Feeling Like an Ex-Pat in My Own Country

 The term “ex-pat” is short for ex-patriot, an individual living and/or working in a country other than his or her country of citizenship, often temporarily and often for work reasons.  Ex-pats, while usually having chosen and enjoying their life abroad, still very much consider themselves citizens of their homeland and generally experience some level of homesickness for it.  They often get together with other expats from the same country to celebrate traditions of their homeland or otherwise enjoy aspects of their homeland that are missing in their current country of residence.

In today’s world I often feel like an ex-pat in my own country.  While many of my fellow citizens feel similarly, I am sure that many others are not really aware of the depth of irreversible change that is taking place, and which will leave us with not an improved America but with a very different country entirely. 

The progressive Left agenda is more than just some typical political posturing and gamesmanship.  Today’s progressive and socialist Left would like to see America as we know it completely dismantled and re-established as some sort of socialist utopia.  America is already changing its character and essence into a truly different place, and that is why many are feeling like homesick expats – strangers in a strange land homesick for their homeland.

I am not talking about some nostalgia for an America of yesteryear.  This is not a desire for an America that never changes or does not work to cure its deficiencies or constantly evolve.  Rather, it means a desire for exactly that America – the America with the core values that has allowed it to ever evolve forward, closer to the ideals of its founding and its Constitution, the ideals that have allowed it to be the beacon of freedom to the rest of the world for the past 245 years.

So many of what one often cites as characteristics of America and as those things which make her unique and great are being cancelled and replaced by very different characteristics.  Those new characteristics or values are encouraged by the Left along with their handmaidens the mainstream media and big corporations.  These changes are all interrelated and while each alone affects some aspect of America, when all become intertwined they eat out America’s heart and soul.

What is being cancelled and how is it being replaced? I have created two charts which only begin to suggest the changes that are occurring.  These charts suggest some of the characteristics of America and its people that are being cancelled – the characteristics of the America that I and other expats here are homesick for. 

Of course some, especially the woke Left and their minions, are thrilled to see these many changes.  Others of us are terrified as we see these many interrelated elements creating a new America, one without our traditional freedoms and values, one that will require an authoritarian structure for whom most of us will be required to relinquish our individuality as we essentially become its slaves. 

While the below charts only scratch the surface of the upheaval that is taking place in America, they perhaps give a sense of its extent.  America is not evolving or growing but being destroyed in order to serve some sort of reimagining by the Left (reimagining being the appropriate word here because this has all been imagined before – by every failed or failing socialist or Marxist regime that has ever existed). 

As I look about me and see a very different America emerging, I realize that I am an ex-pat in my own country.  The problem is, I did not choose to move here, I don't like it, and I cannot go home.

Individual and Societal Characteristics in America Today

Part 1:  Aspects that emanate from something external to the individual (e.g. inherent/constitutional rights, the State, the mob)
Being Cancelled	Being Encouraged	Examples/Effect of Change
Inherent Rights (rights that belong to the individual and cannot be taken by the State)	State granted rights (The state owns the right and can choose to grant it or how to grant it and can take it away)	E.g.: Entitlement programs or amount of those programs: housing & rent assistance, social services,
Rules that apply equally to all	Rules apply depending on the situation and who is involved	E.g: Leaders not following own rules; favored victim classes excused from what are legal violations for others
Regulated borders	Open borders; immigration laws not enforced	Loss of identifiable and unified country; no control over who enters and why
Choice	No Choice (in goods or beliefs)	E.g.: Certain points of view cannot be posted on social media, are disinvited from college campuses, are fired because of beliefs
Equality (Equal opportunity for all, but results might not be equal)	Equity (Equal results for all)	Requires some form of discrimination to achieve the desired result; the State (as opposed to the individual) determines what the result will be; eliminates motivation & competition
Uniqueness of Individual	Group identity	Causes dissention as groups are defined as victims or oppressors; labels people based on external characteristics
Rights require responsibility	Rights without responsibility	Entitlement and little motivation to work or to contribute to country, society or the greater good
Meritocracy	Mediocrity	Socialism.  Destroys the Individual and fulfillment of one’s abilities
Acknowledge and learn from history (good & bad)	Cancel and deny history	Judgmental; repeat old mistakes; denies respect, pride, understanding for how the country overcame negatives and for those who came before
Freedom of speech and thought	Cancel or limit & attack opposing ideas/theories/suggestions	Stymies the ability to progress with new ideas and innovations; does not allow challenges and suggestions that can improve theories
Decisions based on fact and logic	Decisions based on emotion and self interest	Irrational and inconsistent outcomes; often not best for the country as a whole or for the greater good

