The Memories Fire, The Rhythms Fall Slow

It's been a long time since I've written here. I'm going to break this post into two parts.

I first started this blog in 2008 as I began to realize that I was going to go to law school. It's 2012, and I'm now a lawyer. I've got my law degree, I've passed the bar, and I'm not really practicing.

Instead, I'm an engineer. I'm also general counsel, but that's not my primary role. Well, I've always been an engineer. Now I get paid for being one.

Half of my friends think I'm insane. These are the lawyers, who are all miserable about their current jobs in some form. Some enjoy parts of their work, but they all have at least one major problem they need to resolve somehow.

The other half are impressed I've got two degrees and that I'm utilizing both in a fashion. Of all ways to use my degrees, the particular path I'm taking does put me into a unique position where I can do some interesting work that few others will ever have the chance to do.

One interesting thing about having a written catalog of thoughts is that I can still look back and see what I wrote. There is a record, and a record can be frustrating while being illuminating.

I've got a post on why I left engineering in the first place. I stand by my reasons at the time, but the thing about having more time and perspective have caused my current views to change. I honestly think I can now make an impact through engineering.

The world was a different place 4 years ago, and I was in a different place. The options in front of me have changed so that my options with engineering are completely different than before. Simultaneously, I've changed as a person, and I realize that what I want to do isn't going to be something overnight. It's going to take longer, and I need to pick the right steps to get where I want.

Back to the past. After graduating law school and taking the bar exam, I had to do some soul searching. Unlike many of my fellow graduates, I had a job offer waiting for me, so there was a future in law. But what kind of future was it?

It was filled with a job that would fulfill me on a daily basis, helping people in horrible situations. I could learn the skills I needed to start my own firm with friends to go in a direction that we could control.

As a result, I went into a long introspective period. The question of what direction I wanted to go in dominated my every moment. Law made sense in many ways. However, what could I do with law at this moment? Could I make an impact? What impact would I make over my career? It would be marginal at best.


Sitting in an office, grinding away at the daily work that many attorneys could do. The people I could help would be helped with or without me. What about the rest of the people? Law seemed like a compromise of some daily effort that amounted to a negligible total effort.

What could I accomplish in that mode? It offered stability and security. With a single step, I could see the next 30 years of my life. There would be unexpected events along the way - that's just life.

Stability isn't for me. I can't keep my mind still, and I think an element of chaos is necessary in my life. Too much chaos is destructive, but not enough chaos leads to stagnation.

Where does that leave me? I have no idea. I know what I want to do in life. I want to change the world. Practicing law would have just been one step in a long path, and I realize that it would lead to marginal change in the end.

My dad is glad that I'm going into engineering. He always hated the thought of me spending my life in law, even though that is still a big part of my life and philosophy. I don't think he gets what I'm doing, as he views the last 3 years of my life as a waste of time.

Surprisingly, my uncle thinks I'm wasting my skills on engineering. Instead, he believes I should be making about $180,000 as an intellectual property attorney. It doesn't seem to matter that my beliefs are directly opposed to what such attorneys do on a daily basis for their clients.

I hope I can make a greater change this way. I've got more tools than ever, and I see some of that path coming together. Whatever the next step is, I'll handle it. I doubt it will be a clear step forward, but I've been known to have a pretty good sense of balance. I'll figure it out.

All I know is that my last step was the right one. I've learned to trust my instincts, and it's worked for me so far.

The Path To Salvation Is hard

For the first time in as long as I can remember, I stepped away from reading news. I don't mean that I just decreased what I read. For over two whole months, I did not absorb any significant news.

Part of it was due to increased focus on the bar exam, but most of it was a conscious effort to walk away from the world for a bit and hide in my lair. In that time, I moved in with roommates, read several books, built a computer, played lots of computer games, and generally embraced a selfish style of life. Knowing myself, it wasn't enough for me, particularly after reading "The Razor's Edge" by Maugham.

