Seeking Answers

We always had security guards at the schools where I taught. Of course, these were high schools, and they were there mostly to intervene when problems occurred within rather than to protect from outsiders. But it worked well. The security guards that I have known were almost like extra counselors. They knew the students. liked them, and were liked and respected by them.

Alice's question brings back something that has been on my mind about this shooting from the beginning.

In most of the school shootings that I can think of, the shooters were actual students, enrolled at the time. It's one of the reasons that they don't happen at elementary schools - or didn't.

This young man had not been a student at the school for some time, but he had been when he was much younger. One of the questions I would like an answer for is what happened to him there when he was attending classes?

He must not have had fond memories

We don't want a bunch of George Zimmerman's though!

Great post, as always, Abe.

I agree with Don and E. Don.

We don't need new laws, though I would no oppose a ban on assault weapons and meaningful background checks for handgun purchasers. The usual media frenzy that follows these senseless and all-too-frequent criminal acts revive the old debate with, for the most part, the same tired and incorrect arguments that can be distilled to "guns are at the cause of the problem" and "if everyone had a gun there would be no problem." Both arguments are equally foolish. But the (over-the-top, irresponsible, relentless) media attention for days-on-end makes one thing clear to all would-be copycats: Do the unspeakable and you will be famous for far longer than the fifteen minutes of fame any of us can ever expect to garner by a lifetime of bland, boring accomplishments or any number of good deeds that do not bleed and therefore will never lead the local or national news.

For me, the real cause of the runaway violence that we experience today--and not just in the U.S.--is the erosion of the respect for law, and a pathological fear of offending anyone by judging even the most heinous, antisocial, and criminal acts as "wrong," let alone "evil." We are laying in the uncomfortable bed of relativistic ethics we made for ourselves in the "anything goes" 1960s. It has spawned legions of rebels without a clue and megalomaniacal hedonists with IQs that would accurately label them as mildly to severely retarded had the term not been abolished in favor of a kinder gentler euphemism.

We are a country in denial about a great many things, including our individual responsibility for the miserable state of affairs we find ourselves in. Given a choice between a feel-good lie and the hard truth, we invariably choose the feel-good lie. We train our children to expect that they will get a trophy simply for showing up, tell them that they can be anything they want in this world and blame anyone but ourselves when the world cuts them down to size and rewards them in accordance with their actual worth--and never, ever gives them a trophy for just showing up or even for just doing a good job.

We live in the land of Oz and ignore the very real damaging winds of the twisters the world naturally and frequently throws our way, as though clicking our ruby slippers and reciting some imbecillic mantra will make it all come out right in the end.

We blame the whole world when we fail to reach the lofty, insanely unrealistic goals we set for ourselves with neither a clue as to how go about attaining them nor a prayer of ever making them come to pass. If you can't read, write, think clearly or do math but you want to be a physicist, some well meaning fool will encourage you to by all means, follow your dream. And when you flunk out of Feel Good High (or Feel Good U, for that matter) they will shake their heads and tell you that it was not your fault. Society failed you; you were treated unfairly; it was the color of your skin, your sex, sexual orientation, religion or acne that caused others to discriminate against you, or perhaps it was the fact that you are too fat/tall/short/thin/ugly/pretty. You failed because the deck was stacked against you, the dice loaded by the privileged class unwilling to give you your due. Who can blame you for your righteous rage at a world unwilling to genuflect at your obvious greatness?

Sadly and just as tragically, most young people set up to fail by parents, teachers, guidance counselors and social workers afraid to hurt their self esteem by discouraging them from pursuing an unrealistic career goal as a physicists/brain surgeons/lawyers/doctor rob them of the opportunity at a highly successful, respected and profitable career as an automobile mechanic/plumber/welder/carpenter/mason in which they could have acquired significant wealth, the respect that comes from true accomplishment and the priceless gift of perhaps working at something the love and are actually good at for the rest of their working lives. Now there is something for all of us to get really angry about.

Thanks Victor. You wrote what I feel.
I think our society shuns the truth. We have so often heard that "The truth hurts" that we resort to telling a lie in order to appease and not hurt. I think hurting often provides lessons we won't forget. Being political correct has evolved from our fear of offending or hurting. We are beginning to realize that being nice hurts rather than helps.
I was once asked the question: "Would you rather be liked or respected?" I think we all want both, but if there is a choice, I will opt for respect. There are many people who we call friends, that are fun-loving, but we just don't respect them.
A tough leader may not be liked, but respected.

