Scary Stuff

Read this (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/06/25/fire_dog.ART_ART_06-25-09_A1_DSE9JB8.html?sid=101) then read my response.

I don't know where to start with this. The fact that this man remains on active duty is the most upsetting thing. What Michael Vick did was awful, but the fact that this guy can kill animals in the manner that he did and is still being paid by citizen is incredible.

Killing animals in this way, lying about, showing no remorse, and bragging about it is a sign of a seriously mentally disturbed person. What's even more ridiculous is that fact that a judge can fix his mouth to say that such a crime is 'totally out of character'. What kind of idiot thinks that stringing up dogs and shooting them 11 times is an isolated event?! Does the judge really believe a stable person can commit such an act? What kind of character does a person have that allows them to murder animals, lie to their family about it, and brag about the act to co-workers? Does the judge want us to believe that a 90 day sentence will help Santuomo realize the seriousness of his actions?

The man wasn't remorseful when he refused to let neighbors watch his dogs, he wasn't remorse when he strung them up, he wasn't remorseful when he shot one of his pets 6 times in the head (6 times!), he wasn't remorseful when he lied to his ex-wife and children about what happened to the dogs (what kind of person deliberately kills something their children love?), and he certainly wasn't remorseful when he bragged to co-workers about what he had done. How is it possible that a judge is not more disturbed by this? There may not be laws in place to punish this man more properly, but the fact that Hale claims this to be an isolated event is beyond belief.

What kind of world is this?! Dog fighting is wrong in my opinion, but this man's actions are far more disturbing and far more dangerous. Dog fighting has rules, barbaric and disgusting to some, but let's not forget that humans once cheered such acts when their fellow men and women were in the arena.

Never has it been acceptable for humans to betray the loyalties of devoted servants for no sensible reason. The man had plenty of alternatives, but chose to kill simply for the act of ending life, innocent life at that. The purpose of dog fights isn't to kill dogs, if it were people wouldn't fight dogs they would do what Santuomo did and forget the battles completely.

Unfortunately one cannot ignore the fact that Santuomo is a white male who appears to be getting off extremely light for his crimes. One has to wonder, given the legacy of the judicial system's treatment of race and crime, whether a judge would be so flippant about these actions if Santuomo were a black man. How convinced might he be of a black Santuomo's remorse in a similar situation? Of course we cannot know the answer, but racial bias is just as valid an explanation as complete incompetence when considering the judge's comments. How do you make sense of Hale's comments?

Whether or not you think race has something to do with how this case is viewed and presented by the media, the law, and the law officials recognize that others consider it an issue. Recognize that racial bias is still a very big issue in this country and that injustice is still an institutional problem (The Jena 6 is one recent example among many others). Be concerned that a premeditated brutal murder of animals for the sole purpose of ending their lives is considered 'an isolated event' by a judge. Be aware that the man responsible for this act can remain on active duty despite his conviction. Ask yourself how such a thing can be possible. If you're as disturbed as I am about how this situation is unfolding ask yourself what mindset and philosophy has to exist to support the actions of those confronting this situation. While some explanations are more complex than others they are all disturbing.

Our primary problem in this society is not people like David Santuomo, our primary problem is judges like Harland Hale. Individuals who refuse reason, yet are responsible for upholding reason will do more damage than any Santuomo ever could. Judges like H.H. Hale transform the actions of a Santuomo from an isolated problem to a systemic problem.

Things I want my children to consider

So this is a collection of thoughts I had sometime while in India. It is a collection of philosophical axioms I think are important in my life and things I would want my children to consider. I plan to add to this list as I grow older, but also as I rummage through the many thoughts I write down on bits of notebook paper. So there's more to come! Enjoy!

1) Try to talk to yourself as much as possible. It will be harder than you may initially think, but few things you do in life will be more important.

2) Questions can be more valuable than answers.

3) You can be assured that the more material substance you crave/own the less mental substance you'll be able to possess. There is only room for an abundance of one.

4) Seek to understand your emotions; specifically where they come from. This is the only way to control them.

5) Anger is almost never productive. Limit your exposure to it through axiom number 4.

6) You are what you eat. I mean this almost literally.

