Money in Politics, or, The Main Issue

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." – Thomas Jefferson

Nearly everything about elections in the United States is wrong. I don’t necessarily mean that I think the outcome is wrong, or that any particular party in power is wrong, or that the people who have been elected into office are wrong, though all of these certainly apply in many cases. I assert that the entire framework in which elections currently occur is wrong. Our Federal Republic form of government, as framed by The Constitution, is designed to have the will of the people manifest itself in the actions of their elected officials, with checks and balances to ensure the source of power remains with the public. I submit that this is no longer what is happening in our country; our electoral process is broken. The effects of this dysfunction have a global reach, and a serious overhaul is needed to prevent the power we give to our leaders from being used to corrupt ends.

Let me start by describing the correct way for a Democratic process to work. The best Democracy I can imagine would be an ever-evolving system with a permanent core tenant of power deriving from the people. As long as there is appropriate, fair, and equal representation with the best interest of the citizens, the nation, and the world at heart, the system would pass my test. Thomas Jefferson, I think, had the same idea:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

The current United States governmental system does not fit this description. Representation in the House of Representatives is skewed by gerrymandered districts and the nuances of population by State. Restricted and denied access to voting runs rampant in many States, mostly disenfranchising those with less money. It is clear to me from these points alone that the once-fair system has been tampered with and no longer works to represent every citizen equally, but we haven’t even really started yet.

Unfortunately, there’s a different, arguably contributing problem that makes the previously mentioned issues of voter inequality seem fair. That problem is, of course, the exorbitant amount of money in politics. Lobbying is an asset to our governmental system, and it’s supposed to work like this: a group of people with a similar goal hire someone to try and convince lawmakers to side with them. What has happened to this seemingly innocent program is it has been transformed from a way to have people’s opinions heard and counted in Congress, to a way to have companies’ interests heard and counted in Congress, usually through high-dollar-contributions to campaigns. Let’s step through this process with an example, right after this Jefferson quote:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

ConglomoCorp is a fake company that sells wooden backscratchers. It has 100 employees, and has $100 million every year in revenues. At the top, there is one CEO, who keeps $34.6 million a year, and at the bottom, there are 40 laborers, who split $4.2 million a year. As it turns out, the Laborers want to start a Union to make sure their rights are protected. They pool all their annual earnings ($4.2 million) and back a candidate who agrees that if elected, she will represent their interests in Congress. Catching wind that such a policy would actually force him to pay higher salaries and provide better benefits to his employees, the CEO backs the opposing candidate, but he only spends $10 million of his $34.6 million annual cut.  With more resources, that candidate manages to persuade the majority of voters (even those who don’t benefit, or are even harmed by the proposed legislation) and he wins. In this scenario, the interests of the few haves become better protected than the many have-nots.

Once in office, it is time to repay favors, to be sure, and follow through on promises made during the campaign. However, with no term limits for members of Congress, there is always the next election. This means that same deal can be made again and again on new issues. Public opinion is persuaded this way and that with sensationalized ads, quotes taken out of context, staged “debates” which are clearly unfair and biased, and most frustratingly, flat-out lies. The result of this system is that the interests of the mega-rich have substantially more representation per capita than the rest of us. One of those interests is for them to remain mega-rich, so they pay for policy that is good for their own profits. The side-effects of this cycle of events are detrimental.

Let’s revisit ConglomoCorp for a moment. Now they’ve expanded their business and have 1,000 lumber mills where trees are turned into backscratchers. These mills all contribute to Climate Change by reducing the amount of carbon-absorbing vegetation, and also increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. In fact, there are many thousands of businesses doing the same thing, as a byproduct of the business they conduct. When scientists point this out, they use their overwhelming spending power to persuade the public that the jury’s still out, that it isn’t happening, or that it’s actually happening in reverse, using every non-scientific method of persuasion in discrediting attempts. Eventually, they win enough support, both in Congress and with the public, that their practices are allowed to continue, unabated.

