The “Impossible reading” discussed a lot about intentions. “The smallest of actions is always better than the noblest of intentions,” (Robin S. Sharma). Intent and action can stand in opposition or in fellowship depending on the way we play out our thoughts. It beckons the question of if we should judge on one’s intent or one’s actions? It has always been impressed upon me that “actions speak louder than words”. When judgement comes into play, it is not our intentions that are decided on but what we do (our actions).

This reminds me off the common plea that was used during the trials of german soldiers who partcipated in the holocaust. They claimed that they were following actions and never had evil intentions. Eichman was a key contributor in what the Nazi’s called the “Final Solution”.  The “Final Solution” was a plan to murder all the Jewish, catholics, disabled and other people considered being unworthy in the eyes of Adolf Hitler. They tasked Eichman in the overseeing of deporting the Jews to ghettos and killing centers in the German-occupied East. “Eichmann, testifying from behind a glass booth to protect him from assassination, asserted that he had not dictated policy, but only carried it out—that he was “merely a little cog in the machinery” of destruction” (Holocaust Museum). The little Cog Eichman: a cog that transported, a cog that imprisoned, and a cog that killed. However, Eichman plead not guilty under the common plea of the Nazi that he was following orders. Eichman was hanged for his actions, not the innocent intent that he claimed. 

“It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” Albus Dumbledore 

This commercial, “Formally titled “Peace, Little Girl,” but more commonly known as the “Daisy” ad, this famous political, commercial was produced primarily by Tony Schwartz for President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater.”  This is not my favorite ad in the sense of genuinely liking it, but in a sense of a strange curiosity of the fear mongering that was rampant in the 1960’s. This ad was made with the intention of fear mongering citizens into voting for Johnson with a simple slogan of ” we must either love each other or die”. This enormous oversimplification of what was happening at the time was to create a sense of pressure in the American Citizen to vote for Johnson. It is so interesting the enormous juxtaposition of innocence and extreme fear with the young girl and the explosion. I find the commercial a fascinating example of fear mongering.

My favorite ad series is the snickers, “You aren’t when you are hungry”. I love how the Ad Campaign took a literal twist on the trite phrase by having the people who are hungry be actual different people. My favorite part is the ending lines:

“the importance of storytelling to leadership – not because stories are more true than other forms of communication, but because, well chosen and well told, they convey a kind of condensed truth.”

Storytelling is one of the oldest forms of historical records. The passing of stories is in many ways how we collected information before keep written records. However, like a game of telephone the original story is never the same one that ends up reaching the end. In many cases some of the most important stories were never told. Take for example the movie Hidden Figures. The most important and intelligent people working for nasa were African American Women. However, their narratives for centuries have been excluded. Many stories have died with the people who made them.  This is the misrepresentation that story telling can arise when we cut stories from our past. 

“There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.” ― Howard Zinn

The Canary not        American plumped          wings plummeted perched to speak 

mended shut with barbwire       from a world              who would rather   

slit the black                birds throat and           tear out one of the Canaries bird

Box                               than to admit guilt                      to the shameless slaughtering

“detox”. All         sounds songs                     souls mimicked the monotonous

melodious feigning         of a falsified nation      who trapped the migrant 

birds who dare travel                             across the borders             stole 

their eggs              hovering hatching             birthing them as their own Dam

ned creations                     eggs mothered by a land                         who could never sorrow

their sadness.                       Oh Great Green pheasant                             the duped enemy 

dumped in “cages” scattered  around   dusted dried                   deserted          

desert ground              Oh how I hear your cawing             in the cebrals     of 

my mind.              The mighty thunderbird supernatural                  suffers a wobbled

wounded knee.       A massacre   masqueraded in the           bellowing buzzing    

battle Trumpets     that provided   the beat that bathed the                     birds, in blood of mass 

Extinction.   The american canary                    with yellowed patriotic blissness       sings the 

melodious                                    falsities of a nation borne from                             Silence                                                                              

being forced                              down the beaks of every bird           who wasn’t feathered                                              

in the purity of                                                                                                                          white.

I wrote this poem last year to speak upon the way that America handles its “problems” or rather the people it wishes not to have inside it’s country. The poem represents the Indians and indegenous people that we slaughtered, the immigrants that we have stereotyped and the Japenses Americans we unjustly imprisoned during WWII. We are a land that was built on the blood and enslavement of others. This is never more evident than looking at the diary of Christopher Columbus. It makes you question what we find ethical in the name of success and conquest?

Stanford Prison Experiment tested the hypothesis that the inherent personality traits of prisoners and guards are the chief cause of abusive behavior in prisons. The study converted the basement into a prison and put paid volunteers in there, some as prisoners and some as guards. “It is important to remember that at the beginning of our experiment there were no differences between boys assigned to be a prisoner and boys assigned to be a guard” (Stanford Prison Expeirment). The boys over the next day because of the “assimilation’ to the roles began to transform. The “criminals” began to have emotional distress, stopped eating and disturbed thoughts. The experiment beckons the questions of what creates a criminal? 