I read "The Idiot" by Dostoyevsky a while back, and Maugham's work brought back what I found to be the essence of Dostoyevsky's Prince Myshkin. For those who haven't read "The Idiot", Myshkin is an epileptic that was raised far away from his native Russia. His way of thinking and interacting with others are thought to be naive and like that of an idiot.  However, Myshkin acts with a thoughtfulness, respect, and kindness that others just cannot comprehend, branding him an outcast in a society that wishes to embrace it's convoluted, self-interested ways.

Maugham's Larry Darrell is a similar character - a messianic figure of sorts that showed a different way of life that conflicted with society. Darrell has the chance to embrace a life of wealth and happiness with a childhood love, but runs away from it in search of self-discovery. By no means is he selfish. Instead, he helps all of those he encounters. He simply walks away from a life of materialistic comfort to seek a life of spiritual peace.

With school over and choices ahead of me, I've been able to think a bit about what path I want to take. Most people I know are content to ride along a standard path that so many people equate with success - a job, a house, a stable relationship. I find it hard to accept that this is all there is after decades of education where we have been given the chance to expand our minds to utilize tools to which most in the world will never have access.

In fact, I can say it would be a failure of potential and responsibility at this point to simply progress forward on that common, obvious track. Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken" hints that the road less traveled will be more interesting, but it will also be fraught with struggle and confusion. There may be no success at the end, but unlike many others, we have the tools to embark upon that path.

For the first time in my life, I can say that the path ahead of me isn't clear. Worst of all, I'm starting to realize that it's not going to be an easy one. It's not about finding a job or paying rent, but it's about pursuing a responsibility that can't be put aside in the name of simplicity, comfort, and ease.

In this mindset, I started to pay attention to the world around me several days ago. I gently started to read, think, and write. In reading, I realize that the world has become a more confusing place in the few months I've been away. Then again, that is the way of the world. It stops for no one.

In some ways, it was appropriate that I started to enter the world again on the tenth anniversary of the attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001. I remember waking up to the a description of the World Trade Center being hit by planes. I watched as the Pentagon burned from the plane that crashed into it. But, as always, life went on.

I wish I could say this is where the U.S. dealt with adversity, conquered it's enemy, and made the world a safer place. But the world stops for no one, and the world got to be a more confusing place.

As I read through what goes on today, I realize that we have embraced a world of fear. We act because we fear poverty, terrorism, unemployment, government, or solitude. When I talk to those around me, I realize we don't have hope anymore. No one talks honestly of a brighter tomorrow that is safe, comfortable, and peaceful. Instead, there is simply living in the present because the future is just ahead of us, inevitably bringing it's consequences of success and failure. We accept the future for what it is, embracing that fear as a part of life.

I think it's easy to pretend otherwise. It's easy to ignore the problems of the world, to say they aren't ours to worry about. How can an individual affect the lives of starving children in some far away country? Why should I be responsible for the failures of those around me, those that are doomed to a life of poverty? Why must I care about the racism and bigotry around me when I am not the target of such actions?

These questions are rooted in fear and blossom with ignorance. They have become a part of life we can ignore, like the filthy, smelly man sitting on the sidewalk, repeatedly asking for change.

That's not the life I wanted. That's not that society I looked forward to joining as a child. I refuse to live in a world that reacts in fear of our failures. I refuse to look away and ignore.

if....

Many things have happened of late, least of which is graduating from law school. In a retrospective analysis, I think most of my goals have been met from the process.

I came in because I wanted to change the world - to make it a better place. I've definitely left with a deeper understanding of that goal. The most difficult lesson I've learned is that change is slow and difficult. Why? Because most people believe it has to be slow and difficult.

Part of facing the daunting task of change is figuring out where to start and what to end up with. There are many people out there with a clear picture, but the goal starts to look bigger and bigger each time one looks at it. The end result is a behemoth that some tackle with zeal.

