A Brother to Love and a Brother to Kill

“Follow the Golden Rule.” “Play nice.” “Treat others as you would like to be treated.” “Sharing is caring.” “If you don’t have something nice to say don’t say it at all.” Any of these phrases sound familiar? Good. Now, think quickly as to which persons you would actually be treating this way. Are your friends, family, and peers the ones who actually get treated kindly by you? Now think about who you would not treat fairly. Think about the groups of people where you might abandon the Golden Rule and replace it with a want to disgrace or destroy said group. Every society in history, no matter how much they may brag about being peace-loving, has had a group where it was perfectly alright to abuse. From Jews, Christians, Muslims, Communists, Fascists, slaves, untouchables, to (more modernly) terrorists, homosexuals, and prisoners, someone has always been acceptable to hate. Each of us has a person or a group of persons where we would suspend our ability to be civil and enjoy thrashing the “evil” group, verbally or physically. And most of the time the groups we are thrashing are villainized by being “affronts to your Deity,” “morally repugnant,” or “backwards and barbaric.” Even though we might love one fellow human being, someone else usually gets shafted by us at every opportunity we get.
This hate and competition is only natural. Mother Nature is not the kind gentle life-giver portrayed in children’s tales. She’s a sadistic psycho-bitch that creates the best contestants in life by killing the rest, but her results have been remarkable. From tiny pieces of polypeptides, to single-celled organisms, to fish, to mammals, to humans, she has made world-shapers from what was once a jumbled collection of molecules that wanted to self-replicate. Her methods are akin to trying to hit a target by putting on a blindfold and holding the trigger on a mini-gun whilst spinning in a circle. Sure most of the bullets miss, but eventually some will hit and those few that do are rewarded with the ability to pass on their genes to the next generation. In order for creatures to increase their chances of surviving and reproducing, they kill one another to get the most resources. A group of tigers don’t wait politely for a gazelle to die of natural causes; the lion fast enough and strong enough gets to slaughter the food, eat, and reproduce. Those that are slow and weak die off. This animalistic behavior is unfortunately still buried deep in the minds of humans. Nature has said to DNA: “Those who show the most aggression and strength will win my prize.” We let loose our violence and hatred in ways that range from debates to mass murder. Let’s face it, we are a violent species. In every war we find new ways of killing each other, and we have gotten very good at it. Our media doesn’t go a day without covering some sort of horrific, violent story, be it in the news or in a movie. Today’s morals however, do not allow those living in civilized countries from expressing their anger in any way at any group they please: you can’t just kill your neighbor because he has a bigger TV set than you do. Instead we choose from the list of peoples that our country, faith, or family has decided is sub-human. In the progressive nations the negative effects of this animalistic urge for violence can range from spousal abuse to working to undermine the basic freedoms of those you oppose (no gay marriages, no abortions, wire-tapping, etc.). In countries that are less stable and are not so civilized, the resulting fit of anger could cause mass genocide, as seen in Rwanda and Darfur. They can oppress an entire nation and make them unable to control or even protest against the government which holds such a firm grasp over their lives. It causes normal people to kill each other for small pieces of territory or over who has the best invisible friend (Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha, Elrond Hubbard, you name it).
Now not all hate is necessarily bad hate. There are ways for turning hate into something useful. We can do that through constructive competition where different ideas, services, and products battle against each other to see which one is best for the consumer. What would make this constructive in civilized nations as compared to unfair in other nations is the fact that in a constructive competitive environment you have no government corruption and limited government regulations that only cover consumer safety but do not hinder the businesses. Also, the competitors would not compete with, say, bombs or drive-by shootings. The competition would be limited to a strict and logical system of laws that would protect the competitors from different interests and from one another. You can also use hatred of the status quo to create revolutionary new ideas and movements. Scientific and literary movements were driven by this primal urge. Hate and love for violence can also be spent on non-fatal activities such as paintball, sports, or video games. You cannot stem all human violence because the basic parts of our brains are violent. Underneath our human brain are the reptilian brain and the mammalian brain which have Mother Nature’s cruel commands forever imprinted on them. You can, however, have hate and violence that helps the global society rather than slowly destroying it.
Now, let us discuss exactly why we want to move away from the mindless violence that nature uses to select the best brood. Why should we move away from something that has been so successful over the past billions of years? To start, humans have something nothing before us had: intelligence. Instead of killing each other to see which trait serves us best, we can logically deduce what is best for mankind. Even when we disagree, we can have smart debates and compromises that fit everyone’s needs. We can do this without shedding a single drop of blood. By allowing peaceful democratic pluralism, which lets all ideas that aren’t inherently violent (in a bad way) to coexist together, we can allow different people with different ideals ways to collaborate and constructively compete with one another in safety and progression. I could go on with how we are all really related to each other (our DNA is more than 99% the same) and how we should love one another, but you’ve heard all that before. Let’s take the other side for a second. What if you don’t really give a shit about your fellow man? What if you think sharing and caring is for “fags and weaklings” that should be knocked off the food chain? What if you think that Mother Nature knows best and if a person cannot survive in the world no matter their conditions or where they were born, then that person did not deserve to live? Well I’ve got good news: you too can hop in on the pro-peace bandwagon and still be as greedy and selfish as your black little heart desires. By turning destructive malevolence into progressive peace, you start a myriad of processes that increase every person’s welfare in life, including yours. By decreasing the power of oppressive governments, you increase the potential for businesses to rise, which boosts global economies and puts money in your wallet. By not having millions of people die from starvation, pestilence, and war, and then educating them, you create a giant new force of workers, inventors, and entrepreneurs. These people in turn create new consumer goods which you can enjoy and might create medical advances which save, extend, or increase the quality of your life. Oh, and one last kicker for the die-hard Social Darwinists: Mother Nature also rewards compassion. In a Harvard experiment done over a decade ago people felt better and received a boost in their immune system after watching a movie about Mother Theresa and her acts of caring and goodwill. So next time you see somebody on the ground, don’t put a boot in their ass. Help them out, and you end up helping yourself.