 

Individual and Societal Characteristics in America Today

Part 2:  Aspects that are internal to the individual and contribute to the individual’s values and approach to life
Being Cancelled	Being Encouraged	Examples/Effect of Change
Selflessness	Selfishness	Loss of belief in something greater than self; little respect for human life; no concern for the greater good
Faith in something beyond self	Self-gratification is prime consideration and glorification	While superficial appetites are gratified (e.g. gender fluidity, sexualization of women and children, legalization of traditional vices), there is an emptiness in the soul; decline of religion
Respect for elders and experts	Everyone is an expert, believing they are as knowledgeable as anyone on a subject and so can and should be able to run it	Hampers ability to learn because no belief that the one from whom one is learning is any more knowledgeable than the self (or their ability to Google)
Individual responsibility	Victimhood	Blaming others for one’s pain and predicament does not allow for personal growth, does not allow one to move forward as an individual
Rewarded for one’s own labor	All share in rewards even if they did not contribute	Contrary to the moral of the children’s store of The Little Red Hen, this encourages laziness and mediocrity
Self-reliance	Reliance on State	Diminishes the ability to take pride in and feel rewarded by one’s own accomplishments; creates dependency on State and underclass of those who are dependent
Acceptance of reality of imperfection with goal of every improving towards (unattainable) perfection	Belief in possibility of utopia	Everyone’s utopia is different and all utopias require authoritarianism
Critical thinking	Superficial solutions to problems while questions, deep thought demeaned	Without critical thinking individual cannot realize own true and full potential

 

 

Reflecting on Our Great Divide while waiting for Election Results

I am not quite sure what is happening with the returns or when we will know who our President will be come January.  I do know that it may take time to count legitimate ballots.  I know that our system provides for challenges and recounts (which are not voter suppression!).  I know that it seems strange that suddenly late election night all counting stopped as certain states looking as if they would go to Trump suddenly decided to await additional ballots (many of which, legitimate or not?, they seem to have found supportive of Biden).

If Biden is elected, I will accept that.  I will not like it and I will mourn for the America that I believe in.  If Trump is elected, I hope that Democrats will accept that, unlike their hate-based refusal to do so from the date of his 2016 election until today.  But I do not hold out much hope for any tolerance towards Trump or his supporters from the Democrats.  I wish there was something more positive to say.  There is not.

One thing that this election (as well as the last 4 years) has made perfectly clear:  We have two Americas.  And they cannot be reconciled.

Look at the election maps.  In nearly every state you will see vast expanses of red in rural areas with large blue spots atop the big cities.  This red-blue political divide reflects the larger divide between the values and lifestyles of the two groups.  These values, these hopes and dreams for themselves, their neighbors, and for America are often in direct opposition to one another.  The divide is really a divide of two cultures not unlike the divide between two countries. 

It has been suggested that we should have a Fulbright type program between metropolitan and rural areas within the U.S.  This would be a way to foster a better understanding of different ways of life, different cultural values in the same way that the Fulbright program fosters such understanding between different nations.

While I like the sound of this idea, I wonder if it would really help to bring this nation together.  Yes, it would probably promote understanding just as the current Fulbright program promotes understanding of other countries and cultures.  But that understanding does not actually unite two countries into one and currently we essentially have two countries within our borders. 

