There’s the label and then the meanfulness of it

so there is the political and then there’s the personal:

and really, the personal is political

 

lead an examined life as an experiment – just make sure you’re the designer and not the lab rat.

Canada vs America

I’ve long thought that the difference between Canada and the US could be understood by looking at our historical heroes.

In Canada, the frontier heroes were the North West Mounted Police, who later morphed into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and in the United States, the frontier heroes were the gunslingers.

I took a simplified understanding and drew the conclusion that Canadians are not only law and order but group oriented thinkers, which is why Canada is far more liberal than the US to the degree that the average Canadian conservative remains far left to the most extremely left American Democrat.

But I think I was wrong, America is far more law and order and group oriented than Canada – but not group in a we’re all one group and in this together like Canada is – but rather America is about groups with hard edges and all jockeying for position against the other groups.

The United States of America is not like Canada and her provinces – Canada is a country that is organized into provinces and territories, whereas the USA is more states that have aligned themselves in a federation of shared interests, each their own sovereignty in a meaningful way.

While America can band together in an all for one like fewer other countries when the cause is just – and the last such cause was World War II – America is a land of the individual as supreme in a way no other country views the individual. But, the rugged law unto themselves gunslingers of the frontier days to the gangbanger of today – and really, the outlaw biker, gansta, bang ganger, criminal  is the modern manifestation of the gunslinger – is hardly an isolationist hermit, but a person deeply involved in their family, their extended criminal family and their ethnic community.

Because the state or city police forces are pitted against minority communities, the members of these communities are more likely to turn to organized criminals as the enforcers of justice, for protection, for law and order services and in return, the law abiding communities will protect the criminals as their own, because they are their own. Minority members can expect more honour and decent treatment from organized criminals than from local police who view all minorities with mistrust and as suspicious.

In the US, the frontier fays mentality of you have what holdings you have because you staked a claim, cleared the land and defended it against all others – be they aboriginals or claim jumpers or corrupt law officers beholden to wealthier claim holders. Legal justice was for those who could afford it.

One of my all time favorite movie lines was from Cat Ballou – a Jane Fonda sex kitten singing cowboy romp wherein her father is being bullied by the township to sell his farm to make way for the railroad and prosperity for the town – with her father to be the sole person taking the hit for the team or everyone else who will benefit – by way of explaining the injustice to her own hired gunslinger hand, Cat proclaims that first they put manure in her fathers well and worse “made him talk to lawyers.”

A line that underscores the lack of trust in the legal system and those who operate within it, because the legal system is complicated and slow – far less satisfying than hiring a gunslinger to defend your land or self or plain dispense frontier justice on your enemies. Criminal justice is swift and efficient and emotionally satisfying in a way that legal wrangling that is complex, slow and often doesn’t result in emotional satisfaction or anything approaching justice – people often settle or plea bargain or walk away just to be done with the process with the fewest lumps and bruises. The so called corrective process is often more psychologically scarring than the incidents that triggered it, which is why women often do not report being raped – bad enough to be raped, but to then have to prove it and not be believed or worse, be told it wasn’t rape at all and watch the perp walk away as if vindicated.

Taking the law into your own hands – either directly or by hiring someone – becomes understandable, almost forgivable if not supportable in the right circumstances. Many people related to the Subway Vigilant in New York City after he shot a few intimidating thugs – even if it was in the back as they ran away from him when he showed the would be muggers that he was armed – there was even a few people who very much related to the two Columbine shooters as being powerless geeks who were mad as hell and unwilling to take it anymore thus employing the short cut of being infamous to become famous – rather than the longer and less certain path of talent and hard work.

But, this is where to me the line between American and Canadian kicks in. Where perhaps the line between conservative and liberal thinking kicks in.

First, not to say that “these things” do not happen in Canada. When I first heard of the 10 women shot in the engineering school, I thought, where in the US did that happen and was so shocked that I had to pull the car over when the radio repeated the news story and said it was in Montreal. Then there was the Ontario Bus company and a BC provincial employee in Kelowna. Workplace violence, the first was a victim of bullies and the second was a bully about to be taken to account and fired – both situations had multiple stages and warning signs, all ignored and not acted upon and the inevitable under the circumstances and the personalities involved occurred.