Problems with our government are many-layered, and it can be difficult to connect the dots.  I’ll try to step through these problems that I’ve laid out, in a succinct way.  Our government is doing things wrong.  They are allowed to do so because they have the support of the majority of their constituents. This majority is mostly bought and paid for by the mega-rich when resources are used to sway public opinion with methods that are misleading at best, but can also be downright evil. It seems to me that power in this country still technically stems from its people, but the ways in which that power flows are being manipulated by money without morality.

So what needs to change? How can we go back to a system that is fair, balanced, and (most importantly) truthful? One way to go about this would be through education. If everybody were able to see through the conniving of the mega-rich, their tactics to empower themselves and disenfranchise others, they would be less successful at swaying public opinion to their side. Education is empowering in that an educated voter can determine what candidates actually have their best interest at heart. The next time you notice anything that is keeping America stupid, keep this in mind: the dumber we are, the more power we inadvertently give to people who take power away from us. T-Jeff, hit us again:

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion."

The trouble with that, though, is that supplying citizens with better education costs time, money, political capital, and also depends on certain other social injustices getting better first. Not to mention that all of these prerequisites are naturally opposed by those who benefit from, and prefer our ignorance of, this broken system.

So maybe education is more of a long-term goal. What could we do right now? I believe our founding fathers have the solution: fair and equal representation for all citizens. In order to get back to what they intended, we cannot allow for unequal representation, and that inequality is fueled by the money in politics. I’m talking about the actual real money, in the form of campaign contributions, and also of the sly pseudo-money, such as certain legislation that will definitely benefit a company, or disproportionate airtime for topics, issues, and people involved in politics in any way. See John Oliver’s Climate Change debate for a hilariously depressing lesson in how dystopian political news has become.

Money in politics, as used to sway public opinion and buy legislation, inherently represents the rich more than the poor. I believe that political campaigns should all be run on an exactly level playing field. A set amount of every elected official’s budget should be allocated towards their campaign. That amount should be small, and that amount should be all. No other contributions, from their own pocketbook or from that of any other person, group, or entity should be allowed. ALL news sources, as defined by public opinion (and not by the FCC) should be held accountable for following some form of regulation such as the Fairness Doctrine, through which they must present issues in an honest, equitable, and balanced way. Note: I intend to delve deeper into this topic eventually. For now, just know that national news networks identify as “entertainment” which allows them to be as biased as they please. With these main pathways of money in politics blocked off, the main sources for persuading public opinion unfairly will be gone, or at least seriously hindered. What remains is the public, their actual opinions, the facts, and fair and equal representation.

It may be that this opinion of mine is unpopular, perhaps even unheard of or unconsidered. It may also be that this idea of removing the power of money from politics would be wildly supported by the population, but those who currently have power (from that system) have somehow persuaded the majority not to support it. Maybe people are complacent, and assume that this system has worked pretty well for over 200 years. There is nearly nothing worse than going against the founding fathers, right? I mean, just look at this other Tommy J. quote: "[G]overnments… should not be changed[.]"

Sorry, that was a trap. Now look at those words in context:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes... But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is [the people's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security" - Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776

Right there! It is our duty to change the government if it gets too shitty (Note: lol “dooty, change, and shitty”). It’s in the goddamn Declaration of Independence! I have seen the processes through which these would-be tyrants gain and maintain their power. I’ve seen them use that power to gain more power. It is exactly “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object” (political power), and you betcha, the overall design is to reduce the power of the people such that it is less than that of the rich. Get ‘em, Teej!

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor"

Socioeconomic disparity is only one of the myriad problems facing our country. I think the larger problem is that the system that was set up to fix the problems has been tainted. Unfortunately for the mega-rich and their cohorts on the inside, the cat’s out of the bag. They continue the game, shooting money through their channels to quiet, discredit, and distract from the issue. However, for the first time in a long time, I see a ray of hope for the end of this cycle.