In 2018 the Pew Research Center published a study of the differences between urban, suburban, and rural cultures.  The study found significant differences between urban/suburban and rural not only in politics, but also in such things as measures of economic well-being, education, optimism about the future, basic values,  views on social issues, importance of diversity, drugs and drug addiction, importance of family ties and attachment to community, interaction with neighbors, immigration, age and economic status of population, type of jobs available, etc.  These are discussed in great detail with statistics and charts showing nuances of similarities and differences; the entire report can be found here:  LINK  

While there are small areas of similarity between urban and rural (with suburban a sort of neutral zone between the two that leans toward each in some ways), there is really very little upon which they agree.  Their differences can all be traced to differences in core values.  While it is possible to tolerate a different value system in another, it is not possible to change it to your own. 

Yet that is exactly what many Democrats and their policies would do.  They would force us to conform to a given set of values legislated or mandated by the government.  There would be no room for tolerance of others.  And the core values of rural and urban are distinctly different and irreconcilable. 

Our country was mostly rural for much of its existence.  Cities have grown larger and larger with former rural dwellers as well as many immigrants who are newer to America and its culture.  The two cultures have different needs and different desires; their cultures are different.

World views, values, beliefs are formed in childhood.  While their superficial expressions may change, their core rarely does.  So if we have entirely different core values being instilled then the populations and the culture that result from those values will be very different and perhaps unable to live together as one.

While Pew did not discuss religion, I think that one’s faith leads to and supports many of one’s values.  Faith and religion play different roles in the lives of rural and urban dwellers.  In many instances the faith of a rural area is a central part of the community; it is something that helps to hold the community together.  In urban areas there may be pockets of sub-communities held together by a particular faith, but faith/religion is not the driving force within most urban areas.

Additionally, the values necessary to a rural culture include self-reliance and independence.  In an urban setting where large numbers of people are grouped together in small spaces, there is more need to become a part of the group and a greater dependence on the group than on ones’s self, for both daily needs as well as one’s own identity.  A belief that one has the right to control one’s own destiny does not merge well with the belief that government can and should control much of a citizenries’ behavior.

Rural and urban America have different mind-sets that have resulted in different cultures.  At one time the total populations between rural and urban were not that different allowing both cultures to have some say in the overall running of our country.

Today, the urban cities, because of their large populations are more and more able to control the outcome of both statewide and federal elections.  This is dangerous.  When two cultures must reside together and only one is heard, the outcome is never good.

I honestly do not think that the huge rural-urban gap can be bridged.  We have two countries and two cultures.  We used to be able to tolerate different views, but this goes well beyond different views.  Because the underlying values are so different the two groups seek entirely different Americas.  While they might want to visit, neither wants to live in the America of the other. 

In this election, once the counts and recounts are concluded and court battles decided, we will have a winner.  The people will have spoken.  But I wonder how long we are able to have one half of the country whose views are polar opposite of the other decide how the entire country will live.   We will permanently be at war with one another.   

We cannot solve this problem with politics or legislation.  We cannot require someone to change their values or beliefs to suit whomever is in power.  We cannot have both big and small government.  We cannot have both capitalism and socialism.  We cannot hold traditional values and deny those traditions for a new world order. 

Once this election is resolved, we will have people calling for us to understand one another and get along, to have “conversations” about our differences.  These things never work.  We are different people and we simply have to accept that fact.  The question is, being so different that we are essentially entirely at odds in all that we believe, how do we live together? 

Our Constitution and our government used to help us to do that with its protections of each individual’s beliefs and speech and its demands for tolerance of others with differing views.  But one of the great divides is that half of us no longer respect that Constitution or our form of government. 

I wish I had a solution.  I do not. 

 

Does Anyone Still Care About Objective Truth?

In today’s world it seems like the driving force in any conversation, discussion, not to mention argument is to WIN, not to search for and perhaps even find the TRUTH. 