Popular Vigilance

Event: Democratic Debates at DrexelTaking a look around campus on the night of the debates, it looked like a three-ring circus. Instead of the normal flow of students, there were news vans, reporters, supporters, and protestors galore. There were so many people buzzing around. It was the center of attention that night and it brought students over like moths to a flame. In this sea of people, imagine what would have happened if someone brought a gun, and intended to make use of the event to kill as many people as they could.Now generally, the more people have access to something, the harder that it is to secure. For example, a small gathering of people in a private location is pretty easy to keep safe and secure. An event with participants and spectators numbering in the thousands in a location just about anyone can get close to, well; there are just too many factors for it to be 100% safe. However, nothing in our lives is 100% safe. We all know that we can make a wrong step on the curve and fall face-first onto skull-cracking concrete. Automobile accidents happen all the time, Mother Nature is unforgiving, and you could even be one of the three thousand adults that die from choking each year. Most of us go on with our lives without putting too much thought into all of the possible ways we can die. Most of us also don’t ask for laws requiring automobiles to be made out of Nerf, every single object to be completely weatherproof, and for every person to chew their food at least twenty times before swallowed. Then again we also don’t allow cars that randomly explode or houses that disintegrate when a drop of rain hits them. We ask for things to be reasonably designed, created, and managed. So, this all begs the question: what is reasonable? In the country that we live in now, the United States of America, we make products, rules, and procedures in accordance with the law. If you disagree with a law, you can start a movement to change it, and if your argument is strong enough and your movement successful enough, you may just be able to change the law. Until that time though we must all obey the laws currently instated. No other agency should be able to do anything that violates these laws. This is why I could never understand how “Gun-Free Zones” could ever be legal. The second amendment, one of the oldest laws we have and follow, gives citizens the right to bear firearms. Today’s laws incorporate procedures like background-checks and other things to make sure that a citizen is capable and responsible of owning and using a firearm. These are the laws that the government passed, and these are the laws everyone has to obey. If the law says that you may carry a gun, and a different institution says that you may not, it is the law that should be upheld. How can you be penalized for following the law? Well unfortunately people do get into trouble for following the law. Schools and universities across several states have set up rules that state no one can carry a firearm. This idea has good intentions, and while at first this may seem like an appropriate way to stem violence related to gun-crime, it really makes all violence, not just gun-related violence, easier to commit. When you post a sign that says “Gun-Free Zone,” you are posting a sign that says “No one here has firearm.” Both of those phrases say the exact same thing, but when you compare them you realize that “Gun-Free Zone” is a very over-advertised euphemism. So let’s analyze where criminals would logically want to commit a crime. Let’s start off with the theory that “most criminals would rather not be injured or killed.” Now, there are fundamentalists out there, especially the religious kind. Recent events have shown us that some individuals are so strongly committed to something that they would sacrifice their own lives for that cause. So, let’s change the theory to suit the facts: “Most criminals would rather not be hurt or killed. For those that do not fear death and/or expect death, they want to do as much damage and to progress their goals as far as they can before they die. No criminal wants to be stopped before they have accomplished what they plan to do.” Looking at this theory I see no gaping flaws or holes in it that would make most people say that it is a bad theory. Remember, we are a democracy, so we care about most people, not all people. Now, using this theory as a guide, we can say that criminals would want to commit crimes in places where they will not be hurt, killed, or stopped. It seems like these “Gun-Free Zones” match up with this perfectly. By not allowing law-abiding citizens (that were deemed capable of using a firearm by the law) to have a gun, you are telling people that you are safe to do your criminal acts here. Imagine if a sign on a company said “243 of the 250 employees here have firearms. Feeling lucky enough to guess who the 7 are that don’t?” Are the chances going to be high that someone is going to attempt an armed robbery at that company? I personally do not believe so. When looking at the Virginia Tech. shootings that happened not too long ago, what do you think would have happened if some of the students or if some of the teachers had a gun? Do you think that the shooting spree would have lasted nearly as long as it did? Do you think it would have ended with a suicide?I think most of us can generally agree that the “Founding Fathers” of the U.S.A had some good ideas. They used these ideas to create a stable, democratic government that has flourished for over two hundred years. So it is not too difficult to understand why we place the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights in such high positions. They were good for the people, and they were good for the government that was created of the people, by the people, and for the people. So whenever you have doubts about the Bill of Rights, and about the right to bear arms, remember this little quote by Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