Recently, the topic of campaign funding for Presidential hopefuls has fought its way to public awareness. There’s a list of top contributors to each campaign, and everyone’s but Sanders’ is filled with loathsome ConglomoCorp-esque donors. I’m not saying he’s necessarily the best candidate for the job, but I am quite pleased that his style of politics gets covered. Now, the reason this information surfaced may have been someone’s political agenda to discredit Clinton and the Republicans, and/or to garner more support for Sanders. In a cutthroat competition like the presidential race, I wouldn’t put it past any of ‘em. However, I like to believe that the reason this topic is being talked about is because the people, the actual, real-life people, and not the majority in a poll whose opinion was pounded into their brains by people who wanted that opinion to be there…the people in this country are generally smart enough to see that this kind of money in politics could be a bad thing. The people are well-enough informed about the wrongdoings of our government in the past, it has betrayed our trust many times before, so it is well within reason to believe that the entire system could be rigged against us.

I only think very mediumly about these types of things, so I don’t have much evidence to say that the system really is this fucked up. However, I think there’s enough to posit that it could be this fucked up. And if a bad thing either could happen, or is already happening, isn’t that enough to work towards its termination? I tend to think so, and thus, I’ve written this for you to read and decide for yourself. Remember that anything anyone says, myself included, should be taken with a grain of salt, because the true motive behind the words could be different from the motive you perceive, or even different from the motive the speaker thinks is their own. Take me out, Thomas.

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day"

Peace or Environmental Protection – Why Not Both?

Earth Day, a quick Wikipedia search reveals, was first suggested as a day to honor the Earth and the concept of peace. These days, it seems, the latter half of the original intent is left out of our observation. Perhaps the Cold War and the potential for nuclear obliteration of our only planet was the motivation for this, and these days our annihilation and certain doom seem more distant, both in possibility and in time. Today, both original goals remain to seem nearly unattainable. Indeed, when cash is king, and has the ability to overpower, step around, and influence the governing bodies meant to keep it in check, how is one to begin combating opponents like Big Oil? And how could we ever find ways to end all our wars?  I suggest that the path to achieving both of these original goals of Earth Day are largely one and the same.

It should be obvious to you by now, dear reader, that I consider the far future, suppose what it ought to look like, and decide what must change today in order to get there. It is my hope that someone has already convinced you that climate change is both real and human-caused. It is also my hope that you've been clued in to the insane amount of lobbyists’ money flowing into our government, opening your eyes to its corruption. If not, go get convinced here, here, and/or here, and come back.

Given your prerequisite knowledge on the subject, you, like I, know that one of two things must happen in order to protect the environment. Ideally, the free market would dictate, that fossil fuels and pollution and the like are now out-of-style, and consumers’ demand for clean energy and responsible practices would socially and economically force companies and governments to operate in sustainable ways. The problem with this is that it’ll never happen. Not everybody is as considerate as you and I are of the state of our planet long after we’re dead. They will put a higher priority on their own comfort than on what’s best for life on Earth as a whole. The majority of scientists agree that manmade greenhouse gasses are causing climate change, but a tiny minority has taken action to reduce their contribution to the problem.

Therefore, the solution we need is to have enacted, enforced laws surrounding the subjects of waste, pollution, natural resource management, energy production, energy consumption, and all other realms of human’s impact on the environment, forcing those who have profited for so long off of destroying our planet to reinvent themselves in a sustainable way. Having the government step in and change the supply is the more realistic solution, because it does not rely on every person making the appropriate choices to protect the environment. Instead, it only requires that the public agrees with the laws which get put in place. That doesn't mean it’ll be easy, and it doesn't mean Big Oil will be going down without a fight. However, as the point of no return might come at any moment, this is the change we need to make to protect the environment, and in so doing, we will take a large step towards ending our wars.