But in the USA, there’s hundreds of school and workplace shootings, by men and women and in Canada, they remain thankfully rare. Well, limited thankfully, the suicide rate for bully victims of schoolyard or workplace or process bullies is too high.  The victims of process bullies are generally injured people who are unable to have the motor vehicle or workers compensation claims processed and the chronic pain and lack of settlement drives them to end their misery.

But what is it that makes Canadians seem more prone to suicide and Americans more prone to suicide by cop or by themselves after taking out other people?

A friend told me that he was driving late at night on an Alberta country road and a badger was caught in the headlights of the pick up truck. Badgers are ornery and tough creatures and my friend swears that it seemed like the badger knew that it wasn’t going to escape the truck because, instead of trying to flee or curl up defensively, it bunched itself up and launched at the truck bearing down, too fast to break and the truck ground to a halt – the badger dead and embedded through the grill and into the radiator, having taken the truck out with it.

Are Americans just of the mentality that they are going to take their tormentors out with them?

That because they cannot be sure of relying on the state or city law or the legal system, that they must retain the frontier mentality and be the law unto themselves?

I have always been confused by the portrayal in movies, TV and the news, of gangsters, mobsters and so forth, all being deeply religious people – yet, business is one thing and religion seems to be another. There is a cognitive dissonance, until you consider the history of religion, the blood soaked, corrupt, child molesting, crusading and genocidal history of religions and somehow the dissonance between organized crime and organized religion fades away. The mistrust of civil secular authority fades away and becomes comprehendible.

People assert that they only have to answer to deities in order to not have to answer to other people or to themselves. To ignore secular civil law and assert your own law, where you judge yourself by your intention and not your actions or their outcomes – like secular law does.

The gangster is after all, just supporting their family and protecting their extended family and community from those outsiders who don’t understand and are not part of the community. It’s not their problem if other people’s kids want to use drugs or buy illegal weapons to use on each other. It’s just business, their god gets that. The gangster’s morality is conservative – it’s about purity (often ethnic purity but sometimes sexual), it’s about authority (be it divine or arising from who’s holding the gun), it’s about group loyalty – and loyalty to authority is king and a kingmaker. Harm and fairness, measured response that’s for someone else to worry about. What’s not nailed down is mine and what I can pry loose wasn’t nailed down.

In this thinking, then taking a person’s life isn’t a big deal, god sorts them out, and the life taker is just helping with god’s plan. Life is short and just a dress rehearsal anyway.

It is harder, much harder for a liberal thinker, a free thinker a non-religious thinker to cause harm to another person, especially to take their life – the only life that we can know that any of us get. Harm and fairness are the basis for our morality and there is nothing more harmful and less fair than depriving a person of their life, especially knowing that any person is connected to a myriad of other people who care and love and are interdependent on them.

Seeing ourselves as an individual of consequence, a person who has and makes meaning and connections with other individuals, it is difficult then to justify frontier or vigilante or criminal justice – no matter the emotional and instant satisfaction – the longer term distress it would cause would drive a person mad to understand the harm that this instant gratification dispensing of justice would cause. A harm you can never make amends for, not even your own death, since that creates more waves of harm among your own loved ones.

So, with harm being off the table, the liberal, free thinking individual is left with the slow, complicated and often unjust corrective process and legal system that other people spurn as unjust, unwieldy, unfair and generally stacked against them.

Which leaves the free thinking individual only one option – to hold the system accountable until justice is served – to be an activist for social justice – and not only be the change you want to see in the world, but the karmic backlash that brings it about.