Facts are out the window.  It is all about NARRATIVE.  That is, what is the story one wants to tell that will serve the teller’s purposes – that purpose most often being to win.  The end seems to always justify the means.  Lies are not prohibited; challenging lies is an impermissible attack. The teller’s story must be believed so the teller can win; questions are not for discussion but rather seen as attacks.

Mature discussions used to also include some element of humility which resulted in actually listening to the assertions of the other side and accepting questions about one’s own beliefs and assertions with a humble dignity and acknowledgement that they might be wrong or open to revision.  Both sides were not only willing to listen to verified facts but were also unwilling to assert as true or factual opinions or allegations that were not verified or that came only from “unidentified sources.”

Not so today.  Humility gets in the way of winning.  It is inconsistent with the assertion that one is absolutely right, no matter what.  No matter what the facts might be or what a full evidentiary examination might prove.  Egos seem unable to take any sort of challenge.  It is all about winning and in order to “win” too many people think that they must be right no matter what and any contrary fact or point of logic must be repelled and denied.

This is at least in part why people believe that they are justified in denying the First Amendment rights of others.  This is at least in part why people assert that information published by news outlets that do not concur with their Left or Right leanings are simply not worth reading, even if they provide verifiable facts on a topic.  This is why when one narrative is repeated by other outlets that have the same leanings that those who accept that narrative believe that it has been verified and not just repeated. 

This is how false allegations take wing.  Opinions become fact.  An unverified statement by an unidentified source becomes truth.  In reality, neither is so, and yet we let such narratives ruin the lives of so many people:  think about the Kavanaugh hearings for example; think about a justified – and there are some – police shooting where the officer is crucified rather than appreciated for doing his or her job; think about FISA warrants to spy on American citizens and on a Presidential candidate that were granted on what have now been proven to be false statements.  These are just a few of the more egregious false narratives that far too many are willing to accept simply because they support the triumph of their own narrative. 

It is all about winning.  But once upon a time it was more about finding an objective truth.

There was an interesting commentary in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 30 by Tony Woodlief titled “Free Speech Absolutism Killed Free Speech.”  In it he argues that too much free speech has led to the cancel culture.  Essentially his position is that when we have open speech and the full exchange of ideas (which were originally believed by Mill and others to be the way to ferret out the objective TRUTH), that no idea is refutable, and ultimately leads to the belief that no truth exists. 

“When no dogma can finally be put to rest, it becomes easier—almost obligatory—to do whatever we like. Ideas are evaluated, not based on their reasonableness or coherence, but by how much they tickle the ears of the in-crowd. Harder truths become offensive. The only intolerable citizen, in such a regime, is the one whose belief in truth compels him to attack beliefs he believes to be false even if his attacks disturb the equanimity of the establishment. His criticism becomes too hurtful—even a form of “violence.” For the safety of the community, he must be cast out.”

This well describes a reason for such things as free speech being driven from campuses, threats and attacks directed towards those who do not support the favored position, acceptance of unverified facts or opinions and “news,” etc. 

But this reasoning is flawed.  It is not free speech itself that leads to this place of dogma over truth.  Rather it is the current inability or unwillingness of people to use their critical thinking skills – to use reason as well as emotion in assessing the speech that they hear.  As Mr. Woodlief writes, “Mill believed heretics should be heard, not put in charge of classrooms and permitted to create despotic speech codes. Everybody should be allowed to express his views, but that doesn’t require us to empower and elevate people who would afford themselves the right to speak and take it from everybody else.”

When did we decide that we are no longer allowed to question speech put forth if it might be in the least bit upsetting to the mob of public opinion?  I think there are two areas that are in large part responsible for this:  A loss of shared values and a loss of an educational system that teaches us to think.

Both require not just listening, but listening and then holding the ideas and ideologies presented accountable.