7) You live in a universe where the most important, if not the only, constant is change. Don't fight this principle, especially in your thinking. Remember, you are a product of that same universe.

8) Understand as much as you possibly can, but be aware that the more you try to understand the more patience will demand of you.

9) Don't believe everything you think.

10) Avoid extremes; especially in your thinking.

11) Your core principles should be few and general. Numerous principles reflect an inability or an unwillingness to accept axiom number 7; a desire for things to remain just as they are.

12) Be cynical when contemplating things that are 'popular'. Such things are often devoid of clear thinking.

13) Love and fear are the most volatile emotions humans possess. Take extra care when dealing with either or both.

14) Plant something, preferably food, and watch it grow. I know of few better ways to have a spiritual experience.

15) Your mind is your most valuable possession. If you do not intensely exercise your ability to think and reason you will fall victim to a universe that changes constantly.

16) Thinking is a choice. You have the ability to turn off your mind. Doing so is akin to falling asleep while driving. Remember, there are worse things than death.

17) The more you think, the more reality reveals itself to you. This will increase you ability to see and perceive the unpleasant, but it will also instill a confidence that no human can shake and that few understand.

18) Fear without reason is deadly.

19) Read. Everyday.

20) Be patient with the things you desire. Rarely does reason accompany rushing.

Why I don't talk to people

While in India I was reminded of something I’ve been very disappointed to learn about people, but adults especially. People don’t ask themselves the question ‘why?’. Moreover, when confronted with the question in relation to their actions many people dismiss the relevance of asking such a question by claiming there is no answer to the question. Before I begin to tell the tale let me start by stating the importance of being able to answer ‘why’ when faced with evaluating actions.

            The simple question of ‘why’ is the gateway to reason, humanity’s most important tool for dealing with reality. Why gives meaning and purpose to actions and causes us to think critically. There is a reason why children often ask ‘why’ incessantly; they are attempting to find meaning; they are exercising their minds just as they exercise their muscles on the playground. Besides being a tool of reason the question ‘why’ is also the motivation behind the currency of exchange between minds, reason. With anything that is not immediately clear one, assuming they care to understand, would ask a variety of questions to ascertain understanding; the most philosophical question being ‘why?’ If a person is to be understood then they must explain themselves to the person asking ‘why?’ (again, assume the person being asked desires to explain themselves). When examining one’s own actions and thoughts a person must also turn to ‘why’ in order to better understand themselves. Without embracing the question ‘why?’ a person remains a child acting on feelings without critical thought; a practice that can cause tremendous damage to a person’s life.

            So, during a visit to Kumbhalgahr Wildlife Sanctuary I asked a question concerning marriage of the people I was with. The question was simply what is the best thing about being married, the worst thing, and one thing you know now that would have been useful at the beginning of your marriage. All the people in the room were older than myself by at least 5 years, all were academics, all but two were white Americans,  and all but one had been married at least 5 years. I waited until the second round of scotch before asking this question in hopes that people would be loose enough to answer.  Not surprisingly they assumed that I asked the question because I was very nearly ready to ask someone to marry me. When I told them I was very single their interest in answering my question dropped precipitously. This in itself was very discouraging as it shouldn’t matter what stage of a relationship I was in. If anything knowing the answer to my question would be more useful to someone of my status than someone who has mostly made up their mind to get married.

            Nonetheless I pressed the issue and tried to assure them that I was very sincere about the question. Upon realizing I was serious a few proceeded to give mostly incoherent dribble, saying marriage is ‘great’, ‘easier than they thought’, ‘an everyday struggle’, etc. Interestingly none of them answered my question. The best answer was given by Dr. X who said that marriage was about caring for someone else in life. He said it was important to be an individual, but to also have responsibilities outside of oneself in order to stay grounded. I disagree with some of this philosophy, but at least it was coherent and defensible.

            The most upsetting part of this experience was Dr. Y’s response as we were leaving to go downstairs for dinner. He explained that much of marriage is ‘just doing’ for the other person. He continued by saying that once you’re married you do things for the other person because you are married, you sacrifice because that’s what marriage is all about. ‘Just like doing things for your kids, you simply do the things you’re supposed to do’ he finished. Quite appalled by this point I explained that I was interested in the ‘why’ behind such actions. He replied, ‘there is no why, you just act’.