I know what you’re thinking: how could a bunch of solar panels and local farms ever possibly end our wars? Let’s think about the causes of war first, and then I’ll fill you in. Evolution (that phenomenon with a tendency to promote life making more life) favors competition. Back in the day, healthy competition ensured that we, as a species, evolved to be smarter, better, faster, and stronger, by rewarding winners with more resources after conflict. I’m counting “honor” and “respect” and the like as resources as well, which nicely captures all ideological wars’ supposed (see paragraph 7) motivation. We have not escaped the driving force of evolution. Here we are, a world divided into 196 countries, divided further by religion, skin color, and socioeconomic status, and we still fight for resources, both tangible and intangible, which we perceive as helpful for our specific people’s survival.

To see this connection between renewable energy and the end to war, I implore you to think deep into the future. Can you envision it? I’m imagining a world in which our energy sources sustainably provide more energy than we are able to use. With more energy than we can use, we will live in a society wherein the cost of everything is a fraction of what it is today, if not essentially zero. In such a world, there would be no need to fight one another for more resources. This would be a society in such abundance that nobody should want for anything. There’s nothing to fight for, when everyone has enough.

Ah, but, you say, there isn’t enough energy and sustainability in the world to put an end to ideological conflict! I say there is. It is my belief that ideological conflicts, though they seem to arise from one side disrespecting the other, or a decreed incompatibility between two sides, all have a root cause engrained in their mantras, which is the exact same as other conflicts: resources. The implicit point of these ideologies is to spread themselves amongst as many people as possible, and/or to remove any competing ideologies. Convincing people to follow a certain ideology, and having them benefit from increasing the ratio of followers to non-followers is a self-perpetuating mechanism through which the ideology is able to prosper via its devotees. The ideology’s prosperity is directly proportional to the prosperity of its supporters, which is based on their access to resources, which is potentially increased through competition with outsiders. There are certainly people who have fought for their ideology’s sake, thinking nothing of resources. However, just because they didn’t know they were fighting for resources, doesn’t mean they weren’t fighting for resources. The intangible resources “honor” and “respect” that they attempted to protect or gain by fighting against people outside of their own ideology, are no more than the image of a carrot in front of a hamster’s wheel, which powers the projector as it spins.

If everyone were to see that self-perpetuating mechanism for what it is, in a world with great abundance, that specific direction from ideology will become a moot point. Not by adhering to Capitalism or Judaism or any other ideology will people prosper, but simply by being lucky enough to be born into a post-scarcity economy. With abundance enough to fill every belly, we will also be able to fill every mind, and I am certain that given enough time, there will eventually be a generation of humans wherein everyone is aware of the man behind the curtain, and nobody is fooled into participating in a conflict for ideological reasons.

So there you have it. Invest today in renewable energy, ensure that we take care of the only planet we have, and eventually, we will live in a post-scarcity economy, which will lead to a post-conflict society. Utopian? Sure. Unobtainable? Seems that way. So should we even try? You bet your ass. And every ass of every shitting thing with an ass to shit out of. And every living thing without an ass. As well as every living thing to have ever lived or shat, and every living thing that is yet to live. Life as we know it currently depends on the Earth to survive, and until life achieves a stronger foothold elsewhere, it is our long-term evolutionary duty to ensure that life is able to continue.

And continue.

And continue.

Why I Am Charlie: on the value of free speech, and the impediments to empathy

The terror attack on Charlie Hebdo has a root cause in common with many other shitty events over the past year. Some people, in their attempt to understand the attack, decide that Charlie Hebdo was wrong to publish demeaning depictions of Mohammed, thereby assigning some blame to them. They further argue that not only was it wrong to make fun of Islam’s prophet, it is wrong in general for Charlie Hebdo to publish offensive content, pointing to other Hebdo covers and calling them racist. Firstly, those images dubbed “racist” certainly seem so on the surface and out of context. However, digging deeper and finding the elusive French satirical double meaning reveals that the image is not condoning racism, but lampooning it. It is the Colbert Report scenario, in which some people might actually take it seriously, but the intent is to show just how ridiculous the idea is through exaggeration and zeal. On the Mohammed images, the purpose is to highlight the disparity between France and Islam on the topic of free speech. In France, the right to free speech trumps rules of all religions, including the rules of Islam. To those who blame Charlie Hebdo for being offensive, I hope that you are swayed by what I have to say, as we embark on another journey to make the world a better place by searching for right and wrong in the context of current events.