As Mr. Woodlief states, “the classroom is not a fiefdom and students are not a teacher’s ideological playthings.”  It is the responsibility of educators to not present one viewpoint alone, but to present several and then help the students to conduct their own inquiry and evaluation into those viewpoints – questioning the adequacy of sources, the completeness and objectivity with which facts are presented, etc.  It is the job of educators to teach students how to assess a variety of informations and then make up their own minds.

Yet too often educators try to instill their beliefs into their students by presenting only their ideology.  Academics and those who hold themselves out to be scholars have an ethical responsibility to promote free and open inquiry as well as practice intellectual honesty themselves.

Combined with the loss of critical thinking in the classroom has come a change in what Americans value.  We have become a “feel good” society.  Everyone must get a trophy; no one should be made to feel uncomfortable -ever; if it makes you feel good, do it; etc.  Questioning someone’s point is seen as an attack, not on the point being argued, but on the person.  We have lost the ability to distinguish that.  We have silenced our reason for our emotions. 

When everyone is right, when everyone expects the trophy, we essentially silence both our humility and our critical thinking ability.  It is not free speech that is the problem, but our inability to listen to that free speech without feeling threatened and without the ability to assess the many ideas we find in the marketplace and hold them accountable.

We have lost the belief in an objective truth; it has been replaced with a belief in individual narrative truth.  When that is the prevailing belief, there will be no assessments of ideologies as part of the search for that objective truth.  Instead, truth will become the fickle assertion of the mob majority and opposing ideas will be silenced, not because the ideas in vogue are not refutable, but because we are afraid to refute them.

Only when, and not until, we relearn the humility of putting a shared search for objective truth above a personal desire to win, only then will we find the civility and tolerance that once existed in this country and be able to use it to overcome the hate and blindness to reason that is destroying us.

On Speech, Values, and Roseanne

I stopped writing this blog about 6 months ago in part because a busy life got in the way and in part because I assumed that after a year people could see the things I was observing and writing about for themselves.   Well, that assumption proved erroneous.  So, while the busy life continues, I return to the blog in the hopes of waking even one person from the stupor that lack of independent and critical thinking creates.

Today is about free speech or lack thereof along with a definition of racism.  Let’s begin with that definition:  Racism is defined as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”  Someone is a racist when the show or feel “discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another”.   Disagreeing with an individual of another race is not racism, although of course someone who is a racist might disagree with a particular of another race.  But, it does not follow that everyone who does so is a racist.  Similarly, name calling does not necessarily prove racism or that someone is a racist; it is often simply a reflection of someone’s poor judgement or bad behavior.  That is so even when the name-calling includes words that are racially sensitive generally or to the particular individual against whom the name is directed. 

Now that those definitions have been clarified, lets turn to the topic of free speech.  It is on my mind today because of ABC’s cancellation of the show Roseanne for the star’s personal tweet which the network called  “abhorrent” but which social media labeled “racist.”  The tweets addressed both Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s aide) and Chelsea Clinton. While it is not clear what is being called racist, I am assuming that it is her statement that Jarett is like “the muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby.”  Ugly, yes.  I personally don’t see this as a racist statement, though I guess that some will find the word “ape” in any sentence associated with a black person to be racist.   (Of course, the Apes in planet of the apes were pretty intelligent, one might recall).  Perhaps it is instead the reference to the Muslim brotherhood since Jarett was born in Iran?  Roseanne almost immediately apologized for making a “bad joke about her politics and her looks….my joke was in bad taste.”  Yes, it was. 

But was it really any more abhorrent than Jimmy Kimmel making fun of Melania Trump’s accent – not as a private individual but on his ABC television show?  Wasn’t that not only a “joke” about Melania but also a derogatory statement about all immigrants?  Kimmel also later apologized for his “bad joke.” 

So, we have two “jokes” attacking individuals associated with a political perspective contrary to that of the person making the joke.  One puts her joke on Twitter, then almost immediately apologizes.  The other broadcasts his joke from his TV show and then doubles down on it before ultimately apologizing.  One “joke” was clearly directed at (the parentage) of just one individual.  The other was arguably directed at an entire group of people. Both individuals have shows on ABC and the Melania joke was broadcast on that ABC show.  One gets fired, the other doesn’t.

