And Ne'er The Twain Shall Meet

Good day, fellow castaways.

This week I want to expound just a little on something I said in my last post, just to reinforce a point. It occurred as I was writing that post that handing off our responsibility to the needy to a faceless government agency, isolates us not only from our duties, but from our fellow man. There are other factors as well that further isolate us one from another, and I think we can agree that isolation is not good for humans.

Credit: Isolation, by Neriak, posted on Deviantart

It's been said that Humans are communal animals. In this case, I do refer to humans as animals, because even though we are unique among all creatures on the earth, we in our basic definition, are animals as well. Which means certain conditions are so much a part of our nature that we cannot thrive without them. Interaction is one. Placing a prisoner in solitary confinement is considered among the worst punishments that can be inflicted upon a human. In fact, many studies have shown that a person can only be alone for a certain amount of time before their mind breaks, and death follows shortly thereafter. NASA even has numerous experiments on file that prove humans simply cannot survive long periods isolated from others. So at this point, I don't feel any need for posting evidence. You can simply google it and come up with page after page that prove my point. People need people. Period. Even teenagers.



Teens are strange creatures. I still remember when I was one, I sought isolation from my world. I hated being a teen. Hated being the awkward, shy boy who suffered panic attacks at the mere thought of asking a girl out on a date. Hated being bullied by those who sought to better their own social position by making others feel inferior. Hated being singled out  and ridiculed for speaking out of turn or saying the wrong thing, always a day late and a dollar short. So I sought isolation in my books. After all, a good book never judges, is always there for you, takes you away into into world
where you get to be the hero and save the day, instead of the kid in the back of the class that no one understands.

I did have two friends, with whom I hung out as well, and what did we do? We spent our time roaming the woods in Soldier's Memorial Park or out back of Fix Park, riding our bicycles around Pine Lake, and shunning society as a whole.

Anyway, teens are odd critters, who seem to seek isolation in every way they can. They use their cell phones, iPods, and the internet to remove themselves from a cruel society that they create themselves every day in the school halls. A teenager would rather text with their friend down the block than to actually go see them. A teen would rather spend hours on Facebook than spend a minute with a real person, and it shows in the collective society that we've created online in the circus that passes for social media. Unfortunately, those patterns of behavior become habits, and habits follow us as we get older. So we become hermits in our own families, virtual recluses living together, yet alone in our own little worlds.

Credit: Sylvia Hartman, 2010

We say things online that would get us a fist to the face in person, and we get away with it because that other person isn't there to confront us. We have Usernames that further remove us from accountability. We can create personae that aren't even us at all. How many Facebook pages have names like "Stupid Things People Do" or "I Hate Democrats?" There are people behind those pages, and they refuse to be held accountable to anything they say, so they get away with saying stupid, hateful,  and false things that get spread around the world in a mater of minutes. The more outrageous the claim, the faster the poison spreads.

In addition, look at what happens on our highways and streets. People in their cars, removed from direct interaction, tend to drive like idiots, in spite of a common belief on the part of most of us that we're doing just fine, and the other guy is the one who's wrong. Increased incidences of road rage bear this out. We feel free to gesture and yell and make ourselves a brain-dead zombie, because we're in our car and they are in theirs, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

So we have now officially created the most hostile, isolated culture in the world, two feet in front of our faces, and we're so ingrained in our habits that we can't break loose without intervention. We no longer feel the need to be civil with our communication, because we aren't interacting on a personal level anymore. You wonder why the internet is going crazy? Seriously, Sunshine, take a look at yourself.

So where do we go from here? How do we fix this? How can we come together as a united people once again, and do away with these factions, these divisions, this polarized isolation? I'm open to suggestions. Maybe just take an extra moment to consider the possibility that hitting "share" on that hateful rant in the form of a meme is helping or hurting. Maybe exercise the the right of other people to be wrong, and you don't have to correct everyone or everything that doesn't agree with your sensibilities.

To quote that able philosopher and all-around weird guy Floyd (I know, just go with me here), "I mean, good manners don't cost nothin' ya know."

Maybe the best thing we can do is stand up from our computers, put down our phones, and actually place ourselves in personal contact with someone on a regular basis. In a restaurant with friends, stack your phones in the middle of the table. The first person to pick theirs up gets to pick up the whole tab. Quit playing Clash of Clans long enough to share kindness with someone down your street who has a need. Rake their leaves, shovel their walk. Breathe fresh air.

We can do this, people. Make kindness a priority, and maybe we can all start getting along again.