It is time for truth and that includes the media, i.e., Fox News. Those of us who post on this forum are often reluctant to say what we feel. We don't want to offend. I'm not talking about those who want to deliberately antagonize, they are easily exposed. Those I respect, I accept their criticism. Those whose intent is to antagonize, I try to ignore.

The NRA's answer to all this is: We need more guns, not less. I think they're nuts. What we need more of is family values, respect for authority. It starts in the home. It begins with each of us. Tell it like it is even if it hurts.
Just an opinion from an old Codger.

Living in Prison

Is America becoming a prison? We have gated communities with guards. We have guards posted when entering business establishments and now we want guards at all schools. There are those that want to build a wall to prevent people coming into the country. Could that be reversed and eventually keep people from getting out?
We call our country the land of the free. What does that mean?
Prisoners are confined behind bars and are safe. Imagine arming the prisoners. Are we becoming a self-imprisoned country with each inmate armed to the teeth? What comes next?

People visiting America comment on this form of life and can’t imagine living in this manner. For the most part, they feel secure where they live without the need of weapons for self-protection. What does that say about our society?

In America, many are living in fear and many of their fears are real. They fear the loss of a job or the ability to earn a living. Many seniors fear the loss of their entitled income and the loss of health care. And then there are those who fear violence when stepping outside their homes. The simple chore of going shopping can place them in danger.

In my opinion, the more we arm the public, the more guards that are posted, the more we become prisoners.

Prisoners of our own making.

It's "The Masque of the Red Death"
http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Edgar_Allan_Poe/The_Masque_of_the_Red_Death/The_Masque_of_the_Red_Death_p1.html

Poe's short story about Prince Prospero, who gathered his friends and the members of his court and took them all to a private palace to avoid being exposed to the plague. While everyone outside was dying, the members of Prosper's court did nothing but party. They had no feeling or concern for the "rabble" outside. Behind their walls, they, the select few, were safe - or so they thought.

Quote :

The external world could take care of itself. In the meantime it was folly to grieve, or to think. The prince had provided all the appliances of pleasure. There were buffoons, there were improvisatori, there were ballet-dancers, there were musicians, there was Beauty, there was wine. All these and security were within. Without was the "Red Death".

It didn't work. Death, in the form of the plague, found them out.

It's a parable about what happens when the privileged few turn their backs on those who are in need, or for when some of the people decide they have a right to hoard the treasure or to escape from the effects of causes of actions they themselves brought about.

It's what inevitably happens when the rich separate themselves out and turn their backs on the poor and underprivileged.

The revellers are like Eliot's "Hollow Men," "headpieces stuffed with straw" - no substance.

Quote :

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang, but a whimper.

The world is changing. We can accept that and be a part of it, or we can hide behind our protective walls and refuse to take part. But the changes cannot be stopped or reversed, and our hidden fortresses will eventually be found.

Quote :

And now was acknowledged the presence of the Red Death. He had come like a thief in the night. And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.

It's our choice: Embrace the changes and trust the future or cling to an outdated perspective of reality and crumble away with it.

We have not yet evolved to a point where we can "beat our swords into plowshares" and we will not, so long as our attention is focused on protecting ourselves from an outside evil.

One thing I remember about that small town where I grew up: The wealthier families lived in the same neighborhoods as the rest of the residents. Their houses might have been a little larger, and the furnishings inside a little grander, but we were all part of the same community, and the wealthy took an active part in seeing to it that we had up-to-date schools for all children and places of worship that inspired us to be a part of the same caring community.

Of course, you will have to have armed guards in every church in the land, as well:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251849/Pennsylvania-church-shooting-leaves-4-dead-2-injured-happened-NRA-press-conference.html

Everyone is buying guns. I think it wiser to sell them.

I'm speechless. The things I would/could say would be lashing out at insane actions.

Abe,

Count me as an old codger too! I think I became one at the ripe old age of 13.