            This is one of the worst things I’ve heard an adult say. Moreover, this statement came from a respected, tenured, scientist! Later on during the visit I discovered that Dr. Y is a Christian, which explains why he’s not particularly interested in discovering the reasons behind his actions. Nevertheless, the rest of the faculty members either didn’t answer anything or avoided the question by chiding me for asking such a question at my young age of 25.

            Needless to say I was disappointed with this response and appalled at Dr. Y’s answer. It is experiences like this that cause me to title entries such as this one. How is one able to grow and improve as a person when their questions aren’t taken seriously or answered at all? How is one expected to be comfortable with just acting because one finds themselves in a particular situation? How are people expected to have meaningful conversations when people are clearly not interested in the question ‘why?’ I am continuously confronted with conversations like this from peers and those older than me. I cannot grow in an environment with people that communicate the way most people communicate their ideas and thoughts. This is why I normally don't have meaningful conversations with most people and why I absolutely treasure the times when I do. The intellectual culture, as I’ve observed thus far, is deteriorating rapidly and it’s disappointing to be reminded that such deterioration is facilitated by those who should be supporting it. I wonder why that is?

Save the environment or save your wallet? Wait, what’s the difference?

Without a doubt the phrase and practice of ‘going green’ is one of this countries fastest growing phenomenon. Celebrities and homemakers alike are becoming increasingly aware of how to minimize their impact on the environment. Fascinating new technologies are popping up everywhere offering consumers opportunities to make lifestyle changes that are more environmentally conscious. Companies are innovating and changing in order to become the ‘most green’ in their respective industries. ‘Going green’ appears to have tremendous momentum, but I would argue that there is an element missing from this movement that, if included, would help propel environmentally conscious living even further and faster. The element that’s missing from the green movement is a proper emphasis on the economic viability of adopting green principles.

            There are two primary obstacles standing in the way of green technologies and practices from becoming mainstream among most Americans; the initial costs and an understanding of why it’s important to go green. Many of the big flashy green technological innovations (hybrid cars, solar panel electricity, grey water recycling systems, radiant wall heating system, indoor greenhouse, earthships, etc.) require an initial investment that many Americans cannot afford. The second obstacle is even more problematic because the issue is philosophical for the most part. Philosophical change takes much longer as people must understand and evaluate what they know and decide that their knowledge could benefit from new knowledge. Fortunately there is a philosophical principle embedded within American society that speaks to all people very clearly, money. It is through an appeal to this unifying entity that green industry should focus more of their attention in order to grow a movement that has enormous potential (I will not make the argument for money as a sound and moral foundation in which to advocate the green movement beyond stating that I think it is such a foundation).

The first question that needs to be addressed is how can expensive green technologies, technologies with obvious benefits, become more accessible (cheaper and more widely available) to more people. One could say that that process has already begun with those who are able to afford such technologies taking advantage of fantastic innovations. More and more we see celebrities and the exceptionally wealthy make small changes in their lifestyle that have the potential to impact other consumers. Solar panels and hybrid SUVs can be found in an increasing number of homes in Beverly Hills. From the other end of the perspective, grass roots type community movements are springing up across the nation as people are learning more about organic produce, simple green improvements for their homes, recycling programs, and the like. The result of these miniature movements is an increase in the number of products and services offered on the ‘green market’. As the market grows, more products become available. As more products become available, competition increases. Better competitors are determined by who can offer the best and cheapest products. This example, of course, is a basic economic principle. We see examples of this principle in action with the ever increasing green products available (just walk into any Lowes or Home Depot), the falling costs in various green technologies, and even the creation of a green television network (Planet Green). All of these phenomena would not exist without a growing market. So the issue of green products becoming less expensive and more accessible seems to be a problem that should continue to get better so long as consumers see value in what they are buying.