However, most people look at the monster in front of them and start to slow down because they think change must be slower because they've always been told change is slow. Then, various side issues in life start to come into play, and tackling that monster seems to be more of a long term goal rather than something that delves into it.

The problem is that so many people think that this is okay, so not much gets done. This goes back a bit towards what one of my friends refers to as micro-change. He views change as being something that takes place on the individual and community level, eventually resulting in a global, aggregate shift towards some positive end.

I don't think the world is that simple. Change can be made on the individual and local level, but not everyone follows in that path. The result is a termination by some physical or social boundary.

Change must be drastic and breaking. It has to jar people from their traditional mindset and challenge their views. They must analyze and reconcile.

Strangely enough, this has melded well with a film I just saw. I've recently delved back into film a bit more seriously now that I force myself to stop studying at a certain point each day since I need to retain information for the California bar.

I just finished watching if...., which has Malcom McDowell. It delves into some issues of rebellion and revolution, but in a much more destructive way that is necessary. However, it highlights a key misconception of revolution needing to be purely destructive and violent.

Especially in figuring out what step to take now that I have another degree as a tool, I've come to understand that change doesn't have to destroy everything or even most things. Instead, change simply needs to come from outside of the system.

That right there - change from outside of the system - is where I think most people fail. In trying to prepare themselves for the next step, people find themselves as part of the system, continually preparing themselves for that revolutionary moment. Others believe in working within the system to make the micro-change that eventually has a macro-effect.

But aren't both of these failings? A system usually has a difficult time reforming itself. History has few, if any, examples of a contained culture that internally regulated. There has always been some external catalyst that pushed everything to a completely new level.

I'm left with a variety of career options that I've got to explore with the understanding that the people I will most likely work for will assign me a role in the system. Do I play along as a prepare myself for the next step? Or do stick to some "pure act" and stay outside the system to maximize my impact?

Leaving law school, I'm definitely more idealistic, but I'm also more pragmatic. I'm definitely not the same person I was when entering school. The changes have magnified those core philosophies in my life. The result is that each of those sides produce a stronger battle in each big decision I make.

Options, experience, and passion don't make choices easier. They make them more difficult because there is a deeper understanding of what those choices mean and bring. These days, an uprising of any sort doesn't seem so grand.

Losing the Dialectic

A friend reminded me recently that I've always resisted doing something simply because I was told or expected to do that thing. I think actions must be deliberate and require thought. There must be a reason to act, not simply a lack of a reason to not do it. With that thought, a life has purpose. Without that purpose, what is there to life but drifting?

That independence of thought causes more trouble than anything else. Because I have a reason to act, I am more invested in acting than those who act without thought or regard. Unfortunately, those that refuse to think initially often refuse to think when confronted with an opposing view. Challenging the way someone thinks, or acts in the case of stupid people, can be a vicious struggle.

That struggle, while it isn't always between idealism and pragmatism, does reflect different thoughts working towards resolution, either by compromise or by one side being defeated. Many people fail to understand that an argument can, and should, be devoid of personal attack. Instead, the goal is a battle of ideas to generate the best idea.

The process is lost upon people who tie their ego to their argument, refusing to give up when they are proven wrong. These people are difficult to work with and pervert the best of intentions because of narcissism.

One of the hardest things I've had to learn is admitting that I am wrong. It is difficult, but arguing in the face of being proven wrong or irrelevant is stupid and egotistical. However, I do think that I am better for it. Of course, I still argue stupid points, but I do so less frequently.

I find that most people haven't learned and do not care to learn this lesson. Being wrong isn't a sign of losing, it's a sign of progression and education. If you are wrong and learn you are wrong, you are better for it. You have learned something new and better. If you learn you are wrong and continue to argue in support of that wrong idea, you are promoting ignorance and preventing a better outcome.