To be a martyr is a way that saints could never hope to approach – given that they suffered the slings and arrows – literally sometimes – with the expectation of being rewarded in the ever after – and to suffer the slings and arrows, to take it until you literally can take no more with only the faint hope of making a difference without an afterlife reward and not even a guaranteed reward in this life – but for the sake of doing the right thing by yourself and other people who are less able to take a principled stand, even in their own defense and assertion of personal sovereignty and dignity….that is to understand morals – right and wrong – in a way that those who merely follow the rules or make up their own to justify what they are doing or willing to do for the appearance of power or mere brutal power arising from position or circumstances or from faulty deities and corrupt representatives on earth – to stand in rightness without reward – that is grokking morality and rocking the world.

Revolution, not tradition, is what makes the world to be as it should.

The religious martyr east-west divide

If you aren’t prepared to die for what you believe in, you don’t deserve to live

In the mid 1980’s on a school field trip from Chilliwack, a rural community, to Vancouver, the comparative Big City, I saw those words were hand lettered in white on the back of a denim jacket worn by a punk rocker.

Most of the other teens – the school was primarily cliques of head bangers and goody two show kids – on the field trip, made ooo and ahhh cat calls in complete non-comprehension and likely more to do with the fact of the young man being a punk rocker than the sentiment on his back.  I sat frozen, looking at the words and absorbing them very deeply. When you’re a teenager, everything feels epic, life and death, but you don’t really have a sense of what those concepts really mean. Or what if anything, you believe in, never mind what would be worth dying for. Dying was for old people; except….. my favorite movie at that time, was TAPS, starring Tim Hutton and pre-Ridgemont High Sean Penn and introducing Tom Cruise as three military students who lead a student revolt against the closure of their school – to disastrous and predictable conclusion of romanticizing the death of youths for a cause greater than oneself.

This idea of martyrdom continues to hold sway, people who die for religion are made into saints, religions demand sacrifice of supporters and promise eternal afterlife rewards for those who die in service or at least, when taking out the enemies of religion.

In American, religious zealots are less willing to die themselves but are often fairly open to taking out those who they see as betrayers or enemies – shooting abortion doctors right inside their own community church if need be. The American zealots tend to prefer to live to kill more another day, but when they do end up dying, it’s more likely suicide by cop during a shooting event than taking their own life. Suicide being a sin for which you burn in hell, and apparently this is not balanced against the good of protecting the unborn by the murder of a medical doctor.

As if forcing a police officer into killing you is somehow different than doing it yourself….. might as well take up extreme sports as the avoid hell loophole to suicide and not traumatize another person.

Whereas, Islamic zealots are more the hands on martyrs, strapping on a bomb belt and detonating in the crowd – even though sometimes, they only manage to take out themselves – we have to give them kudos for being fully committed in a way that makes North American Zealots look like they are phoning it in.

Not that there’s anything remotely admirable about being a martyr or, for that matter a criminal. The admiration in American culture for the gunslingers, mobsters, gangsters, outlaw bikers and gangstas is on the same wavelength as admiration for saints and martyrs. They are all the same spectrum of rule breaking outsider who’s become romanticized in pulp fiction, movies and video games.

They are an archetype that fulfills the fantasy of rule breaking freedom, being the law unto yourself, to be the power or to be the one fighting the power. The reality is far short of the fantasy.

Criminals are no different than businessmen, they are in it for the prestige and the cash, the power and influence, one through force and the other through cunning. Their respective criminality and anti-social behavior is only limited by the scope of their reach – and businessmen have a far greater reach than criminals – organized or otherwise – as businessmen who put stockholders above employees, customers, financial institutions and the environment do far more damage to society than the most violent of criminals can hope to.

Criminals, be they in legitimate or underground business, are related to the zealot martyrs, in that they often feel entitled by a higher call or by some quirk of birth or force of personality, to be above or beyond the rules that apply to mortal and lesser men. To be rule makers unto themselves.

Hmmm, putting it that way – the dictator/politicians, criminal/business, outlaws and zealots are really the same spectrum of anti-social disorders. Especially with the recent revelation that many if not most American Republicans believe that they are called by god to run for office and that dictators assure their populaces that they are themselves divine – but never in a fun campy way, always the creepy religious way.