The right to free speech must include the right to offend. We must be permitted to question authority, to question religion, to question our own governments, the establishment, our peers, friends, and enemies. When we stop questioning, we stagnate while those in power accumulate more of it. We need to be able to think and speak critically of our world, as a litmus test for how we’re doing as the only sentient species on the planet. The freedom of speech, inclusive of the right to offend, is not exempt from this questioning, but is upheld each time the question is asked. Is there more goodness in the Universe today than yesterday, because of human activity, or are we a pox on our world, an embarrassing excuse for an intelligent species who cannot even realize the value of life? Without a vector for relentless criticism of our world, its people, and their actions, we have no way to answer this question, let alone do something to change the world if we dislike the answer.

If we give in to censorship, to sensitivity of others’ religion (or other beliefs) at all costs, we are giving up one of the largest steps forward humanity has ever accomplished. We would be conceding that people cannot be trusted to react peacefully when others disagree with them, a requisite for successful Democracy. If you believe in Democracy, in the idea that the power of a nation should stem ultimately from its People, you are buying into the idea that people can and should be trusted with such a responsibility. If our government were based on the presumption that people cannot have an intelligent debate on a subject and agree to disagree, then we would be catering to the most offendable groups, walking on eggshells in hopes that we don’t upset them. This is not the way of an advanced intelligent civilization. This is a medieval and anti-democratic course of thought. The problem isn’t that people are too offensive, it’s that people are too offendable.  Radical Islam is to blame for the Charlie Hebdo attack, period. Nobody outside of a religion should be subjugated to its rules, and everyone within a religion should at least tolerate, coexist with, or agree to disagree with those outside.

I am Charlie, not only because I believe that Charlie Hebdo’s satirical criticism exposes certain truths about the world we currently live in, shedding light on issues that need to be addressed, but also because I believe that humanity can and should evolve to the point where we turn to conversation before violence, a value for which Charlie Hebdo has become a symbol.

This type of evolution, where we attempt to understand one another before we react to one another, is an evolution of a greater empathetic ability. This attack and other tragic events in recent history (ISIS, Ebola, Boko Haram, Mike Brown, and Eric Garner), and the conversations they have inspired, have revealed something to me that I very desperately wish weren’t true: human beings have not yet fully evolved this ability to empathize with one another. I believe nearly all humans are capable of sympathizing to a certain extent (as a reminder, sympathy is where you’ve actually had the same experience and gone through the same feelings), but the events and debates over the last year (and all throughout history, really) show little to no signs of empathy.

And that’s a crying shame. I’ve gone through many hypotheticals, aiming to discover how to make the world to be a better place. What needs to change in order to slow (and eventually stop) the unjust ruining and ending of lives? The bottom line, always, is that people must change. People must see the value of others’ lives. People must understand the circumstances of others’ lives. And people must strive first to understand others, before reacting to them. This goes for the villains and the victims both. If our response to the Mike Brown killing was to get revenge by killing Darren Wilson, very little would change, and the world would not get better. If our response was to applaud Wilson unquestioningly, very little would change, and the world would not get better. We need to try to understand both individuals, their backgrounds, and their reasoning for their actions, regardless of which side you support. Failing to appreciate the importance of understanding all sides of a story, even if one of those sides is your enemy’s, is a failure of a basic test of empathetic ability and by extension, a backpedaling of human progress. Without empathizing with one another, we cannot fully comprehend the value of each other’s lives, and we will be hindered in learning from the incident what needs to be changed to make the world a better place.