A tyrannical Mind

When thinking of the word oppression, one might correlate it to some image of a person slaving away in a rice field, an Afghan woman dressed in a burkha, or a Jewish family imprisoned in a concentration camp. However, it is interesting to note that what all of these correlations have in common is that all of them are not self-imposed. While one might argue that since the definition of oppression is imposing cruel and unjust authority, there is nothing exceptional about this observation since it is assumed that such an exercise of power will come from an outside source. Unfortunately, this assumption is not a realistic one, since many people’s greatest obstacles in life come from the inhibitions they set for themselves. These inhibitions can end up serving as oppressive forces, similar to ones imposed by governments, which prevent people from living their lives. When comparing both forms of oppression, one will most definitely state that self-imposed, or personal oppression, does not even compare to the severity of the type imposed by governments and other outside sources. While this argument is true to some extent there is one word, when considered, explains why personal oppression is just as severe. This word is something that everyone desires. This word is the basis of power. This word is “control.” What makes self-imposed oppression so frightening is that it involves inhibitions that can be controlled by the person himself. If one loses control of their mind and falls victim to abstract views of him or herself, then they easily fall prey to outside oppressive forces, which unfortunately can not be controlled as easily. This possibility of losing control is a common fear for people. Therefore, people spend their entire lives trying to rid themselves of the oppressive forces lurking inside of their veins, all in order to gain control of their lives, because there is nothing that people want more than to be free.

The lengths to which people will go to in order to insure that this fear, of falling victim to self oppression, does not become a reality is a common theme for many American writers. While they may not all pursue the topic of oppression, such as in the Middle East, almost every author creates a character that at one point has to overcome some inhibition to free him or herself from self imposed oppression. There are various levels of inhibitions, with government oppression being the highest and most sever. Inhibitions can be evident on a personal level, such as the desire to attain confidence in order to escape a worthless image of oneself. This inhibition can burrow itself into a person’s spirit and become the force that propels his or her actions until death. While fearing one’s personal oppression is not as severe as considering government imposed oppression, it is still as powerful because without personal freedom, one is captured in a self-imposed image that prevents him or her from living life. What better character to relate this description to than Jay Gatsby from the novel “The Great Gatsby,” written by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Gatsby is a lonesome character who strips his life from his past and the people who truly love him, all in order to attain an image, which he believes, will free him from his personal sorrows. What Gatsby fears the most is not having control over his life, especially not being able to conform himself into the image which will make Daisy fall in love with him. This fear of living life without Daisy motivates him to attain a lifestyle of glamour and wealth, all in order to please the love of his life. For Gatsby, money is the key that unlocks him from his oppressed view of himself, because he reasons that only with money he will be able to end up with Daisy.

Fitzgerald did not blindly chose to sculpt a character that uses money as a means to attain freedom from self imposed oppression; he chose money because he lived in a time where people correlated money with entrances to various possibilities in life. Having a series of open doors is simply a way to insure that one will have the freedom of choice. Gatsby understood this concept all too well, which is why he chose a life of unhappiness, filled with wealth, because by gaining a fortune he at least had the possibility of ending up with Daisy. Otherwise, Gatsby would have remained locked up in his world of poverty with no entrance to Daisy’s heart, since the key to her heart is money. This scenario, although fictional in context, is not fictional at all because it depicts the measures that people will take to free themselves from their personal inhibitions. Unfortunately, like Gatsby, many people’s inhibitions are money as well.

This scenario is all too common for people today because no one wants to have only one possible road to take in life. Having one road is characteristic of living in Afghanistan where the government dictates what one can do with his or her future. Money, on the other hand, can open up many doors, which might not be as necessary today, is still extremely beneficial. People are inclined to correlate money with safety, whether it is physical, emotional, or financial, because it is a means of entrance into almost anything. With money one can buy an expensive house, hire a body guard, and marry the person who would under normal circumstances never look at them. Therefore, people spend their entire lives trying to attain wealth because it ensures a lifestyle filled with choices and safety from oppression.