It would seem then that to expedite an explosion of green technology and green living one would have to show the consumer that it is in their best interest to invest in green products. Since products and services are acquired through an exchange of money the most logical strategy would be to appeal to the economic advantages of choosing green products over non-green products. It may simply be an artifact of those who started the green movement that such an emphasis was not a part of the agenda from the beginning, but continuing to deemphasize economic benefits to going green in favor of an ambiguous sense of altruistic sacrifice for the sake of the environment is misguided at best. Most Americans live apart from the environmental elements and processes that sustain their life and lifestyle. While many see this as a problem I would argue that such an issue doesn’t matter. In terms of green technologies, for the most part, what’s green is also what’s more economical in the long run. This idea is due to nature of green technologies and innovation; such innovation leads to improvements in efficiency of production and waste disposal. Humans, like all other organisms, are products of the environment and must live with what they produce. Human progress depends on how well we manage what we produce and the byproducts (waste) of such production. Getting people to understand this principle, or rather think about this principle when deciding what to buy is unrealistic. Luckily such a principle can be represented when a person chooses to buy solar panels for their new home rather than connecting to the power grid. There may be a variety of reasons why they made such a decision, but I would almost guarantee that such a decision is not made without a foreseeable economic payoff. And so should be the impetus for promoting green products, not petitions to people’s conscience about how buying this widget helps prevent polar bear extinction because it reduces greenhouse gasses. People don’t think about polar bears when they’re buying a car. They think about whether or not making such a purchase makes sense given the price.

The pitch for any green product or service should be simple: Buy our product because it will save you X amount of money because it’s X times more efficient than the other product. IBM has a fantastic line of commercials highlighting the fact that economics and the environment don’t have to oppose each other. Most people do not make decision without considering how things will benefit them. The easiest way to appeal to this characteristic of humanity is to appeal to what we care about most, our means of sustaining and improving our lives. Money is what we’ve chosen to represent our means of survival and progress. Our survival and progress depends on a healthy and efficient use of our environment. Why not take full advantage of such a relationship? A greener, cheaper, more efficient future is waiting, we must simply acknowledge that those three adjectives are one in the same. 

The 'I feel' epidemic

There is something very troubling about the way people speak these days. I'm not talking about foul language, or improper grammar. I'm not talking about racism, sexism, classism, or any other kind of 'ism'. I'm talking about the reference people use when talking about what they think; their feelings. Listen closely to any given discussion in this country, where ideas are being sincerely discussed, and you'll hear one of the most disturbing phrases known to man; 'I feel like... (insert thought here)'.

What's the big deal you ask? Feelings are valid, right? Everybody has them, everyone uses them, everybody is entitled to them, and no one can prevent them from occurring. All true statements, but those statements do not validate substituting feelings for thoughts. Any given two year old has feelings. What makes adults adults is the fact that we are able to manage our feelings in order to properly communicate and interact with others. One cannot argue with feelings, one cannot debate feelings, one cannot effectively discuss the validity of feelings the way one can discuss the validity of thoughts.

I think the subconscious aim of using the phrase 'I feel like (blank)' is to avoid any earnest discussion of ideas. Try asking someone to explain what they feel (think) and observe what happens. In my experience people usually respond by saying, 'I don't know, I just do', whether it is in these many words or with their body language. Usually when I question people's feelings (thoughts and ideas) they become visually uncomfortable and proceed to do everything they can to end the conversation. This is disturbing because it is evidence that people are actively attempting to invalidate their minds.

Humans, in order to communicate effectively with other humans, must have some common currency of exchange recognized by those they are communicating with. This currency is logic and reason. No one would be able to understand each other if we didn't share a universal sense making protocol. It's quite unbelievable the number people I talk to that don't recognize this fact. We would not be able to determine what is correct or what is false. Yes, some ideas are not about determining who is right and who is wrong (far fewer ideas, however, than most would claim), but the process by which we understand any idea, including ones where we cannot determine who is right and who is wrong, involves logic and reason. You may feel anything you want, but if you are going to discuss it with anyone besides yourself you must use the currency of logic if you wish to be understood.