I may be setting the bar a little too high here, but I’ve got standards that must be met before I’ll call something empathy. First, the empathizer must not have had a similar experience (because that would be sympathy). Second, the empathizer must truly understand, to the best of their ability, the experience. And finally, the purpose of the empathy must be to directly assist the other person, or those with whom they could sympathize, and not one’s self or those with whom one could sympathize. Basically, you must have nothing to gain but understanding through empathy. With these guidelines in mind, let’s explore empathy in the context of this year’s terrible events.

ISIS: The Islamic State is a militarized radical faction of the second-largest religious group in the world. Their actions can be compared to countless cases throughout history when people killed in the name of their religion. It is abundantly clear that the ideals of ISIS are without empathy. The thing which prevents them from empathizing with their victims is blind belief. If we ask why ISIS kills, we can say that they kill because they believe their killings to be just. If we ask why they think so, we can say that they are convinced by higher powers (either superiors within ISIS, or their interpretation of the Koran).

Now let’s try to empathize with ISIS. This is psychologically difficult to do, and some would argue that even attempting would equate to capitulation. However, if we allow our detest for ISIS to prevent us from attempting to understand them, then are we really that different? I like to think that I’m better than that, so I’ll move on. I can only imagine the world in which ISIS members grew up. In a place like Iraq or Syria, the promise of eternal reward must have special appeal, and I do not fault them for their faith. As much as I hate the individuals in ISIS for their actions, I have to try to understand that their actions are a result not only of their own natural tendencies for violence, but also of the environment in which they live. I can understand that someone who grows up with next-to-nothing and little hope for success in life, could turn to religion for solace. I can understand the importance of being extremely convicted in that religion. And I can understand that when the chance to use violence is promoted by their interpretation of that religion, that one might be convinced that these violent actions were just. If this broad generalization counts as empathy, we can finally assign a value to ISIS with a fuller picture, and identify a narrower target for making the world suck less. ISIS is still awful and should not be allowed to continue its violent acts. Empathy does not preclude a warranted violent response, and I fully support the militaristic efforts to combat ISIS overseas. However, violence is not the only solution to the problem. The only reason such a group can exist is through the absence of empathy, and as such, instilling empathy into current and would-be ISIS members would also solve the problem, with the added benefit of such an issue never being able to come up again, as long as empathy holds.

Ebola and Boko Haram: The U.S. reaction to the Ebola outbreak is an example of sympathy reigning over empathy. Before there were any Ebola patients in the country, the general sense that I got was along the lines of “Africa is so far away” and “oh, that’s awful, but what can we do?” Fast forward a couple months, with people contracting Ebola in the States, and the shift was apparent: “I hope wearing these trash bags and duct tape on the plane saves my life” and “QUARANTINE EVERYONE FLYING IN FROM AFRICA!” What changed was the perceived likelihood that Ebola could actually affect ourselves or people we know. Why is it that we care so much about people we know, and so little about people we don’t know? It is because we do not assign a value to unknown people’s lives, which is due to our lack the empathy to do so. If we cared as much about the Africans in danger of contracting Ebola as we did for our own loved ones, you can bet the world would be a better place.

The same goes for Boko Haram, a scourge on the Earth which has been terrorizing Africa since 2002. Like ISIS, they are a radical militarized faction of Islam, and exist only due to the inability of its members to empathize with anyone outside their specific interpretation of the Koran. Like Ebola, this problem is concentrated in Africa, and the US populous seems not to care. Maybe they figure the world is a shitty place, and we’re lucky to live in a less-shitty part of it. I say let’s not leave it up to luck. Let’s take action to make the whole world less shitty.

