Aspirations of a few, destruction of many? Right or wrong, good or evil, individual or community, the aspirations exist in one form or the other. We all have been hearing and seeing how Lance Armstrong is coping with it in public, a nation aspiring for better gun controls coping with it in congress and white house, yet, we all seem to be at a loss to figure out why these sort of things continue to plague the modern society. Some feel it is not right, some feel strongly about being right, some feel the goodness in this world is disappearing and some feel that evil has spread beyond control. While everyone is right in their own context, no one seems to realize that time also plays a major role to provide solutions that are meaningful.
No one wants another incident like Sandy Hook Elementary. But the measures being taken seem to fall short or conflict with many existing and accepted norms of the society. But these norms or views – are they really seem to be what they are, as strong as they seem to be? I don’t think so. I think they have to be transitory, and, only history can show us how.
Back in 1950s, much opposition was there for the integration of schools. Many even sought the non-violent resistance approaches that Mahatma Gandhi preached and prevailed with. However, over time the integration became successful. But why time did play a necessary part? The simple answer being that being a human was the major part of the equation – without attaching any race, religion or creed. Can we be successful if we take the same approach today, making being a human a major part, to surmount the current challenges?
We do have few norms in the society, rightly or wrongly, under the pretext of second amendment. Many societies around the world live and thrive without the help from that second amendement. Australia has conqueured the issues that are now plagueing the American public. Just ask this question to give it a right perspetive: Have we given much thought on the time at which the second amendment got originated? At that time, there was no expectation of powerful arms ending up in the hands of a common man, but rightly so, in the hands of law enforcement or, wrongly so, in the hands of criminals?
What we see now is a third factor, mentally stressed out individuals who would snap without notice, causing more damage to a civilized society in terms of taking the innocent lives out than epedemics that can be controlled with vaccine. But do we have any such vaccine that we can administer ahead? Yes. They are good and meaningful controls. The time has come now to look at second amendment once again for a meaningful gun control. A society cannot live as a civilized society without some sort of control existing and prevailing when it constitutes colorful millions; millions of appliances could not have existed without a control on the energy that runs them, and, we see many such controls that are common across the board and controlling many aspects of lives even today, and, we accept them and don’t seem to complain. In fact, we welcome them. Then why the common sense gun controls are shunned upon? Is money buying just more controls that helps aspirations of a few, but not many? I think, perhaps, the aspect of money might have changed the meaning of modern society in ways we are still trying to understand and come to grips with. Many such controls, as they exist in the modern society, need revamping.
I remember reading an article in Time magazine where a community leader says that we don’t need your money, but we need your time and talent. However, the world of today seems to have forgotten to associate money to time and talent, and associating it to virtually anything that may not even have these elements in common – rightly or wrongly.
When we don’t associate money to what we do, doesn’t it become a volunteer work as the work done does not generate money? It is not part of the GDP or is it? But why should it be viewed so? Haven’t we seen and read countless stories on how the current CEOs earn money even when the work they have done, forget about generating money, has destroyed the money earned previously? How do we then categorize such earnings – or should we even call them as earnings?
When we consider the job of CEOs as work, the work should generate some money for the corporations they work for. It is generally so, but what happens when it isn’t. Managing the work is a job, but the compensation in terms of money has many grey areas. If the company being managed does not generate the money, do we consider work done by caretakers of the company as either a volunteer work or a bad work that needs to be penalized? We don’t. When scores of employees get fired for bad performance, when soldiers can get discharged dishonorably, why should a dishonorable management be rewarded? But we do.
The CEOs of olden days would go on unemployment benefits till such time they get another job. But the current CEOs not only get rewarded for a job badly done, but carry the dishonorable conscience of keeping the money even when they get a job somewhere else. Do they have the conscience to return the money to the company that either has collapsed or gone bankrupt? No. I have not seen or heard any examples of that. Henry David Thoreau said, “It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience. But a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation of conscience.” The very basis of an economy constitutes supply and demand, and, it has been warped by the money associated with the grey areas like management and entertainment, while ignoring the money that we should need to associate to promote research and innovation.
When such skewed views of money are quite common in the midst of other money-making schemes, the value that needs to be associated to time and talent are fast disappearing or losing value rapidly. The aspirations of a few are becoming the destruction of many. As John F Kennedy once said, “If the society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”
There is a solution to all this. But we need people who walk the talk and show a commitment to the value systems that a society adheres to. Nightly news with Brian Williams airs a segment called ‘making a difference’. I am not sure how many viewers really view it to get inspired by it. Oprah Winfrey runs a show called ‘Life classes’, and yet again, I am not sure how many really view it with a conscience to act upon such nobler thoughts. I cannot recall where I have read this or heard, “the acts of criminals do not destroy a society, but it is the in-activeness of the good people that does.”
While everyone aspires to be a leader, only a few can become one to inspire. However, those inspired should aspire to act upon the inspirations. Who says that handful of citizens cannot change a society where the preconceived notions of many has failed to make a progress? The history is littered with many. We only need to look to find Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln of yesteryears and wish that a few of them would be reborn to produce visionary leaders for the modern era like Nelson Mandela, and, look to find the likes of Akio Morita of Sony, Jack Welch of GE, Steve Jobs of Apple and Bill Gates of Microsoft in the corporate world to redefine the money in terms of time and talent rather to devalue it through schemes and senseless acts bearing no meaning.
Let the aspirations of a few, revitalize many.