Feelings, in most cases, make terrible currency for thought exchange. They constantly change, they vary in intensity, they are primarily subjective and person specific, they are valid simply because they exist, and they are often times difficult (or impossible) to understand (as is often the case when dealing with women) (yeah, I said it!). How can people hope to effectively communicate using such a poor medium? I think that's the point, they don't wish to communicate effectively. It's been my experience that most people don't want to be asked to explain their ideas. Most people don't want you to ask them why they've just said what they've said. Most people want to talk and be understood, and if they aren't understood then they'd rather you pretend like you understood and shut the hell up with any questions.

Am I splitting hairs? No, I don't THINK I am. Why? Because saying 'I feel like what I've said makes sense' is not the same as saying 'I think that what I've said makes sense'. One statement is accurate and the other is complete garbage. The idea that what I've said makes sense is not a product of my feelings; it's a product of my mind. I could not have written this blog when I was twelve; it has taken thirteen years for me to develop my mind to point where I can write something like this. This blog entry is a glimpse of my mind at work, as is every statement I make for others to hear. This is the case for every human being on this planet, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, or whatever. Is this an intimidating notion? It certainly can be, especially to those who are just beginning to use their mind instead of their feelings (i.e. children). Yet many of us never mature past this point to overcome the discomfort of being judged by what we say. We even go to such lengths to deny the discomfort of explaining our ideas that we've declared it wrong and immoral to be judgmental. We avoid discussions by claiming a person can be certain of nothing and that words are nothing but relative abstractions or simply sounds. We've even begun substituting the word 'think' with the word 'feel' in an attempt to further distance ourselves from showing each other what's in our minds.

It's no wonder, as people continue to avoid the question 'why?', they have begun to substitute thoughts with feelings. Do not make the mistake of calling your thoughts feelings. Take the time to think why you think what you think. Examine why you feel what you feel and transforms your feelings to thoughts. Stand on the product of you mind and not the ever changing, unpredictable, immediate, and often volatile ground of your feelings. Seek to exchange ideas with the most consistent and valid currency humans have logic and reason. Yes, thoughts require work to develop, but development is what life is about. Take responsibility for your mind, graduate beyond merely feeling to actually thinking. And most importantly, do not succumb to the fear of being judged by your thoughts and ideas by calling them feelings; you will never grow up if you do.

My inappropriate desire of the opposite sex

I'm not satisfied with my physical appearance. I'm too fat for my tastes and have struggled with finding the discipline to meet my physical standards. Over the past few days I've devoted time to thinking about the history of me trying to lose weight and why I've failed to do so. Ultimately, my failure stems from a weak commitment to self discipline. This weak commitment has manifested itself in an acute and extensive array of excuses I offer myself for being content with the way I look.

Yesterday I discovered that I over emphasize minimal progress in meeting my physical appearance goals. I recently lost close to 15lbs. after 2 months of rigorous exercise only to gain it all back when my discipline succumbed to a change in my daily schedule. During this regression I clung to the small changes in appearance I experienced from my previous hard work as an excuse to slack off. My thinking was, 'at least I won't have to start from where I started from three months ago'. Unfortunately, this thought is not entirely true. While I'm not back to my original size before I began working out, the mental discipline I need to make significant changes is still the same. I still make the same excuses and avoid the same avenues to success in fear of their difficulty and subsequent discomfort.

Now to the revelation that lead me to this entry. I discovered today that my desire to be liked by the opposite sex serves as a validation for the person I am dissatisfied with. The beginnings of this thought occurred last night while talking to a friend about her relationship with a guy who is overweight. They have been close friends for a year and decided to explore a romantic relationship with each other. Unfortunately, things will not work out mainly because the my girl friend is unhappy with the guy's physical appearance. She has not broken up with him in hopes that he grasp the extent of her dissatisfaction and recognize that he probably won't change. Of course this is absurd to hope for for the precise reason I discovered in myself. She is providing validation for his stagnation (sorry for the rhyme distraction) by hoping he will give up his pursuit. I told her however, that he will never do so because it's easier for him to deal with the idea that she might change than it is for him to confront his self-esteem. It took me nearly 24hrs to realize I use the affections of women as validation that I'm fine just the way I am; a notion I reject every time I take my shirt off.