Whose Job is it, anyway?

Greetings, fellow castaways.

I have summed up the conflict of conservatism vs liberalism in one phrase. Yes, indeed, everything that everyone has been fighting for and over, every little squawk and squabble from the left to the right and back again, can now be stated in one simple question:

"Whose job is it, anyway?"

There is a wide difference between the European model of government and the American model. European governments, in almost all cases, are derived from monarchies or dictatorships. In those models, "Government" is "Mom," who makes sure everyone is fed, clothed, housed, and supplied for. And maybe that works okay for Europe. Okay, except for Greece, who went bankrupt. And maybe England, who had to cut way back on social spending or they were going to go bankrupt. Or Germany, who went bankrupt. Or France, who went... You get the idea.

Now, let's compare that model to the representative republic model upon which the United States was founded (not a democracy, as some have led you believe): Old Tom Jefferson said, "Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at its worst, an intolerable one." Westward expansion (whether you believe it to be a crime or not) left many communities in situations where there were no government programs for the destitute. In fact, most of the immigrants moving west were destitute, which was why they were moving. To get away from their poverty and circumstances, and make a fresh start for themselves and their families.

Let's look at our rule-book. It's called the Constitution. The preamble, if you recall, says, "We the people of the United States, (Why?) in order to form a more perfect union, (for what purpose?) establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, (do what?) do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." In other words, "We, in order to accomplish these things, do this."

The Constitution, in other words, lays out the jobs of the government. None of those jobs is to provide any assistance for anyone. I know it sounds cold, but hang with me here, and let me clarify, please.

In the old day, there was no government help for the destitute. But there was help. From whom, might you ask, did this help come? It came from charitable organizations funded by private parties. In other words, "We the people" provided for our own needy. So guess whose job it is to provide assistance? It's OUR job, NOT the government's. Which, of course flies in the face of the European model.

Now, before we travel too far down the road, can anyone (I present this as a challenge), and I mean ANYONE show me in our constitution the part where our federal government has the responsibility to set out "safety nets" for the needy? Please, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

No, it's our job. It's the job of everyone who has the means to voluntarily give to organizations who provide food, clothing, and housing assistance to our needy.

I firmly believe that the programs initiated in the '30's should have gone away a long time ago. They were instituted partially as a means of keeping people dependent on government for their daily livelihoods.Maybe there was a need, on a temporary basis, to provide some help, as jobs were nearly non-existent. One of three people eligible to work in 1933 had no job, and had no way to get one. My grandmother used to go out with her 10 brothers and sisters and round up rotten apples from the ground in the neighbor's orchard, cut off the bad parts, and keep whatever was left for their apple pies. Their uncle Mark raised all eleven of them single-handedly after their parents died within months of each other. Believe me, I know hardship. I've had plenty of my own.

But it wasn't a government program that helped me climb back. I borrowed from friends, took jobs as I could (burger flipper, janitor, drywaller, roofer, day by day, week by week) until I could get a steady job that turned into a career. I've been homeless, hungry, and living in borrowed clothes. I've started over more times than I can count. I collected unemployment for about six weeks in all that time.

I believe it should never be the government's job to provide those "safety nets" because in abdicating our responsibility to a faceless commission or agency makes us lazy. We lose touch with the needs around us, and become harder people when we aren't directly involved in helping the needy. Some nameless, anonymous "them" has the issue, so we get to forget all about it and go our catatonic way down the road.

But that's not what happens, is it? Because we still encounter the needy all around us, but now we don't see anyone helping, mainly because the agency in charge of giving assistance is absorbing 70% to 90% of your tax dollars for its own employees and bureaucrats. So now, we have to blame someone, and in most cases we blame those who have more than us: "The Rich." Oh, hell let's just blame them anyway. It's their fault that homeless people don't have their own houses, because they aren't sharing from their wealth. So along with all that self-righteous indignation that comes from having poor people all around us is compounded by the anger at rich people for daring to have more, to earn more, to keep more than anyone else.

And we all know who throws gasoline on that fire: Our own wonderful news media, who have forsaken the art of journalism for their agenda. Which agenda, you say? Why, to make America more like Europe, of course.

We'll go more into that in future posts.

Internet Civilization?

Greetings and salutations, fellow castaways, and thank you for your patience. I have now  graduated three out of the four offspring from our illustrious and tradition-rich high school, and all the shockwaves are settling down to a steady, rolling sea instead of rogue wave city. And now, it's about time I got back to work.