There are some differences between the two “jokes”, but they are similar enough that one would think that ABC’s treatment of them would also be similar.  Yet, Roseanne’s show is cancelled, Kimmel’s is not.  In cancelling Roseanne, ABC stated that Roseanne’s Twitter statement was “inconsistent with our values.” I am at a loss to understand why Kimmel’s on air jokes about Melania are not also inconsistent with the network’s values along with his and many other ABC personnel statements that make personal attacks about those associated with Trump (I am not referring to attacks on the substance of policies, etc, but rather to personal attacks on appearance, etc., or simply unfounded name calling). Perhaps I just don’t understand ABC’s definition for its “values.”

So, this leads me to more general comments on the idea of free speech. 

First, yes, there is a right to free speech, but that does not mean that it is always right to exercise it.  Common decency should cause one to restrain oneself from uttering every single speech that might be allowable under the Constitution.  There is no need to make fun of how someone looks or talks, and it is simply polite not to do so.  There is no need to make fun of everyone one disagrees with, no need to hold up the severed head of the president, even jokingly.  There is no need to use the right of free speech to attack everyone and everything that one disagrees with.  It would be far better to instead use speech to open a dialogue with those with differing views.

Secondly, the right of free speech does not just pertain to accepted or popular speech.  It does not pertain just to politically correct speech.  Many today seem to think it is perfectly OK to shout down or otherwise censor speech with which they do not agree.  Yet it is that free market place of ideas and opposing views, freely spoken and discussed, which are the mark of a truly free society.

So, back to ABC.  It seems that they have chosen to punish someone who speaks from a point of view with which they do not agree, yet if not reward, at least not punish someone whose political positions reflect their own.  If these are the values that ABC lauds as its justification for the cancellation of Roseanne, then they are, in the opinion of this author, worthless and false morals that do not reflect the ideals of this country but which instead support the denial of free speech that moves us ever further from our freedom.

It’s All About Feeling Good

Taking cans out to the mailbox today to be picked up by the mail carrier for the local food bank, I kept thinking how foolish this is:  it would be much smarter, more efficient, and better for those in need, if instead of providing a few cans I and others were instead giving that cash to the food bank.  The few dollars spent by each of us for the few cans would go far further if the plain cash were combined and used by the food band to buy in bulk.  Mother Nature Network on 11/18/17 estimated that food banks pay about 10 cents a pound for the same food that costs shoppers about $2 per pound.  According to an NPR Talk of the Nation piece in 2011, for the same amount of money spent on buying cans for a food drive, donors can feed 20 times more families by providing cash as opposed to cans. That would create a far greater stock of food for those in need. 

So, why are we asked to donate cans and not money and why do we do it?  I think in large part because the tangible act of holding the cans and handing them over makes people feel good, like they are doing something.  It’s easy – maybe you have some old cans of beans in the back of the cupboard – pull them out, put them in the bag, and feel good as you get rid of them.  And look:  everyone can see your bag of cans by your mailbox – your neighbors will see you are doing good.  All public, positive, and immediate reinforcement – much more so than writing a check and mailing it off where no one sees your good deed and any benefits to you in the form of tax deductions will not be seen for months.   The bottom line is we donate the cans – to the mail carrier, to the bring a canned good to the ballpark day, to the school drive, etc. – because it makes us feel good.  Yes, it also benefits those in need, but this particular act of charity seems to be more focused on making the donor feel good than on providing for the recipients.