This is a fairly academic distinction if you are working with a very small group of intelligent people with good communication skills. I'm discovering this optimum solution is rarely present. Instead, there are many larger groups, full of people with their own ideas, unwilling to realize that their idea may be wrong or that there may be a better idea that isn't theirs.

Consequently, I'm regularly demonized as the obstinate one. Yes, I will argue my point until we are forced to make a decision. Yes, I will not compromise my argument. Yet, I will change my argument or give it up completely if it can be proven wrong or inefficient.

In the end, I've realized it often isn't even about the argument. It's about people being petty. The argument and it's pursuit is the ideal. Dealing with the person is the pragmatic element, because people need to be placated and made to feel that they are necessary.

So what is the solution? Do we attempt to ignore the person for the argument? I think that isn't possible in most situations. Whatever action must be taken may be taken without compromise and efficiently in the instant case. But what about the next time you must interact with that person or those people?

Do we attempt to focus on the person instead of the argument? I think this is the flaw that many leaders make. In an attempt to placate the person, the argument for the action is lost. This simply dilutes the meaning of the action, leading to co-option, corruption, and perversion. It gives voice to an element that works against better solutions, legitimizing it for another day and another argument.

Growin' Up

I'm at the edge of one of the biggest decisions of my life. In a month or so, I will have the opportunity to move out of the city to work and finish up school in Washington, D.C. I would get to work on policy, which has always been something I've wanted to do. It is an amazing opportunity to learn and expand strong interests of mine.

However, I would have to pull up what meager roots I have in the city and move. This is probably not a big deal for some people, but I have a feeling that if I head out of this city, I might never make it back.

For all that I find frustrating about this city, I have friends here. I never thought that was something I would say, but it's true. There are people I could maintain contact with over the distance, but there are others whom I would miss seeing every week.

But, that is at stark contrast with the general apathy so many people here hold. There are many good people in the city that volunteer, but that is the extend of their efforts towards changing the world. They could do so much more, yet it doesn't even appear to be an option to do so for many.

Additionally, I've moved often, and I do feel the urge to move again. But, starting all over doesn't sound appealing to me now that I have a network of friends.

For the first time in a very long time, I'm really lost as to what to do. I've had to make thoughtful choices in the past and asked people for help, but I've never needed it. Now that I need their help, I don't know that anyone has given it to me. Instead, they simple reflect my own opinions. My friends are too polite - something I'll have to watch out for when introducing potentially-serious significant others to them.

I hate to complain about my personal decisions on this blog, but I do view it as attaching to the theme of it. Since I entered law school, I've struggled with reconciling my idealistic side and my pragmatic side. Moving to Washington, D.C. would be in favor of my idealistic side. I could engage the issues I am passionate about fully, addressing them directly in the most relevant forum.

The pragmatist within says not to go. Getting a job on the Hill after graduation will be tough, and I don't know if I could live in the environment of Washington, D.C. for a long time. Where I am right now holds job possibilities and avenues for really affecting change. Here, I could start a career and prepare myself for a later, larger struggle.

I might just fear what I don't know. Washington, D.C represents something new and untested - it's a new challenge for that stubborn, driven side to overcome.

Henry David Thoreau addressed this very issue in Walden; or, Life in the Woods, stating that "[t]he man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready."

Do I take advantage of my youth and push for something new, alone? Or, is it time to mature to the next stage socially and create a foothold, preparing to tackle future challenges with others that will be there to support me?

The Cost of Morality

It never ceases to amaze me that supposedly mature individuals of substantial accomplishment and mental ability act like morons, casting aside logic in favor of tactics arising from schoolyard interactions.

In recent situations, I feel that I have been forced to make a decision that compromises my loyalties to individuals and my self-integrity, whether it be a calm approach to life or treating others with respect. For the first time, I have started to understand the cost of loyalty to friends.

I remember getting into an argument over Bill Richardson's support of Obama. Richardson had previously been a member of the Clinton administration, which appointed him to several positions and boosted his political career, eventually resulting in his winning the gubernatorial race for New Mexico. After coming out in support of Obama, many individuals criticized Richardson as a traitor for not supporting Hillary Clinton.