Mike Brown and Eric Garner: Let’s first empathize with the deceased. Mike Brown grew up black in a poor part of the city, where (whether you’d like to admit it or not) his chances for success in life were lower than if he were born rich and white. Eric Garner was similarly disadvantaged due to his race. Their upbringings were affected at every turn by the racism inherent in the systems of our society, and also by the racism of certain people. With less opportunity and more strife than they deserved, I can understand that robbing that store (if he did) or pushing that clerk, or selling loosies might have seemed to them ways to forcibly and/or illegally take what is rightfully owed them. I can understand that if they entered their encounters with the police with the mindset that nothing good could come of it, that assaulting the officer (if he did), or resisting arrest might have seemed like a way to be able to walk away from the situation better off than if they did nothing. Do I think they should’ve robbed, pushed, and assaulted, or sold loosies and resisted arrest? No, but I do understand what might have motivated them to do so, and I don’t think we should allow systemic and unabated racism to continue to motivate prejudice’s victims to act unjustly. Racism is a form of non-empathy, which again seems to be a root cause of so much hurt in the world.

Now I’ll attempt to empathize with the police officers who shot and killed Mike Brown and used a disallowed chokehold on Eric Garner, leading to his death. I can understand that these cops grew up in the same world as those they slayed, only the reason in their eyes for someone to turn to crime might not be systemic racism, but a personal choice. I can understand that if they have been affected by racist thoughts (spoiler alert: they have), that the discretionary force they used during these encounters might have been augmented by their feelings. Do I think these cops should have used as much force as they did? From what I believe to have occurred during the incidents, absolutely not, but I do understand what might have motivated them to do so, and I don’t think that we should allow unabated racism to continue to block the empathic ability in police officers that might have prevented these deaths. We should also not allow systemic racism to protect them from the appropriate consequences of unjustly taking these lives.

I don’t mean that people should be let off the hook because they are products of their environment. I only mean that disregarding the influence of their environment is a form of non-empathy which prevents us from understanding the person, hinders us from identifying the underlying sources of the problem, and allows the problem to continue. If we don’t realize that being dealt a bad hand in life can contribute to one’s propensity to do wrong, we are turning a blind eye to one of the root problems in our society, and will never be able to fix it. It is through empathic attempts to understand why people do terrible things that we have the chance to change the situation, and prevent further atrocities.

In every situation, tragedy could have been avoided, and progress could have been promoted, if there were more empathy. Even now, as we discuss our opinions on these issues, the empathy deficit slows our progress towards understanding and ultimately fixing them. These events are terrible, and the loss of life and goodness attributed to each is unacceptable, but what is also unacceptable to me is the way that empathy is shunned in the face of these issues. Let’s suppose we move forward un-empathetically. We continue to frown upon radical Islam, and fight it militaristically, but even if we killed every member of ISIS and al-Qaeda, what’s to stop the next jihadist group from doubling their death count? We turn a blind eye to Ebola and Boko Haram, but if we don’t do something about these troubles in Africa, who will? We blame Mike Brown and Eric Garner for their own deaths, but what’s to stop police officers from using their power to further their own agenda, by killing those they despise?

We need empathy, now more than ever. Sympathy can only take us so far as to help the people with whom we can easily relate. With the task of making the entire world a better place, we have no other choice but to try and understand and reconcile the differences between starkly different people. It is the golden rule: to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We cannot allow ourselves to put on the same blinders that ISIS and Boko Haram don to convince themselves that their cause is just. We must continue to criticize, and be able to be criticized, in order to allow humankind’s progress to continue. Censoring free speech is not the answer. Conditioning ourselves to react civilly to free speech is a start, but evolving true empathy for our fellow humans is the key. With the understanding we gain through that empathy, we will be able to identify the root causes of these shitty parts of life on this planet, and we will be able to make the world a better place, together.

And if you don’t agree with me, then you’re an unevolved, pathetic, scum-sucking, idiotic, greedy, evil part-of-the-problem asshole, and the best thing you could do to make the world a better place, would be to kill yourself (consider that your first test in free speech conditioning)