To some degree, the mentality of “live fast, die young” explains the willingness of criminals to accept life as brutal and short, to live and die in service of the gang or larger community, is no different than a person who is a religious martyr, who either dies as part of an assault on their religious foes or in self-sacrifice in self-immolation as a form of protest.

Western secular zealots are less self-sacrificing than their eastern counterparts generally, again, preferring to not be caught or to be killed by police or by the state after a media saturated trial. The most horrifying fate for the western murderous zealot would be to be caught and endure life in obscurity and prison; without even a made for TV movie to explain their crusade.

Perhaps if we could understand the nuance between a zealot willing to self-sacrifice and one who is only willing to sacrifice others, we could identify the thought process that allows a person to sacrifice life in the name of ideology.

The willingness to die for causes has traditionally been thought linked to the degree of economic participation and freedoms one had in their respective society.

For bigoted reasons, the 9/11 hijackers changed this idea – suicide bombers where thought of as disaffected, disengaged young men – but the 9/11 hijackers were middle aged, married and many with children and professional career credentials. Most of them were engineers by training and trade. The increase in female suicide bombers also flies in the face of convention.

I say for bigoted reasons, because Timothy McVeigh was middle class and employed and he looked and could have been anyone. Homespun terrorists hit too close to home to analyze perhaps, much easier to hand wring and wonder about the truth when we don’t have to examine ourselves too closely.

People are something in between herd and pack animals – we like just enough structure to provide a consistent and stable framework, but we also like our individuality and some freedom from restrictive social roles (gender or socio-economic). Collectively, anyway, some people reveal in anarchy and others rejoice in rigidity. To each their own comfort level, but most of us in the middle spectrum like these two extremes in some balance or variability – it maintains our illusion of not only freedom, but free will.

Aside: Here’s a terrible thought, what if the only true expression of free will is choosing to die?

It all comes down to what do you value, or, as the punk rocker wrote, what you believe in.

Do you believe in yourself or do you only credit you with value when you are in service or attached to something bigger?

I think that if you are not enough to assign value to, you have no option but to glom onto something bigger, be it religion, politics, sub-culture, anti-culture or social movement. But, by casting yourself in a supporting role, you become vulnerable to exploitation by people who have no problem with their own self worth and often will fall prey to people with the opposite problem – those who value themselves as better than everyone else.

Leaders of movements have dupes, pawns, toadies, hangers on, minions and disaffected fanatics to do the sacrificing.

It’s never the leaders of any movement who self-immolate or strap on a bomb belt – when the leaders of a movement die, it’s usually a result of either their own over-indulgence with drugs/alcohol or in a doomsday cult mass murder/suicide when the legal authorities come knocking and blaring music and blazing gunfire.

It doesn’t matter how much education or professional accreditation or career accomplishments or families one has, without self-worth, there can be no value or worth inherent in these accomplishments and connections. Without valuing yourself, you have no value to transfer or put into accomplishments or connections; and instead, seek external validation to convey worth and value to your person.

It seems to me, that in addition to fluoride to compensate for the state of dental hygiene, that the government may wish to add anti-depressants to the water. Except that governments of any kind prefer a compliant and only marginally disaffected population who feels bad enough to console themselves through shopping therapy, but not bad enough to get out and vote or revolt.

We find meaning and purpose when we are connected to other people, to the community and we can economically participate and contribute to the world. But this cannot be our only source of value – we have to value ourselves in order for other people to value our contributions and to value ourselves.

Individuals are the basic part that make up the larger blocks of family, friends, colleagues (packs), demographic groups (herds), and segments of society (hives). We are the parts that form the sum, and must in turn, be enhanced as a part by the resultant sum. It is not enough that we contribute, but our contribution must be honored and recognized uniquely.

By us being a part and merely feeding the machine without recognition and enhancement, without that feedback  balance, it is little wonder then, that maladaptive and anti-social behaviours emerge, and eventually, bites the hand that has stopped feeding them.