I never understood this. Why should an individual be castigated for doing what is right? Loyalty does not transcend doing the right thing, may it be political or moral. The "betrayal" of a friend should not be considered a sin that outweighs integrity. To accept loyalty as the winner, we justify the oft heard defense of those committing the worst crimes known to humanity: "I was just following orders."

This post was started several weeks ago, and I am only completing it now because I didn't feel as if I was viewing the situation subjectively. Since then, I have lost what I thought I would lose, gaining nothing from my actions. All I can see is that I have maintained the morals I have defined.

One side of me wishes that I hadn't acted. I would have lost nothing but a sliver of my beliefs. However, that small cut would be something with which I would have to live. If I could bear losing that sliver, maybe I could give a bit more.

Walking any path in life starts with the smallest of steps, the tiniest of choices. The person I could become would be the person I am. The person I am would not see a need to go back, or if he did, might not be able to go back.

I do not like the consequences of what I did. I am not happy with what I did. I most likely cannot obtain what I lost.

Now, I understand the issue of loyalty and doing what I feel to be right. I have to live with my choice. That, I can and will do.

The Answer is Blowin' in the Wind

The world is connected in convoluted and insightful ways. The individual filaments that comprise its whole are woven together in an indescribable pattern. To appreciate it, you must see enough to simply understand that it exists.

The beauty captured in the stitch is elusive, requiring a constant and active search. For the past several months, I don't think I have been trying to look for it. I was silent because I couldn't ask the right questions that the world could answer.

I've started to understand why Mary Schmich stated in her column (transformed by Baz Luhrmann into song form) "Advice, like youth, probably just wasted on the young", that you can live somewhere, but "leave before it makes you soft." I think I need to pay attention in some form or another to those words.

This city is wonderful city. It has music, a politically active community, and a combination of many different cultures. These things don't stifle the search for a pattern, but a preoccupation with them does. Aldous Huxley explained the situation well in Brave New World, where Helmholtz Watson expresses the need to go somewhere similar to the Falkland Islands so that his creative side had a chance to unfurl against the stresses of nature.

Sometimes, if you are lucky, creative nature comes to you. The past several months have brought viewings of The Wrestler, Redbelt; readings and re-rereadings of Watchmen and Peresopolis; and an attendance to the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States (I did go to the freezing nature in this case, but the tickets came to me).

I feel urged to look through the lens of a post-September 11 world. Since the crashes, there has been an obsession with heroes. First, it was firefighters and the police. Then, it was the victims of domestic terrorism. But as we moved further away from being victimized individually and our government took over the responsibility of defending our society, I think we as individuals never recovered. Instead of relaxing under the protective umbrella of government, people huddled in fear of a drop of what seemed like terrorism, foreign extremism, international anti-American sentiment, and now economic failure.

The Dark Knight, Watchmen, the Spider-Man series, Hancock (check out the numbers on that one...), the Matrix sequels - all of these films focus on individuals not empowering themselves. Rather, select individuals take on a role to save the weak masses. They become people operating outside of the law, doing that which needs to be done without the restraints of a mundane daily life.

I believe film reflects society. There are smart people in Hollywood, and they know how to play to the crowd's wants and needs. But even if you don't buy the film argument, look at the resurgence of superhero comics. Comic Con has been swarmed the last few years, with people no longer able to buy tickets on-site. Television is going the same way, with shows that start with regular people that are given powers to deal with their lives. Even the many crime shows play on this theme, featuring police that aren't afraid to bend the law to their needs.

The scary part is where this translates over into the political world. Obama seems to be idealized as the savior of American society, the super-man of government. Washington, D.C. was filled with mindless drones at the inauguration, putting all of their hope and energy into our new President. But recent trends, such as the relabeling of detainees and the support of the state secrets argument, beg the now age-old question - who watches the watchmen?