Ann,

We often frame the issue of violence in the context of social justice. certainly that context cannot be ignored and may well be an important contributing factor to the problem. But "It's what inevitably happens when the rich separate themselves out and turn their backs on the poor and underprivileged" is not the root of the problem here. The root of the French revolution, yes. (Although we all know what happened when all the privileged "rich" were beheaded and the rabble took over bringing about a reign of terror that only a despot like Napoleon could finally control.) The root of the violence in America's streets, no. One need not travel far to see true poverty, squalor, and insurmountable divisions of class--but we do not see that here. The problem is not the downtrodden expressing their righteous indignation, but the lawless and fearless whose only moral compass is the nihilistic pursuit of their own selfish interests--and the rabble-rousers that egg them on for their own political ends, and the guilt-ridden people of conscience who excuse the inexcusable antisocial, violent and criminal behavior of people the choose to see as victims in order to reconcile their own world view.

When people feel defenseless, when police are either absent or reticent to protect them in dangerous places in part because of the hopeless inefficiency of the criminal justice system, in part because the police may fear reprimands or law suits when dealing with violent offenders, then what are people to do to protect their families? Whether in the U.S. or outside of it, when faced with the prospect of having to live in a dangerous neighborhood for personal or professional reasons, people who can afford it will live in gated communities that offer the protection of private security--not just the wealthy will do so, but anyone who can afford it, sometimes making great sacrifices to do so, just as they do to send children to private schools to avoid the metal detectors, drugs, squalor and violence in too many public schools in neighborhoods all over this country. Those who do otherwise sooner or later become victims of the violence.

When people riot in the U.S. and other countries--Argentina these days comes to mind as a good example--pay close attention to the video footage and you will see a few desperate people breaking into grocery stores to steal bread, milk and other staples--these souls have my unfettered sympathy--but look closer at the marauding gangs that break into electronics stores and the anarchists who set fires, throw rocks, and loot at will as a form of "protest." You will see shame in some faces, and desperation, but on most faces you will see something far less excusable.

If we do not stop making excuses for criminals--especially violent career repeat offenders--the problem will simply grow worse until it reaches critical mass and we become a typical third-world country. We are a wealthy country that provides significant resources for people in need from housing, to food stamps, to free Medicaid, to free schooling from K-12 and a free ride at excellent public institutions of higher learning. Few other countries do more with comparable populations, if any, yet we are the only country in which violence seems to run rampant. We need to ask ourselves the tough question: WHY? And we need to search for answers unfiltered by guilt or idealistic notions of social justice. We need to spend less time wringing our hands at the numbers of people in prison costing us upwards of $75,000 per year to house, feed, clothe, educate, kept healthy and entertained, and ask some hard questions as to why we have such high levels of crime and repeat offenders, especially of the violent variety.

The criminal justice system clearly does not work. Moving away from punishment to rehabilitation has mushroomed crime since the 1960s. I suspect bringing back rock piles or, better still, forcing prisoners to build roads, hospitals, and schools to repay with their labor the harm they have done to society, might help. So would having some prisons that house minimum security inmates retooled as training and manufacturing centers where inmates could learn a valuable trade like welding, carpentry, and other trades that would make them employable when they serve their time. And why can't they build bookcases for libraries, desks for schools, and wire a new hospital while they're learning their new trade? (Delve into this question and you will soon touch the third rail of American politics--union resistance.)

Shelagh wrote:

Prisoners of our own making.

Exactly.

I think the inmates should have work and training, but it should be civilized work.
One person I knew of was put away for shooting his wife with a high powered rifle. His training was butchering--not appropriate in my opinion.

I agree with what Victor said.

With the church shooting in Pennsylvania, next someone will propose that the pro-life clergy wear side arms.

Victor,

I hear much of what you are saying, and agree with you in part. I am not so far left in my thinking as I may seem, especially right now.

Don't know if your reference to the French Revolution is in any way connected to my obvious preoccupation these days with the upcoming film version of Les Miserables. You are probably aware that Hugo's novel had nothing to do with that occurrence, but was set during the time of chaos after the fall of Napoleon - which does, from my perspective, have something to do with the times we live in today.

The book, stage play, and film all revolve, symbolically, around the conflict between Valjean and Javert, and I believe that conflict is not very different from our current dilemma.

In an overly exaggerated, dualistic polarity, Valjean symbolizes compassion and forgiveness as opposed to Javert's dispassionate and judgmental legalism.

Of course we need laws, and while I am strongly in favor of "gun control," I am also aware that it is a short-term answer. (Note: I said gun control, not banning.)