So what now? I must embrace the idea that women may not be interested in me because I'm too fat for them. And as long as I'm too fat for me I should continue to embrace this notion. It's been my policy to grudgingly reject women I suspect might feel that way. Of course our culture suggests that this is valid because everyone knows that a person should love you regardless of what you look like. I've always thought this to be a completely stupid notion, but it's only now that I recognize how readily I embraced it when faced with the alternative of confronting my self-esteem. The only thing to do now is meet my standards of self I consider possible and reasonable to achieve. I know loosing weight can be done and it's more than reasonable for me to do it. Because of this new revelation it would not be proper, fair, or wise for me to accept the affections of any woman until this goal is met. This is the conclusion I've run away from and its been a major contributor to my lack of progress. So to all the women out there who I meet and those whom I've met let me state unequivocally that I am not available. I will not consider myself available until I can stand naked in front of the mirror with pride and confidence. This I declare on June 20, 2008.

If you think this entry was difficult to write, it was. But surprisingly not as difficult as I thought it would be before I sat down to write it. Let any embarrassment I feel serve as the motivation I may need if my discipline falters. Far to often we ignore our discomfort with things we have the to power to change. I will no longer accept a relationship that is below my standards; the standards I hold for myself.

The Nature of Evil

I recently stumble across what I consider one of the most profound conclusions I've ever thought of. Like many thoughts we think this particular thought was the product of other thoughts thought up be other individuals. In this case my conclusions on the nature of evil are the products of objectivist philosophy.

I remember sitting in my apartment one evening and the thought coming to me very simply, 'Evil must be sanctioned'. As it turns out this wasn't the entire conclusion, but it was enough to make me stop what I was doing and ponder the idea further. 'Evil must be sanctioned', wow! I then began to think what does this mean? What does this explain about the state of humanity? As most of my serious thinking is devoted to understanding how we, as humans, have gotten our current state of existence I was very pleased to have this breakthrough. I thought some more about this conclusion and was still not quite satisfied. Evil must be sanctioned.... what?. Well there is a lot of evil in this world and it's been around for a very long time. I'm mainly talking about philosophical evil because anything that persists in human existence that is the product of human actions is first the product of a philosophy that deems such actions necessary. And then I had it! 'Evil must be sanctioned in order to persist'; which easily translates to 'Evil must have been sanctioned in order to have persisted this long'.

What do I mean by evil you ask? Evil can be described as the actions or thoughts a person engages in to avoid dealing with their insecurities. Ha, what I love about this definition (one I just cooked up while on the toilet) is that it requires a context for the examination of any action and not just a blanket declaration of certain actions to be evil. Allow me to digress for just a second. I'm cooking up an essay on why I don't agree with religion (mainly Christianity) and my definition of evil fits perfectly into it. Let's examine the killing of a person. Christianity will tell you that the killing of a person is sin no matter the context. I think this is absurd as there are many cases when killing another person is appropriate and necessary. Think about premarital sex, an action deemed evil by Christianity. What about the couple that have pledged their lives to each other in their hearts and minds? Should they have to wait until a ceremony before they experience the pleasure of sex? These and other sins are meant for people to follow instructions without the context of their reality, but what does this say about the insecurities of the authors of such rules?

Back to the point. Evil exists and continues to exist because humans are willing to make what they think are compromises between their principles and their reality in order to assuage their insecurities. In actuality, these 'compromises' are really sacrifices of mental autonomy that pave the way for the chronically insecure. The majority of human leadership is composed of the chronically insecure, those individuals who spend most of their lives running from the fact that they do not feel comfortable in their own skin and seek to master whatever existence they can of everyone else but themselves. The people who demand of others before they demand of themselves. The people who attempt to gain respect through fear and false pretenses. The individuals who will do anything to shield themselves from their own reality. How do such people gain power? The answer, as I discovered recently, is quite simple; by taking advantage of the insecurities of others.

