“Better way to describe it: Paris is us,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, January 23-29, 2015, 23.

PARIS IS US

What does the callous murder of journalists and Jews in Paris have to do with Colorado business? Why should we, so far away from what happened, care?

Let me answer these questions by analogy, one that was famous in the 1950s and may have been forgotten by now. It was a Protestant Pastor in Germany, Martin Niemöller (1892–1984), who famously said (there are different versions):

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

What may seem remote at one point, the singling out of one minority group, becomes extremely relevant and personal at another. Lest we forget, there is some connectivity between all of humanity, and more specifically, between all the social, economic, political, and moral variables that guide us.

It’s inappropriate to compare what happened in Nazi Germany to what happened in Paris to a small satirical magazine with 60,000 circulation and to a kosher storefront. Unlike the German government who persecuted Jews and gays, socialists and Catholics, and others, the French government is sending police officers and troops to protect its minorities.

But the reason so many marched in Paris with signs that read “I am Charlie,” is that they didn’t simply want to show solidarity, but more importantly, they demonstrated that when something is morally objectionable, it cannot be contained; it spills over to every facet of the community.

When Wall Street misbehaves, Main Street is affected. When a so-called rogue trader throws off the balance of trades or “corners the market” in oil futures, for example, it’s not exclusively his affair.

His company’s reputation suffers, and it may even incur some fines. Wall Street gets a black eye as well, and regulators are seen as lax. Eventually, we can expect that the markets in general will be affected. Why should we care what happens to the case of the rogue trader, like the infamous “whale”?

As employees and employers, we have money invested in the markets, in the virtual safes of Wall Street, either through money market or pension funds. Likewise, interest rates—for cars and homes, business loans and credit cards—somehow are still dependent on what the giant Wall Street investment banks want us to pay. The Treasury Department responds to Wall Street, after all, in case you ever forget who has been heading it for decades.

In other words, “we are Wall Street” just as much as “we are Charlie.” You can pretend that financial or journalistic variables are separate from each other, but they are not! You can even claim that you don’t read French and that except for French Fries, you have no relation to France or its problems with extreme Muslims and their journalistic and Jewish victims.

But what will you say when this happens in New York? Still too far for you to identify with the problem there, on the East Coast? When the office of the NAACP was bombed here not long ago, was that close enough? Do you have to be African-American to be affected?

You may not care now, as Pastor Niemöller reminds us, because you aren’t a Jew or a journalist, black or financial maven, but when they come for you—who will speak out on your behalf?

When I see electricians changing wall-pack bulbs in below-freezing temperatures and the drivers who struggle in the snow to roll dumpsters to their truck for unloading—are they me?

When the guys in overalls come to empty 1,500 gallons of our grease-trap so early in the morning so as not to upset neighbors with the noxious odors of their work—are they you?

When the line-cook prepares your meal and the server brings it to your table—do you identify with their work, their diligence, their prayer for a good tip because they pay their own college tuition?

What the horrible incident in Paris should remind us all is that when catastrophes happen elsewhere, it’s only by random chance that they occur where and when they do. The idea that it cannot happen to you is preposterous, even fool-hardy.

The solidarity shown in Paris should remind us to feel sympathy and empathy with those around us, the people who serve and work for us, who teach and protect us, who lead and entertain us, and who might be victimized for no fault of their own.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

---

 [SG1]Care

“New Year’s resolution: No more wars this year,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 30 – January 5, 2011, 13.

NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS

It’s customary to make New Year’s resolutions that last a few days at the most: lose weight, exercise more, be nice to rude people, park as far as possible and enjoy the walk to the store. But the year that passed requires a more serious approach to our wishes for 2012.

The Iraq war is over after eight years and about $1 trillion in costs, with a death toll of 4,484 American soldiers, about 50,000 wounded, and more than 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. The country is deadlocked in political squabbling, but a dictator is gone.

Instead of taking stock of this war, an undertaking that will take decades, perhaps we can resolve not to start any new wars in 2012, and withdraw all our troops from Afghanistan. At $2 billion per week, this war is crippling our domestic economy and doing little to stabilize that region of the world.

As a first resolution for 2012, let’s all agree to stand strong without aggression, use diplomacy without wavering on defending ourselves, and maintain the smartest military force in the world without bankrupting ourselves: small, agile units with multiple skills and weapons that can respond quickly to whatever threat without mobilizing the entire military.

Foreign policy and military involvement remain at the federal-level, but with congressional input, we can all participate in encouraging a thoughtful political debate that makes sense. For example, decrying the reduction in military spending as a job reduction (increased unemployment) is similar to the guy who killed his parents and asks the court’s mercy because he’s an orphan.

The second resolution should be about public civility: you can criticize without insulting. British tradition has it that critical debate is constructive rather than destructive, that a better outcome is meant to result from the exchange. Why bother to criticize something utterly silly? It’s not worth the energy. By contrast, if you care about an issue—it can be what shoes to wear for a Christmas party when it snows—then pay attention and engage and provide a useful suggestion.

Public civility is not reserved for politicians in Washington or our own city council in its relations with the mayor. Neither is it limited to journalists or media commentators who are prone to ridicule people in positions of power. Speaking truth to power isn’t about mocking others: it’s meant to bring attention to significant issues overshadowed by political deal-making or back-scratching.

As custodians of public trust, politicians and journalists alike should be careful in what they say, make sure their sources are reliable, and whenever they criticize, they should propose alternative solutions. How would the public know what is really worth arguing about? It’s called responsible journalism or politics with integrity. Obviously all politicians have inflated egos—they voluntarily put themselves in front of voters and cameras, asking for the adulation of others (and their financial support).

 As we think about foreign policy and political integrity, financial considerations remain paramount: how much does this idea cost? How much is this worth? Economists of all stripes agree that the best measure of our values or commitments are monetary. As President Obama prepares to spend $1 billion on his reelection effort in 2012, we should fear for the onslaught of wasted millions in the name of democratic elections.

Have we learned nothing from our democratic counterparts around the world? Is the UK any less democratic because it allows weeks of campaigning rather than months here? Is Germany undemocratic because of its election regulations? Excess spending on mud-slinging is absurd and counter-productive: only negative advertisements are remembered: “Where’s the beef?” (1984 Mondale referring to Hart) is a sad reminder that it’s at that level of discourse that political fortunes are made or lost.

So, the third and last resolution I propose for 2012 has to do with prudence. Let’s agree to be prudent with our money, not to waste it on silly ads or gadgets we’ll never use. It makes sense to recycle on economic grounds a much as on ecological ones. Why use plastic bags when canvas ones remain intact for years? Why replace our cars every two or three years when they function well for ten? Why buy a ten-pound bag of apples or potatoes when you need only one pound and the rest may rot before being used?

As we welcome another year, let’s promise ourselves and others to be kind and gentle, complimentary and generous, friendly and supportive without reservation or expectation of reciprocity. Next year will be better in every sense, as the worst of the Great Recession is over. Because it’s an election year, all the economic indicators will point upward: it’s an election-year dance. So, it’s a good time to invest in an improving economy!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS.  He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com