We have the players, we have the problems, but where are the solutions? I think Obama tried to hint at one in his inaugural speech based on responsibility. We must hold ourselves accountable. But Obama himself is far from the words of President Harry S. Truman: "The buck stops here."

I think that the idealism of responsibility can be dangerous. Where do we draw the line as to for what we are responsible? Do we hold it to ourselves solely and completely, singing Sweet Child O' Mine to the end? Do we hold ourselves accountable for all of society in a utilitarian philosophy, telling future generations to "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair"? Where is the middle ground, and is that ground acceptable?

I think Marjane Satrapi's Peresopolis starts to approach an answer. Our ideals, of responsibility or otherwise, will collide with the world. There is a great cost to maintaining ourselves in the ensuing struggle. Some things can can anchor us pragmatically, like family or friends, providing a framework to balance who we need to be with for what we need to be responsible.

Should the price paid hold us back? I don't think the cost of holding ourselves responsible is ever too high. That shifts the burden to the mythical hero and leads to a mentality of helplessness. We are accountable to ourselves for ourselves. Beyond that, for what are we responsible? To limit responsibility to one's self allows for subjectivism to destroy all benefits of being responsible in a world with other people. Holding to our own path in life shows an integrity to something, but nothing more.

Compromise. It always comes down to that - balancing the ends and the means or choosing one over the other. To each their own? All I know is that I'm finally able to ask the questions again.

Through the Night

There are very few good romance films that are big releases in the United States these days. The instant reference I get when I bring up the subject is often The Notebook. It's sad that this movie is actually considered of any worth since it is boring, dry, and predictable. I know that much because I've watched the first 30 minutes three times and have repeatedly stopped the movie at that point for fear I would lapse into a permanent coma.

When I think of excellent romance films, I somehow always run over the bump of Somewhere In Time. The film brings out a forlorn contemplation, tearing away possibilities and replacing them with moribund reality. Strangely enough, the feeling is similar to those last few minutes of 12 Monkey's or Infernal Affairs, tearing our whatever emotion lies inside of you and leaving nothing but a void.

The theme that binds these films focuses on a failure to escape a world constantly pursuing the main character(s). However, in each situation, the situation is one that is chosen - not forced upon them.

Maybe that is why the films are so devastating - they are tragedies in which the characters try to fight a destiny they can feel pulling them deeper and deeper. Self-destruction is far more complete when a person knowingly walks along a path towards it because it is the only choice that can be fathomed.

In that same step, idealism has to be followed through with, despite its obvious failings. Choices must be made in the belief that something good will come of them, otherwise there is no point in moving forward. That step forward, into danger, is what generates hope.

People seem to forget that pushing forward always involves risk. The massive potential for change can only be present because of the darkness of the current situation. The question needs to be placed in the context of what can be lost, not what can be gained. Importance lies in how great the cost is to us and the decisions we make to avoid or minimize that cost.

Placed, in a more concrete example of this election, we face dangers abroad and at home. Fundamentalist religious revivals, declining standards of freedom, increased militaristic tensions, and a precarious global finance and trading market are elements of the day. To see the world plummet downwards from any or all of these is a great cost to bear.

This places the United States at a critical decision point, between McCain and Obama. Both have promised to lead America forward through the darkness. Because of this promise, both must be evaluated in terms of the cost that we face in the future, not the benefit that either may bring. Which candidate can minimize or maybe even avoid the exploding costs of healthcare, social security, poverty, education, military casualties, international instability, worker exploitation and genocide?

There is an excellent quote from Batman: The Dark Knight, where Harvey Dent states optimistically, "The night is darkest just before the dawn." So many people forget that after the dawn the night will come again. Our path out of darkness will be a path into darkness once again.

