, but it's not all that clear to me that America is much different in a lot of regions of the country.

But, we're good people, aren't we? Maybe. But how do we decide what is good? If the pope or the preacher or the evangelist shouldn't dictate what we believe, who should? Anyone? Should we really figure it out for ourselves? People like to rant and rave against Islam or Christianity, but when you consider how many Christian denominations are existant in the US (and yes, that is an American phenomenon), they can't agree on their religious beliefs, so why do we thing they would have anything to say about our moral positions? Right. We're back where we were with our thoughts about the state of political discourse these days: that would be nowhere.

Until we're ready to take "the other" seriously, until we're ready to truly listen to what someone else has to say, until we're ready to engage our discussion partner as an equal partner, we'll just keep yelling and barking and snapping at each other as we are right now. And, once again, look where that has got us.

Exaggerated?

Of course I have my own ideas of how things should be. And, yes, I have my own visions of what could be in the future. But -- and I think anyone who has been following the latest thread with a modicum of attention will agree -- I'm doing my best not to fix the blame, and I'm not trying to convince anyone that what they think is wrong. All I'm asking -- and this happens rarely enough -- is that you give some serious thought to what you do think. Why? Because it may be more important than ever.

Don't get me wrong, though I sound like it at times, I'm not really a doom-and-gloomer. I may not be the most optimistic soul out there, but I'm realist enough to know that what comes will come and we'll have to deal with whatever that is when it appears. I do believe, however, that we still have a chance, albeit a slight one, to do something about the future, even if the system itself can no longer be fixed. I'm sticking by my guns on that one (at least until someone convinces me otherwise). The point is, if you haven't engaged your brain before opening your mouth, you're just pumping out hot air, no more.

If all we have to deal with is hot air, we've got no chance at all. I'm concerned because when we distill the entire situation down to its essence, it's no longer about who's right and who's wrong. In fact, it's not about right and wrong at all. It's about good and bad: what's good for everyone, not just a few; what's bad for everyone, not just a growing majority. We're not dealing anymore with economics or politics or even sociology. No, we're dealing with morals: the most basic, fundamental understanding of what is good and what is bad. It's a matter of morality. And for that reason, our ability to reason and discuss is more important than ever. Morality can never be edicted, it can only be agreed.

But even here, in the most (in my mind, at least) important aspect of human existence, we have lost our ability to reason, discuss and debate. We've turned -- or are at least in the process of turning -- our morality discourse into another struggle for power. What the fewest people realize is that this is one of the most dangerous turn of events there can be. If we get this one wrong, we just could be doomed ... at least as most of us think we understand the term. There's simply a lot at stake.

And now what?

For those of you who have been following this thread over the past couple of weeks, I'm sure there are some who are now yammering about how it's all nice and well to complain, but how about suggesting a solution. I would just like to say that's anything but the way forward. Oh, sure, I know I could come up with suggestions. That's not the problem at all. The problem is that we need to find a way to start talking again.

That's the real thread I've been harping on: we can't or don't or won't talk to each other like reasonable adults, because, I believe, we have simply become unreasonable. There's too much nonsense in the discussion. I don't care if you think you're right or left ... everybody I talk to is in the center, or so they claim, and everyone else is "out there" somewhere. What kind of nonsense is that? I don't care if your for against anything, but I would like to think there's more to all of it than a simple well-that's-my-opinion-and-that-is-that.

The way I see it all right now, everybody's wrong; nobody's right. Why? Because as I noted a couple of weeks ago, we need to decide collectively what we want, and we have no real collectivity anymore. At bottom, it's all about values, and as I have been saying repeatedly, we have no idea of agreeing on values independent of some predefined position. The Fundamentalists (of all colors, shapes and sizes) will tell you there is no chance without getting You-Know-Who involved. The humanistically inclined will tell you there is no chance as long as He is. If religion has something to offer, then it has to be offerable beyond the confines of a strictly encoded doctrine or dogma. It has to be something to that appeals to the humanist as well as the "true believer". On the flip side, should any secular thinker have a suggestion, it must be frameable in a form that the religious individual can understand. In other words, we have to stop accusing the other and start listening to them.

But, I'm not convinced that this is possible anymore. I'm serious. I'm deeply disturbed by the low level of discourse that I experience every day. I'm deeply disturbed by the obstinence and intolerance of the participants. And, I'm deeply disturbed by the readiness and willingness for violence -- be it physical or psychological -- of too many in the discussion.

What we need to realize that the "system", if you will, is broken. It cannot be fixed. Yes, let me repeat, there is no way to fix it. The only chance we have is to change it. If we don't there is going to be more suffering than the world has ever known. You think I'm exaggerating? Just wait. You don't really want me to be right.

So what can you do about it?

There is no question that every country on earth spends more than it should, and there would be very little argument, I think, that just about any citizen of any country would tell you there is a lot of waste in his or her government. If we want to allege, however, that we, the people, have any say in the matter anymore, then we the people need to get back in the game. That's what the Occupy Movement was about. That's what the 99% metaphor is all about. That is what upholding democratic ideals is all about.

We're in a pretty awkward situation. There's no doubt about it. And, what is so frustrating is that it is obvious that the big guys are playing divide-and-conquer with the little folks ... again. If you don't want to be taken for a fool, my advice would be not to act like one. If you don't want to participate in crazy discussions, don't say crazy things. If you want a better deal for your neighbor and yourself, you've got to start talking to your neighbor again, and you both have to spread the word and get out and do something about it.

To me, the first thing that has to be done is to get money out of politics. As long as money is there, there is simply no room for anything or anyone else. Yes, your elected representative would have to bite the hands that feed them. Yes, those who opposed the biting would have to be the first to go.

The second thing that has to be done, as far as I'm concerned, is to start a reasonable, yet passionate, discussion about what is important to all of us? Each and every one of you is required to ask yourself what you think government is about, and what it should be about, and why it might be in everybody's interest if everybody's interest were put back into the political equation.

Will it be easy? Not on your life. Will it be fast? Hardly. Will we succeed? Maybe not. Is it going to demand sacrifice. Most likely. So perhaps, the first question you should ask yourself at all is whether your own well-being is worth the effort.

The crashes of 1929 and 2008 were warnings for those who were willing to listen. It was selected, specific, private interests that caused it, but it was unrestricted, general, public interests that paid for it. That can't possibly be right, and it cannot be sensibly argued by our free-market friends. But, then again, some people like to have it all ways that benefits them.