Let me explain why this is such a powerful and depressing conclusion. This conclusion is depressing because it means the state of humanity is do to people's sacrifice of their principles. It is not do to the devil, or some other supernatural spirit that holds some kind of mystical influence over us that can be wiped away or forgiven by some other, more powerful benevolent influence. The responsibility of human tragedy lies squarely on each individual's shoulders; every second of everyday. And let me say that Christianity, and I imagine other religions, say mostly the same thing, I think the level of mysticism involved clouds the issue.
This conclusion is powerful in that it exposes evil for the frail, frightened, insecure child that it is. Something to be squashed at will by those with the strength to do so. Evil will always exists because humans will always posses the ability to ignore their reality. However, evil will only persists if people allow it to. Evil continues to exist because of us, not because it's inherent power, but because of the power we allow it to have. I can't resist this statement; but given these conclusions what does this say about God and the existence of the devil?

Unfortunately for us, evil has been allowed to exists for thousands of years in humans and because of this the options we have in combating evil are extreme and unpleasant. As I stated earlier the chronically insecure, the champions of ignoring self and reality, have been allowed to take leadership positions in areas that effect every aspect of human life. Many of these positions only exist because people have sacrificed their mental autonomy for what they thought was a compromise or a convenience. Sadly, the battle against the evil of humanity is a battle to the death, or to an existence many feel is unacceptable. It's funny because this has always been the case because the sanctioning of evil inevitably leads to death. It seems evil is showing us what is truly at stake when we allow it to exist; very, very ironic. Consider the choice African slaves had to make during the horrendous experience of being brought to America. Essentially Europeans offered them this choice, 'Come with us and you may live, or you can fight us and most likely die.' Think about what would have happened if every single African fought to the death. What would the slave traders have done? What could they do? The cost of capturing humans would have been too great. Many Africans fought to the death, and when captured, many Africans committed suicide, but not enough Africans made the choice to die rather than live a slave to stop the evil present in the minds of those Europeans.

Now let me say the evil that confronted Africans, and the evil that confronts the Sudanese in Darfur, and the evil that confronted the Jews in the 1940's, and the evil the confronted Cambodians in the 1970's is and was some of the most disturbing and powerful evil that can be confronted by a human being. The choice between life and, not just death, a horrible death, is one I cannot imagine. But, we know this choice is a reality because evil is now a perpetual element of human reality. Because of this we must strive to live life by principles we cannot live without; principles that, if sacrificed, would lead to an existence worse than the one brought to us by those who embrace evil.

Evil needs you. It needs you to be afraid so that you'll do what it says. It needs you to relinquish your judgment so that it can substitute its judgment. It needs you to say things are better with it in charge. Evil needs you to give up, but to keep on living so that it has a role. Evil will do whatever it takes to own you and control your reality, but it NEEDS YOU to do it. Many conversations about how to fix the world and humanity with my peers have lead to conclusion that there is no system designed to effectively discourage cheaters. It's only now that I realize what such a system would look like. It would be a reality where people's principles meant more to them than the prospect of living without them. Saying there is no system to prevent cheaters is a sad indictment on the moral fiber of humanity. Even worse, my peers are saying the depravity of humanity's moral fiber is irrecoverable. 'All it takes is one cheater and the whole system goes to shit' they say. I vehemently disagree. 'All it takes is one cheater and a large group of people that do not oppose such cheating for the whole system to go to crap'. How do stop of bully? You stand up to them, you show them you aren't afraid; that if they try to beat you up they may succeed, but you won't make it easy for them. A bully is made by those who don't fight back, those who give up their milk money without a fight. It's interesting that lessons from the playground are thought to be too simple for 'the real world'. Bullying tactics may become more sophisticated and certainly more brutal, but at the end of the day it comes down to this; fight or give up.

You may claim, like many of my peers do, that people faced with extreme evil do not have a choice. I think that short of total mind control this notion is a fallacy. What I suspect most people mean by the idea that people facing extreme evil don't have a choice is that they don't have a favorable choice or that they have a terrible choice. One of my favorite quotes from the Dune series is, 'You can die now or you can die later, this is the choice you always have and will always have' (this isn't a direct quote, I'm paraphrasing). Of course this is true, and while it's an unpleasant reality, it is a powerful one.

At its core evil is dependence and because of this evil can be destroyed. Unfortunately, to defeat evil it may require your own destruction or the destruction of something you love. Be prepared to die now; a human life finds it's value in the things it is willing to not live without. Do not betray these things should evil demand them. Evil has no right to them. Evil has gone far enough.