The rhetoric of the presidential candidates reflects a benefit-analysis, primarily to set the bar low. They characterize themselves as agents of change, deviating from the path that America, not only our President, has chosen for the past two terms. In doing so, both Obama and McCain argue to try to address the present and future costs, but are unwilling to go so far as to say they will solve for them.

The resulting resolve is one that compromised both politicians. Voters admired each of these men for characteristics they thought would help deal with the travails ahead. In response, Obama handed over the idealism of a radical candidate that pushed him so far though the Democratic party. McCain let got of much of his lauded honesty and ethics in selecting his vice-presidential candidate and recent endorsement of smear campaigning.

Done to reduce expectations and increase mainstream support, both candidates established a message that they would try to address the costs - that they would change the current political scene of the United States. But the political scene isn't the problem, it's the impacts of the political scene. When you distill the message of each candidate, we are left with a promise to try to change the costs.

"Do or do not - there is no try," said Yoda. If failure isn't an option, why do our proposed leaders hold themselves back in fear of it? Lead us forwards or don't lead us - failure is not an option.

Whom Did I Kill Today?

I've pretty much failed at attempting to post regularly. I'll shirk my responsibility and blame a combination of school, law school preparation, and dread at the thought and reality of moving to the desert where I will serve this summer.

Much of my recent contemplation has been upon issues I've expounded during my last post. I have settled on a law school that provides a slightly more practical education over one that highlighted public interest law, bringing me one step closer to the point of losing a vital connection with the world.

This connection is one that I believe should impact our every decision. Each action, no matter how small, must be understood in an economic and political concept - an allocation of some resource. In most cases it is one away from others in less fortunate parts of the world towards our own benefit. Some of these decisions, such as buying toothpaste or chips to go with a sandwich, may seem minute and inconsequential. However, every small step away from understanding that tossing away the chips one didn't finish is one closer to a reality where children in another country don't get a meal for days or weeks.

I don't advocate that people stop living their lives, or that every decision requires a deep evaluation. Thought in this manner would stifle any progress or ability to participate in society. Rather, people should attempt to reach this ideal, so that a connection with the world outside our respective bubble is not severed completely.

To understand my point, I often point to the dogmatic stances of political parties. Republicans promote individualism, maintaining that people must be responsible for their actions and bear the consequences of their actions without a buffer from society to soften the blow of the negatives they may encounter. Democrats go with a slightly different take, promoting all of society's members to a status that requires maintenance by removing access to resources and opportunities to those outside our society. For clarification, think of welfare programs in the former situation and protectionism in the latter.

These cases both require severing of the connection at a different level. Republicans ask for one inside society, and Democrats ask for one outside of society. They also hope to simplify the situation into an us-them dichotomy, making sure that whatever in-group is created is the one the appropriate party represents.

Either way, a dissonance is established, where the claim is made that people are being helped. However, in both cases, people are being forgotten and left behind - inside and outside society. In both cases, people that have never had opportunities for a peaceful, fulfilling life are relegated to the out-group of lesser importance.

The core issue boils down to how one conceptualizes humanity. The categorization by nation, race, gender, or religion doesn't make sense in a increasingly interconnected, global society. People are people, and where one happens to be born, which religion one adheres to, what one looks like, or what one feels like should not define the abilities and rights one possesses.

Translating this into daily life becomes extremely problematic, when a domestic job is exported to someone who is making enough money to feed their family, possibly for the first time in generations. Is protecting thousands of these jobs worth the starvation or malnutrition of these others? Does it make sense to sustain the retirement base of the middle and upper classes at the cost of a lower class's education, nutrition, and safety?

Every action taken should bring along with it a conscious understanding of the cost incurred. A slight consideration of the alternatives of an action might actually cause people to understand the benefits they hold within our society. With such an understanding, maybe they would also come to realize their complacency and/or apathy partially contributes to the suppression of benefits to many others - those not only in our local streets and inner cities, but in neighboring countries, trading partner nations, and even those groups simply connected to us by their presence in our world.