Criminality is not a label created by existing behind the bars of a cell, but rather a label that can be given to individuals before they are even born. It is the predetermined conception of who these individuals are supposed to be, ultimately shaping who they become. For example, in Just Mercy: a story of Justice and redemption, even the men who are entirely innocent on death row, are unable to completely free their way out of something that was already written for them. For example, Walter Mcmillian, who is black, was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a young white woman who worked in a laundromat in Monroeville, Alabama. A murder that Mr.McMillian did not commit nor was even present for at the crime scene. However, countless people came forward, convicting Mcmillian and testifying that they saw at the scene of the crime. Why did so many people demand an unjust justice?

Walter Mcmillian fits into a stereotype we have created. The definition of criminality is determined by those who are in power, such as lawmakers, government officials, police, and correctional institutions . Therefore, the set of distinguishing features that makes an individual deviant is defined by those who identify as the non- deviant group or the dominant group. Primarily, society’s dominant groups ( wealthy, ethnic majorities, men, etc.) manufacture and enforce deviant labels on the subordinate groups . Furthermore, the connection between stereotyping and labeling is that labelling usually follows after a belief in a stereotype which allows for the stereotyped individual then to be put under a category. For example, if you label someone as a criminal, a stereotypical belief to follow is that most criminals are black men or vice versa if you see a black man on the street, you might deem his behavior more deviant or “criminal”

” Some analysts complain that all our difficulties stem from the fact that we have been turned loose in the industrial age equipped with the brain of prehistoric times.”

The simplicity of chains of cause and effects is how the author, Dorner says our brains work. In many ways this is true. Our brains constantly love to simplify. It is a technique that makes this vast world, easier to understand. However, over simplification is many times dangerous. We create groups and subgroups and place people in them. This leads to stereotyping and categorization. What was once was a sorting technique now becomes a way to make racial assumptions. For example, the label of the “Dark, tall and black criminal” comes from a way of sorting types of people into groups. Then taking those groups and assuming the actions of the groups. Caveman brains or lizard brains stem from a response to protect ourselves, but we are far from prehistoric times, so why haven’t we caught up?

We haven’t developed because we are constantly acting on instinct. Brains are muscles and so they react to what we have trained them to do. For example, if you train your body to run in the wrong form then it won’t fix itself until you untrain it. The brain is a muscle and we need to untrain the Caveman inside.

At the beginning of the article the author gives an example of overpopulation, how timely. We are in the middle of a Pandemic and one of the few positives to arise out of that pandemic is the evidence arising on overpopulation and pollution. Have you seen Venice? Have you seen the Dolphins in the Venice Channels?? We are surviving and nature is thriving.

https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/coronavirus/venice-canals-clear-dolphins-swim-italy-lockdown/

This is what I like to call a Worldwide naturalistic observation. The world is not ending. Quite the contrary, this is not the end, but a beautiful chance to start over. We needed something big to wake us up and get us back to the human condition. This time is an experiment and a chance to find new evidence. We should not return to normal. Look at all the evidence, the Venice Channels, the dolphins, China’s reduced pollution by 40% and ask ourselves do we want to return to normal.

Imagine this. You are living in an apartment of four people and out of the four of them two provide all the resources and the other two are free riders. Except, here is the catch. The two free riders aren’t in collaboration but in opposition. The two free riders begin a game of chicken on who can do the least while doing the most and maintain for the most part a free rider lifestyle. This is just one way that the situations described in the article, The Seven Deadly Dilemmas can overlay and intertwine. What is the purpose of knowing the dilemmas? Well, as someone who has lived through the not so imaginary dilemma stated above it can help with a lot of problems solving. However, it beckons the questions why should we care about other people’s concerns if it hinders are? Compromise seems more like an ethical one than a logical one. But, compromise is mandatoy in order to maintain justice and order. 

Paternalism:  thinking you know what’s best for others.

The medical industry has gotten the test results and from their perspective, and as TV host Murray would say, “You are the father.” However, we don’t live in a paternalistic society and we can refuse medical treatment as any time.  However, as the author points out ” Yet, if paternalist medical interventions are impermissible, why aren’t paternalist limitations on self-medication also impermissible?”

This becomes the puzzle. Theoretically, we can refuse the treatment for insulin and witch to a diet but we can’t refuse the diet and get the insulin. Then the questions becomes should we be able to?  I personally think that the limited paternalism surrounding the medical industry is in fact ethical. We aren’t all licensced medical professional and we just straight up have no clue about what is always best for us. Of course, this does come with its long list of EXCEPTIONS. However, so does all of life. In the long run the puzzle of the paternalism in the medical industry doesn’t seem much of a puzzle at all. We are all grown adults moved out and when we go back “home” ( seek medical help) then we are in somone else’s house with their own rules, regulations and paternalistic advice. Maybe, we should just respect the advice and take some and throw out the others.