It bothers me that this horrendous tragedy is being morphed into an obviously ironic "war on guns and violence."

We have been brought back to the same conflict that disrupted us during the recent US elections.

What I refer to when I speak of wealth and poverty is another example of what Mitt Romney referred to as the 47%. For me, this is a summary of the conflict between an old worldview and a new one. Within my own experience, today's gated communities serve as a proper analogy to the problem. Those who have the means to help have turned their backs on the problem and only "come out" when their illusion of security is threatened.

This gets back to the most basic of the differences in our perspectives: How does one determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong?

My perspective is that Javert's notion of an irrefutable law is too limited to deal with the "modern" world. I know that we differ here, and I do not want to discount your perspective. I am hoping that you, too will keep an open mind.

I can't remember where I came across this bit, and I took the time to go back over what I've saved on my computer - to no avail. It is there somewhere, but for now - at some point, in an interview, Russell Crowe was talking about how he was convinced to play this role of the lawman, Javert, and how he determined his perspective of the man. He was in France, and went to the house of Victor Hugo, and was given a tour. He learned from the tour guide that the characters of Valjean and Javert were both based on one historical character - an actual former prisoner who became a policeman and rose to a high position within the force. He was intrigued by that. So am I, and I think it is relevant to our discussion.

We are looking at polarities - opposite extremes - when the answer must lie somewhere in the middle of those extremes.

We are currently living in a time where the poor ( the 47%) are being oppressed by what we have elsewhere dubbed the 1%. And yes, I know, the numbers do not compute.

But this tragedy has somehow become involved with that "battle." The NRA composes somewhere around 10% of our total population, if my "miserable" math skills serve. Why is their opinion in this debate being elevated?

Why are we still involved with symbols of warfare, when what we need for a resolution ought to be about achieving peace??

Why have we reduced this tragedy to one more battle of wills between opposing parties?

I am not sure what you mean by "guilt-ridden people of conscience," or how that ties in with seeing the underprivileged (and we do have extreme poverty here - I spent my career teaching their children.), not so much as victims, but as human beings with very few options. I don't condone violence. I do think that there are a large and growing number of disenfranchised people right here in this country who deserve the same basic rights as the rest of us. And I am not sure what "guilt" might have to do with my perspective.

That's all I'm trying to say here.

Ann said:

But this tragedy has somehow become involved with that "battle." The NRA composes somewhere around 10% of our total population, if my "miserable" math skills serve. Why is their opinion in this debate being elevated?

Why are we still involved with symbols of warfare, when what we need for a resolution ought to be about achieving peace??

Why have we reduced this tragedy to one more battle of wills between opposing parties?


I say:

Good question! We need balance and compromise. While some want no guns, others want more. Some want government out of their lives, some want government to fix everything. We have no respect for anyone or anything unless it agrees totally with us. We need to be open to new ideas and at least try them.

Quote :

I say:

Good question! We need balance and compromise. While some want no guns, others want more. Some want government out of their lives, some want government to fix everything. We have no respect for anyone or anything unless it agrees totally with us.

Hear, hear

We have become so dictatorial that there are petitions circulating on Facebook
imploring us to say, "Merry Christmas," instead of, "Happy Holidays."
I say, "I am thankful for whatever greeting comes my way."
We are majoring in minors.

alice wrote:

We have no respect for anyone or anything unless it agrees totally with us.

Sad, but true!!!

Just go browse the political threads on this forum and see all the name calling because of differing opinions!

Capital Hill are the worst offenders of all, they're worse than kids on the school yard. Their I'm right you're wrong attitude, "If I don't get my way, I'm going to take my ball and go home,"...Nobody says, "Let's sit down and find a compromise that is best for the American people!"

Rants over,

Old Codger, over and out

Don,

Keep talking! Just be certain you agree with me. LOL Just kidding--seriously you have valid views and you are not an old codger.

The more opinions, the better.

Ann.

I both understand and respect your position and point of view. No, I was not thinking of Les Mis in my comments--or of the chaos that happened after Napoleon's fall, but rather to that which precipitated his coming into power after the fallout and chaos after the French Revolution.

The symbols of warfare are being used because the tactics of warfare are in play in streets in the U.S. and in other parts of the world. My comments relate to violence: it is real, it is ubiquitous and it is the reason that people hide behind gated communities if they can in too many cities and towns across America--and elsewhere. They do not hide there to turn their back on the poor, but to seek refuge from the lawless. They lock their doors at night--whether they live in gated communities or not--for precisely the same reason.

