Q's (No A's)

In the almost three years of this weekly endeavor, my main objective has been to initiate a discussion in the setting of your choice. Whether the dining room table with friends and family or the lunch room with coworkers, without the exchange of ideas and exploration of possibilities there is little hope for progress.

With that in mind, today I ask questions, but offer no answers. I leave that to you, dear readers, in the hope that you’ll reintroduce or at least reinvigorate the passion in your conversations. Expect nothing but question marks from here.

How can Congress pass laws that do not apply to its members?

Why do we, the voters, consider only two parties when choosing our elected representatives? Is there a substantive difference any longer?

How can we advance as a society when more and more of our citizens are left behind economically, intellectually, and medically?

How much money is enough?

What is an acceptable unemployment rate?

What is a fair tax?

How do we win the war on drugs?

Should public service (politics) be a career?

If hetero, Is gay sex cheating? And, if gay, is hetero sex cheating?

Should there be a mandatory two year national service commitment for all?

Do corporations have a morale responsibility to society? If not, should they?

Is government oversight necessary to ensure a clean environment, safe drugs, or untainted food?

Does the fact that America is the only industrialized country not providing a level of health care to its citizens mean that the rest of the industrialized world is socialistic?

If you regard your life as a success, did you succeed without help?

If you regard your life as a failure, is there someone else to blame?

Is voting for the winner more important than voting for principle?

Should election day be expanded to encompass several days? If so, how many and which ones?

Should there be a specified campaign season?

Should there be a specified Christmas season?

Is the Post Office becoming obsolete?

Are e-cards as personal as traditional ones?

Which has more control over our daily lives: the President or Congress?

Are children more undisciplined or are parents more permissive?

Does a citizen have a real-world need for an assault rifle?

How is “special interest group” defined and what makes up the membership?

Are wars necessary? If so, how is winning a war defined?

Does the TSA make air travel safer?

Should government workers be forbidden from unionization? If so, how is “government” defined?

Should strikes be outlawed?

Which is more important: convenience or accomplishment?

Who should provide seed money for new, unproven technologies?

Do computers, smart phones, etc. control us or do we control them?

Would you rather text, email, talk on the phone, or meet face-to-face?

Where do the bullets go when shot in the air by rejoicers?

Wow! It’s amazing what comes to mind when only considering the Q’s. I’m sure that some A’s will crop up in the various conversations we find ourselves daily. While the particular answer may be meaningful, even more important is the dialogue that brings it about. Notice the rise in heart rate and how good you feel when moving beyond requisite small-talk? Have fun and let me know what answers you find.

Violent Times

The occurrence of multiple homicides at the hand of a lone gunman seem to be getting more and more frequent. ABC news, in Friday’s World News telecast, stated that 53 mass shootings had occurred within the past month. Something’s amiss, folks, and it’s high time to get our arms around it.

The authorities would have us believe that each and every shooter is a whack job that has gone off the deep end. I think we can all agree that the deep end has, in fact, been left behind, but I have a problem with the whackiness factor. Those that would have us believe that everything is normal, except for our gunman du jour, are serving nothing more than their own best interests. To declare a deeper, more troubling message implying that there are societal forces at work might lead the general population to question the status quo and we simply cannot afford to risk that, can we? (“We” being those same powers-that-be that have risen to their positions of authority through that same status quo.)

Look back over the last few days, or weeks, and think of how many meaningful conversations you’ve had with anyone at all. By “meaningful”, I mean something other than, “How ya doin?” and by “conversation”, I mean exactly that: verbal communication (preferably in person, but I’ll accept a phone call). Not many, I’d say, because we simply do not take the time required for such activity or turn away from the chance based on fears of reprisal. Many of us work in cubicles while others telecommute. Others drive to work alone and get home at an hour that prevents them from jawing with the neighbor over the back fence. But still, there are opportunities, aren’t there? The company lunch room, public transit, waiting for the light to change at the street corner. Not much talking going on there anymore, is there? No, because we’ve all become afraid of the very same whack job that went to work last week and shot up the office. Throw in the potential for political incorrectness and you’ve got the perfect recipe for silence. It’s safer you know. That way no one gets pissed off. So we’re now left alone with our thoughts and have little chance of validating our hopes and fears by comparing notes with our neighbors, be they co-workers, the guy next door, or another passenger on the bus. And without that validation, we lose the strength of our convictions.

Historically, the “system” has saved us from desperation. The ability to address inequities in the workplace, legal recourse, and social programs have prevented many from proceeding to that point of no return where suicide is one’s last and seemingly best option. But the system is broken. Corporate immorality removes the hope of timely resolution among employees. The courts are backlogged to the point where potential success is outweighed by the time and money required to achieve it. And other forms of social safety nets are badly frayed in terms of budgets and manpower.

So we end up with someone who has lost conviction and self assurance through isolation and a system that fails to address valid concerns. The perfect storm of desperation. No faith, no hope, and no chance of justice. Ludicrous becomes logic; sanity seems silly. And this level of desperation has often led to suicide. That’s nothing new, but now the name of the game is to take someone with you on your way out. What’s up with that?

Take one person who has lost all faith in the system, themselves, and any people once-dear to the heart. There is no reason to try any longer because the only outcome will be failure, so let’s just end it all. Add to that the 21st century motto of “it must be someone else’s fault” and, bingo, you’ve got a recipe for mass murder. “My life sucks. My boss just fired me. My wife just left me. It ain’t my fault so it must be their fault and if I’m going down, they’re going down, too.” Not a pretty picture, is it? Well, I didn’t try to paint one, either.

So how do we climb out of this box? Well, for one thing, we make the attempt to enter into meaningful dialogue with any one at any time. We worry less about offending and care more about sharing thoughts and ideas. And we get involved in keeping an eye on whatever powers-that-be suit our fancy (god knows there’re enough to go around). We regain that conviction that kept one sane foot on the floor in trying times and hold other feet to the fire for failing to maintain the various and sundry support systems we all need at some point in our lives.

And, if we can do that to some degree, we might just lose that sense of isolation, take on a bit of accountability, and turn the corner towards a more involved and self-assured society. Will there still be public massacres? Probably, but I’d say the inclination to resort to such extreme measures would diminish as higher levels of faith, hope, and confidence were attained.