Nothing wrong with feeling good, unless it becomes the primary and driving force of all our actions.   And isn’t that exactly what seems to have happened in our society.  We do things because they make us feel good.  And part of that feeling good seems to be a sort of sophomoric popularity that goes along with defining the feel-good acts to be done.   Hence, we had those in the entertainment world doing more and more outrageous acts that felt good and in those circles made them more and more popular, until recently when the tables turned, and they have begun to be called out for their acts, acts which are no longer approved by the populace.  Now we have the “me too” crowd purging their hurt or hatred while being applauded for stating “me too.”  But, while this may make everyone feel good as they pat themselves and others on the backs for simply coming forward, just as giving a can is less effective than giving a dollar, saying “me too” or asserting a stand against all the accused is not really very effective beyond a momentary good feeling.

Looking at the “me too” movement, I see very little good in it.  And I ask myself what is it teaching our daughters, and our sons?  We  should be teaching that when people are aggrieved, rather than simply posting their grievance on some social platform,  they should take their grievance to a proper authority who must listen without judgment, assume that the aggrieved is not lying, will investigate further, and take appropriate action.  The aggrieved must also understand that they very likely will not get immediate gratification, but that in most cases in the end they will see justice.  And, we all should be taught that because each and every one of us perceives facts differently that all people involved in any incident need to be heard.  We also need to know that sometimes we absolutely believe something to be true, even though that does not match the factual reality.  That does not make a person a liar, but it also may mean that they will not get the particular relief for which they hoped.   And, when it comes to sexual harassment and assault, just as with most other wrongful behaviors, there are different forms and levels and all are not equal.  A lewd glance or remark is not the same as a momentary unwanted touch, and neither approach the level of actual rape. 

What “me too” teaches is that if you claim to have been a victim you will feel good.  Regardless of the severity of your harm, people will applaud you, giving you loving attention. You will be a welcomed member of the “me too” victimhood group.   You may feel good for calling out the one who affronted you in the way that revenge makes one feel good.  What does that teach?  Simply that victimhood and revenge are good.  It does not teach anything that might stop the cause of the victimhood.  And, it leaves out the important concept of justice.  Some may think that because the accused is immediately and publicly shamed that will stop others from behaving in the same way.  I doubt that.  Capital punishment has not yet stopped the sorts of heinous crimes for which it is a punishment.  And, to continue the analogy, innocent people are sometimes put to death, just as I suspect that public conviction upon a mere assertion of “me too” will result is some innocent people being wrongfully shamed.

But, back to feeling good.  There will be little permanence in a society that uses that as its guiding force, especially when it is defined by the values and mores of the day.  That is, feeling good as a response to external factors is a superficial way to find meaning in life.  And, as with anything superficial (that is, of the surface), it can easily be washed away.  If one chooses to be led by feeling good, let that feeling be guided by internal forces and values of goodness.  Yet, here is the problem:  as a society we seem to have lost those internal and constant values that used to guide us.  The superficial feeling has replaced those deeper internal beliefs. 

This need for and elevation of superficial gratification, especially gratification without difficulty and with public affirmation, would seem to lead to a selfish and often hateful populace.   A populace in which feelings eclipse all else:  facts, historic and religious values, respect for others, education, thinking, self-fulfillment, independence, justice. Let’s just look at a few of these.  Grade inflation makes students feel good as does passing a child forward whether they are competent in their grade level or not.  Tests, homework, hard work are not fun/do not make the students feel good, so we will dismiss them even if it means our students do not learn as much or do not learn to think deeply.   Facts can get in the way of feelings, so we will just ignore the facts we don’t like or alter them to our liking.  Hence we have competing “factual” accounts of most everything in the news – even whether the president properly fed the fish in Japan.  If one’s own feelings are most important, then they will outweigh feelings of others and this leads to disrespect for the others and their views.  Independence and the freedom to speak one’s views have become less important than conformance with the asserted group-think, and with that comes a government that is more and more intrusive into people's lives and hence their independence and ability to be who they are as individuals rather than a cog in the wheel of a power structure that may or may not have their best interests in mind.

Feeling good.  It can be momentarily pleasant, even helpful.  But it is far from the best guiding principle with which to lead one’s life or one’s country and society.