Chapter Thirteen of Tempus Fugitive has now succumbed to my fingers and aching brow, and I am now only one year and six months past my (self-imposed) deadline for preparing the manuscript for the submission process.

But that's not what I want to talk about this week.

Lately, I have heard a record level of vicious howling and screaming on the Web over two particular issues: Big Game Hunting, and Hobby Lobby.

I don't need to weigh in on my opinions of either here, as Facebook has heard about all I need to say on these two points. What I want to call everyone's attention to is the way the Internet seems to encourage rage-baiting. And let's face it, it's about time we all sat down and took a personal inventory.

Because most of us, if not all, see ourselves as perfectly reasonable people.We honestly can't see wen we've crossed the line into hysteria, even when those around us cringe and run away.

Let's all agree before I go on that a society must be civil within itself in order to survive. I didn't say we all had to agree on all the same points, I said we all need to be civil with each other. Without civility, there is no discourse. Without discourse, there can be no agreement. Without agreement, there is no peace.

Now, let's look at "agreement" as a word, because to some it may mean something different. The World Book Encyclopaedia Dictionary says this: "1. To have the same opinion or similar opinions. 2.  To be in harmony; to be consistent; correspond. 3. to get along well together. 4. to say that one is willing; assent; consent. 5.  to make a bargain; come to an understanding. 6. (In inflected languages) to have the same gender, number, case, person, etc."

Look at all those different definitions. No wonder everyone is spending so much time screaming and threatening each other. To have the same opinion is not necessarily to be in harmony, nor does it mean we have to share the same opinions in order to get along. Definition 5 says it means to come to an understanding. I like that one, so let's use that from here in in my house (to be meant "here on my blog") from here on. I don't have to share the same opinion as you in order for us both to understand each other.

What we need to do is stop accusing each other. A cheerleader goes to Africa and legally hunts big game, and she's called a murderer. The Supreme Court decides a law violates another law (previously signed by a president of the party who's doing the most screaming about it), and all of a sudden the entire country is a theocracy. Parents teach their children from the Bible, and are being accused of child abuse.

People everywhere are crying, "what's gone wrong with our country?" I might suggest that the relative anonymity of the internet is at least partly to blame. We can now hide behind the comfort of our computer screens and usernames, and we no longer have to be accountable for what we say. I'll tell you what, some of the things that have been said to me in the last six months would have bought someone a quick punch to the mouth if they'd been said in person. I can only turn my cheek so many times until I run out of cheeks, folks.

So what I'd like to do here is introduce (or re-introduce) a concept known as the Personal Inventory. A personal inventory is something that should be taken every time we're engaged in a discussion. What it does is help us to see when we (meaning "I") need to steer the discussion back to more civil ground. If you find yourself doing any of these, you are probably too angry to have a reasonable discussion, and you need to take immediate measures.

1. ARE YOU TYPING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS? You're screaming at the other person. Stop it. The same goes for speaking in a raised voice. If your voice is raised above the level you would use to order a steak from your favorite server at your favorite restaurant, you need to back off and take a deep breath.
2. Are you calling anyone else a name you wouldn't want to be called? Whether they are there to defend themselves or not, you are in the wrong on this.
3. Did your last statement include a personal threat? "She ought to have that gun shoved up her *** and the trigger pulled" is a threat. You have no business saying that to anyone else, or about anyone else. If so, you have forfeited the right to call yourself "civilized." They make the DELETE key for sentences like that. Feel free to use it. If you feel you MUST write it out, write it on a Word Document and save it in your hard drive only until you shut down for the night, and then send it to your recycle bin.
4. Did you just try to "mind read?" Here's my example: "Republicans hate women." Dude, get real. You aren't psychic enough to read every single Republican's mind and tell me with all honesty that all Republicans "hate" anything. The very statement in itself is idiotic and inflammatory. Did you seriously bother to ask any Republican if he or she hates women? I doubt it. "Democrats just want big government." That's another one too stupid to answer in one sitting. I don't know what every Democrat wants; I haven't asked them all. So don't tell me what I want, or who I hate, or what I'm for or against; I can tell you all of that myself.
5. Did you just exaggerate to make your point? Really, did you just stretch the facts just a wee bit? Stop it.

Now, after your personal inventory, which you should be doing with every post you make, if you find yourself stepping over the Civil Line, then erase your comment, take a moment, and try again, only this time show your counterpart in the conversation who the better person is by the respect you give them and their point of view.

Who knows, maybe we can all start getting along again?