Diversity is an important aspect of surviving and thriving societies; it is inevitable and should bring with it pluralistic attitudes towards beliefs, cultures, and traditions.

Diversity is natural.

We human beings are a diverse bunch, but diversity is also unnatural; we humans are a tribal and a fearful bunch.  We group ourselves according to backgrounds, skin color, beliefs, gender, age, occupation, pain, politics, pleasure, families and comfort.  We shouldn’t do these things because these things do not matter.

The true diversity in the world, the diversity that matters, the diversity that allows us to progress through the dark times of fear and greed is that diversity which brings us together; it is that diversity that reminds us that there is only one group of human beings and that we depend upon one another and always have.

All other differences pale in importance.

It is true that societies are made up, and should be made up, of a plethora of beliefs and ideology.  Censorship, however, will inevitably lead to certain beliefs and ideologies.  It is also true that civil societies must create boundaries by which those societies are defined.  There is a balance to be drawn.

When someone steps over those boundaries and then demands their rights to do so, such individuals, and groups, are no longer acting with the good of a civil society in mind.  When the ideologies of individuals, or groups, overrides the good of a civil society then those individuals or groups no longer have a place in that society.  The balance must be based upon the good of the society as a whole and not for certain individuals within that society.

Often, censorship is not so blatant.  In fact, censorship is often hidden within the language that we use, is hidden by fallacious arguments.  To use rhetorical language and fallacious arguments to support ideologies or to further individual agendas is deadly to civil societies because it blurs the boundaries that are necessary for civil societies.

One word that has unfortunately become nothing more than an example of rhetoric is the word: rights.  Law is created by concepts such as the concept of right, and law often defines the civility of a society.  But law becomes the censor when concepts such as rights are used as nothing more than a rhetorical tool to justify individual desires, greed, and ideologies.

The lack of virtue in leadership allows for censorship and empty rhetoric to overcome basic needs of any civil society; needs that are imperative for the allowance of individuals to lead healthy, happy lives: all individuals, not just some.

A dear friend of mine died this morning.  When death enters our lives it comes as a gut punch even when you are expecting it.  And when I became aware of his death I too died a little.  That’s how it is with the rare and few friends that we have; we lose something when we lose a friend.

It comes slow, the grief and the realization that the face of that friend will never grace our doorstep again.  It is natural, this grief, just as natural as death itself; but, it is never easy and neither should it be.  We have, our ancestors have, spent eons fighting the illusive scythe of death and some of us still do.  But we will all lose to death’s inevitable appearance in our lives.

My friend would not have me grieve too long, and so I raise a glass of single malt to the skies and to his memory and to the memories that he has given me; those I will always cherish.

“You realize you loved how the light waned through the kitchen window in winter when afternoon gave in and let night flood streets with cold, with dark that swallowed shadows.”

-Dream of the Leaving, from Asleep Beneath the Hill of Dreams

Chris Ransick

It is no secret that the US of A is in shambles, at least politically speaking.  Due in no small part to the lack of leadership that has been the norm for quite some time, but also to the motivation(s) of political leaders and their followers on both sides.  That there is a problem is not a question.

But what to do?  To continue to roll our eyes or feel the surge of anger well up in us as we see the face of our nemesis’ is to offer no solutions; but, we must be realistic…don’t we?

Solution One

Talk rationally to the other side.

Yes, but “the other side” is often ideologically rather than policy motivated and unable to converse rationally.  There is no talking to someone who is incapable or unwilling to argue rationally about things that concern not only them, but a society of people.

Solution Two

Regulate and educate

Yes, but morality cannot be regulated and determined by law.  Yes, it is against the law to murder someone, but such extreme acts are often predicated by extreme beliefs and/or feelings that exist outside of social norms, i.e. law.  Furthermore, do we really want to censor thought and speech no matter how deplorable we find it?

Solution Three

Liberate and emancipate

Yes, but personal freedoms always come at the cost of social freedoms and visa versa.  A society will not hold up under pure Libertarian principles and individuals become invisible within pure socialist societies.  There is a balance to be struck here, but that is a political discussion.

Solution Four

Take responsibility and quit being lazy

A popular solution no doubt, but taking responsibility within a system that is created to undermine individual progress is futile and why try?

There are deplorable situations and people in this world; let’s just be truthful, but the solutions to our political problems do not include these situations or people.  Any solution will be policy rather than ideologically based, reliant upon critical thinking skills, able to liberate driven individuals and emancipate an obviously broken system and allow for all parties to take responsibility for their actions no matter the consequences.