I disagree that the poor are being oppressed by the 1%. They are being housed, clothed, fed and educated by the taxes paid by working Americans both wealthy and less so. But even if I am wrong about this, poverty does not excuse criminal or antisocial conduct. It does not excuse rioting. It does not excuse goading police by throwing rocks or spitting on them. My heart goes out to a hungry person who steals bread. To those who commit arson, burglary and grand theft, not so much.

I agree that people on both extremes of the political spectrum exploit this and every other tragedy to further their own agendas. The gun lobby wants everyone armed and the anti gun lobby wants all guns banned. Both sides miss the point which is about the root causes of violence in our society. That is where the debate should be focused, and that is what I believe we are doing here.

By guilt ridden people of conscience I mean well meaning, conscientious individuals with good hearts who see in every criminal a victim whom society has failed and feel genuine guilt about their better lot in life believing that "there but for the grace . . ." I was not trying to describe you, Ann, but rather a tendency of many people from the left with noble intentions to rationalize criminal behavior as per force having its roots in poverty, disenfranchisement, or some similar external force. (There are, of course, people from the left and right with no such noble intentions who simply want to pander to those who will vote them into office.) Criminal behavior is just that, criminal. By definition, it is motivated by evil intent--nefarious, evil, wrongful, yes all judgmental terms eschewed by a society that wants to believe we are all good by nature. I don't care whether convicted violent criminals are born or raised. I want them punished and off the streets, and I am not discomfited if their stay in prison is uncomfortable such as by having them work for their meals.

Victor, the more you express your views, I believe we are of similar views/opinions.
My attitude changed dramatically, both politically and from the human side when I lived in Beirut, Lebanon during their Civil War. Stealing food to survive was understandable. From the outside, people saw these people as thieves/criminals. I didn't. I was of the same mindset. I did what I had to do to feed my family and protect them. Walking in someone else's shoes is still valid for understanding. There is a difference between actions to survive and actions for personal gain. Too often we sit on the outside and judge. We judge the culture of other lands; we judge how they live their lives and make comparisons to how we live our lives. How often do we ask others how they see us? I have lived many years outside the US and my views are often seen as un-American. Too often we can't see ourselves as we appear to others. Right or wrong, perception is real.
America is not the shining light or example as it once was. Our actions have changed the views of many. From the political process to crime, we have burst the bubble. At one time many in America were afraid to travel to Europe or Asia for fear of safety. Now many are afraid to travel to America for the same reason. Whether their fears are real or not, the perception is real. Like and respect also applies between nations. They still like America, but respect has suffered a set-back. Obama has done much to repair the damage caused by Bush, however the Shenanigans of Wall Street and the highly publicized killings contribute to more set-backs.

How do people see us and how we see ourselves can be totally wrong, however we should consider that if there is a perception there is a reason for it. Bad news is what makes the news and it is transmitted quickly world-wide. We often see how people live beyond their means. A big house or a big car to give others the perception that we are worth something. Too often it is a false front. The missing of a payment or loss of a job can cause it to come crumbling down. As writers, we are forced into self-promotion, something I personally detest. We feel the need to impress others with our value so that they will buy our product. I think most of us would prefer that someone else did that. Once we have achieved some success, it begets more success. Getting a program off the ground is the struggle of any new business. Help is required; endorsement by others is needed for it to succeed. (Sorry for the diversion)

My views are mine alone. I don’t expect agreement on everything I say since our life experiences are not the same. Sharing thoughts/opinions can be educational. It can also help us look outside the box. We must not become prisoners to our own views by hiding behind barriers. Fear of criticism is normal, however without criticism we cannot work for improvement. That applies to our personal lives as well as our country.

This is one of the most fascinating threads to come along here in a long time.

As I read and reread everyone's comments, I see so many positive ideas. I see different perspectives expressed in a rational manner, and all of them have validity. All of them represent a striving toward positive solutions and possible answers to Abe's original questions and to the questions we each hve brought into the discussions. I am tempted to print out the whole thing so I can study it more carefully - to see it all as a whole and, at the same time, see each response in relation to the others.

The thread has grown so long so quickly, though, that it isn't really feasible, so if I mix up who said what, I apologize in advance.