Oppression is a common fear shared by all people. No one wants to be bound up by any means, whether physical, mental, or emotional. Therefore, people as a whole are inclined to do everything in their power to insure that they have control of their lives. The first step in gaining control is ridding oneself of mental visions, which can prevent one from living a normal life. If these visions are not controlled, then the person can easily become a victim of more serious forms of oppression and end up slaving away in a rice field.

From my heart, or from my mind?

I recently attended a Community Service Center, whose name I will not mention, and did my share of making the world a better place to live. Alright I will pause here for a second. Although I consider myself a decent human being, I am not the kind that cares about trees and the bees. I am more realistic kind of person and believe that community service should be completely voluntary and should come from the heart in order to make a difference in life.
So, do you think that I got up at seven thirty on the first chilly Saturday morning, right before final week just because I love working for the community? Yes, I think we are going to agree on this question. My community service was required in order to pass my University 101 class, and the class was required in order to graduate. So I guess I had no choice, but to be a philanthropic human being and serve my duty. When I was told we are going to the retirement center, I thought that we are going to serve them lunch, sit in some cozy and warm room and chat or play cards with the elder people and make their day a little bit nicer. Well I was wrong! When we got there we found out that the organizations from the retirement center actually wanted us to rake the leaves of the front yard and back yard and put them in bags. I do not want to sound like some coldhearted person, but aside from the fact that it was early in the morning it was 36 degrees and the yards were huge! We hardly finished the front yard and we had over 50 bags. One kid’s arm even started to bleed. I bet he felt satisfied with his service! After we finished with the front yard, we had to serve lunch to the elder people, which I was completely fine with. After serving for a while in a restaurant, I did not revolt anymore from touching strangers’ food or dishes. Doing their silverware is a whole different story! If there are any body fluids involved, you can not blame for being disgusted. Well the kitchen chef did make me do it after all, but there was a kid putting the dishes in the dishwasher; another one burned his hand taking them out of there and I saw a guy scrubbing the dirty plates, so I guess I got away pretty easy.
My community service experience was helpful after all. I started thinking of all the good things that service provides and how much more could have been done. So I started thinking about the people who participate in community service and their motivations to do so. I could not help but wonder; do we like to think of ourselves as better human beings than we actually are? Do we in fact like to help each other or do we want others to think that we are caring? I do not think that people who voluntary community service do it because they like to wash dishes. There are only two reasons that motivate them; because they want to make somebody’s life easier and better or because it will look better on their resume and job applications.
Society restricts our freedom of choosing to do community service by making it a recruitment of well rounded personality. All my friends included a list of voluntary work in their college applications. All of the sudden they all started to work for Red Cross in their senior year of high school. The government always starts to worry about injured and poor right before elections!
While raking the leaves I was listening around to other people’s conversations and there was one sentence that repeated in almost every single one of them: “I hope they will run out of bags finally”. So I guess I am not the only one who felt forced to clean somebody’s back yard. I would bet that 90% of the students who did community service this year would have not done it unless it was required. I guess this is the point of it being mandatory. Will forcing people to do good though, improve them as humans because they did something helpful to others, or will it make them worse because they did not want to?
I think that the public opinion forces people to act as they cared of the well being of the word. And doing something good because you feel obligated to would not make any difference. If people really did care they would use public transportation to save the Ozone layer. They would use less perfume. People would buy hybrid cars and actually use the hybrid option instead of pumping them up with gas. Years ago scientist invented a cheaper and less harmful substitutions of gas, but they never really came to the market because it would harm somebody’s wallet. If people really cared they would stop cutting down forests and recycle all the paper we already have in our homes. Instead of taking care of the world we live in, we wait for disasters to happen and then donate money to show that we are philanthropic. In the county I was born, there is a saying that “most of the good done in the world is done to hide something bad that has already been done.
Have you read one of those articles about a new governor, big movie star of a singer that recently donated some huge amount of money to the poor children in Africa? I have always wondered how there have never been articles, written about some normal people that donated money. These articles remind me of the movie “Ocean’s thirteen” and the interview of Terry Benedictd /Andy Garcia/ in Oprah’s show after the rest of the band had donated their money without his permission.
Lets be honest, there is this public opinion that drives people to do good things. I am not saying that there are no good people out there who would sacrifice their own well-being in the name of the common good. I just think that the majority of the people are a little bit selfish and are driven by some unstated society rules rather then their own soul. May be if the society did not make people feel obligated to help, they would act more like humans less like actors.