Just a little background that many of you are aware of, but some may not be. I did not begin my teaching career until I was in my mid-thirties. I had dropped out of college in my sophomore year because I was getting married, and for the culture and community I lived in, that meant I had no more need for further education since the only reason for a woman to attend a college was to meet young men who would be able to properly support her and their children.

Things turned out differently for me. I found myself going back to school with three small children, and once I finished, I decided, for a variety of reasons, included but not limited to a need for better job prospects and a higher salary, to leave my home town for the big city.

I needed to find a job as quickly as possible, so I gave serious consideration to every offer, including one at a campus in what was considered one of the worst neighborhoods in near north Houston - if not the very worst. I drove to my meeting with the principal through streets I barely believed could exist, and as I got out of my car in the campus parking lot, I tried not to look at the bullet holes in the iron bas relief cougar attached to the brick wall near the entrance. I kept telling myself I could stand anything for a year.

Long story a little less long: I took the job and by the end of that first year you could not have pried me from that campus if you had tried. I had found my purpose, my particular gifts, and a strong belief in the rightness of what we were doing at that little school. It was an experimental program with a very different approach to learning generally, but one of the parts that most made it work was the method for handling student behavior.

What do you do when you have an entire student body of young people who believe that society has failed them, especially when it is so obviously true, at least from a certain perspective?

Our method - and it was a school-wide method - was to say to each student, OK - it's true - you've had a rotten deal and it is not your fault. Your parents failed you. The community failed you. So,....What are you going to do about it? We suggested strongly that they might begin by taking responsibility for who and what they became from that time forward. We did not use corporal punishment - in fact, we did not punish in a traditional sense at all. I was surprised, as I was learning the program, how closely it correlated with what I had begun doing with my own children from the time they were old enough to understand.

An oversimplification: When a teacher or staff member had a concern about a student's behavior, we started by asking three questions (and insisting on direct answers) What are you doing? What are you supposed to be doing? and How long do you think you can stick to doing that? There was no place for any response that put the blame on anyone else. No victims; only individuals with the power to choose a different action. No bad kids. Just kids who might need to look at their actions from a different angle so that they could see the possibility of different options and choices.

So, when I talk about "victims" I am not excusing criminal behavior or violent responses. I am not suggesting the perpetrators of such actions go unrestrained. I am saying that we need to understand the difficulty these people face on a day-to-day basis just attempting to survive in a society that has branded them as undeserving outsiders.

When people in power declare certain things to be true and real, our tendency is to believe them. Keep telling someone they are no good and that person will believe it, and act it out. If they are to change, they have to believe that they can.

In the meantime, yes, we need laws and we need to enforce the laws, and that means restricting and detaining those who are choosing to break the laws, even when they do not believe they have another choice.

Violence is the response used by those who do not believe they have any other source of power. Guns are the weapon of choice these days, for those who can only see those violent answers to their life patterns and situations. Regulating their use fairly is difficult, but that isn't an excuse for not trying. We need to implement those regulations - a better choice of words maybe than control? Control is a sticky issue since it is most often interpreted as an external force as opposed to an internal choice.

As long as there are those who will resort to violent solutions, we need to be able to protect ourselves from harm. That means we need a regulatory force. We also need to be able to protect ourselves.

At the same time, it would help if we try not to see these people as inherently evil - or in the existence of an inherent evil at all.

the world did not end Friday, and it didn't suddenly change overnight. It can only change if we are willing to work at changing it. What is happening, I think, is that more and more individuals are recognizing a need for change, and as those numbers increase, the changes will come about.

We once had segregated schools and neighborhoods based on the color of a person's skin. While we haven't yet done away with such prejudices altogether, the simple fact that we are now neighbors and work-mates is helping us to see that we re not so different after all, and that difference itself is not such a bad thing.

We are evolving, and I cannot help but see that as a positive thing.

I also feel that we are what we believe we are, and the only way for our evolution to proceed is by changing our beliefs, in ourselves nd our neighbors, as being inherently good and capable of making positive choices.

One way we can do that is to ask ourselves those questions:

What am I doing?
What am I supposed to be doing?
How long can I keep doing what I am supposed be doing?

"The answer to that question: 'Am I my brother's keeper?' is a resounding 'Yes.'"
(Audie Murphy)