What does it say about our culture when a man is trampled to death in the mad rush of a crowd of shoppers, pushing and shoving to get into a store just to buy something? Did any of them really want or need some item of merchandise badly enough to kill for it? Of course not! But, it almost looks that way.

The day after Thanksgiving, an employee in a Long Island Wal-Mart store was knocked down and literally run over by an estimated 2,000 shoppers as he was opening the door at 5:00am. A co-worker noted, “They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me. They took me down too…I literally had to fight people off my back.” A 28-year-old pregnant woman was also knocked to the floor and three other shoppers were injured in the melee.

Another violent incident in Palm Desert, California, highlighted the Wal-Mart tragedy, in which two men shot and killed each other in a Toys R Us store, following what was said to be a dispute between two women shoppers. The specific cause of the shooting has not yet been reported.

Call me naïve or “square,” but for the life of me, I cannot understand what could possibly be so important that people will wait in line for hours, sometimes all night, just to be among the first to get into a store to buy a toy or a game or the latest technological gadget, such as an iPod or a BlackBerry, or whatever else they may fancy at the moment. And, for what? This sort of behavior is not about needs, it’s more about entertainment or bragging rights.

Unfortunately, it’s not limited to buying some trinket or the latest game or toy. It extends to the general mindset of far too many Americans today. “Gimme, Gimme,” they seem to exclaim. “I want what I want, and I want it now. And, if I can’t pay for it, the government will, or should.”

We have been hearing for years how much the rest of the world hates America, that it is our policies toward other nations that motivated the 9/11 attacks, that if we were only more willing to help others, we could win back the respect we used to enjoy on the world stage. But, I submit there are other, more basic, more important reasons why so many people in other societies hate us so much, perhaps the most significant of which is our culture of self-centered values and behavior. The “Ugly American” image is still with us, and I believe the Wal-Mart incident will feed that perception. We are intensely disliked because of our over-the-top commercialism in the face of the terrible conditions in which other people around the world must live.

There have always been and always will be obnoxious displays of wealth by individuals: The oil-rich sheikhs in the Middle East or billionaires in other countries, even in places like China and India, but nowhere that I know of does an entire society display such crass commercialism as we do here in America. Perhaps they would if they could, but because they can’t many of them hate us, notwithstanding the fact that huge numbers of them are willing to risk life and limb to get here.

The War on Terror also factors into this. One of the reasons Islamic fundamentalists are dedicated to destroying our culture is because it is so offensive to them. There is no way to reconcile the goal of our enemies to bring down Western societies and the crass commercialism of our own society, which clearly feeds their perception. We mean them no harm, in the sense that if they would leave us alone, we would probably be happy to reciprocate, or at least I believe most Americans would.

Over time, we will witness the process of fixing blame and assessing damages for the loss of life and injuries that occurred in the Wal-Mart incident, and there is little doubt that the company will pay for not protecting their employees and customers as they should have. Chances are it will lead to revised store policies by Wal-Mart as well as many other retailers for handling crowds. However, as Austin Hill, a radio talk-show host and columnist, noted: “…legal liability and moral culpability, are often not the same thing…But one thing is certain: in America’s “moral economy,” personal responsibility is a commodity that is in short supply.”

I couldn’t agree more.

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

NOTE: Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at “opinionfest.com.”

Many Americans disagree with the notion that the U.S. should withdraw from the UN and think that the now famous words of Rodney King, “Why can’t we all just get along?” should be our watchword, believing that we must continue talking to solve the world’s problems.

Unfortunately, the answer to Rodney King’s plaintiff query is: We can’t always get along. Some people refuse to compromise and insist on having their own way, no matter what. “Just getting along” implies that there is always some middle ground where the parties can come together to resolve their differences. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.

There are times when some people are simply not willing to “get along” unless, of course, it’s strictly on their own terms. And, that may be harmful to the other side, as exemplified by the situation with Israel vs Iran, Syria, and Palestine, which have the common goal of wiping Israel off the map and driving the Jews into the sea. There is no way to compromise or “just get along” with such a position, where the other side is unwilling to settle for anything less than your destruction.

One of the more notable examples of the failure of trying to resolve problems with talk took place in 1939, immediately prior to Germany’s occupation of Czechoslovakia and invasion of Poland at the start of WWII. When England’s prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, “left Munich with a declaration signed by Hitler that assured peace,” he returned home “believing that he had achieved ‘peace with honour,’” and made his famous statement, “I believe it is peace in our time.” Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, it wasn’t.

There have been plenty of other occasions throughout history when agreements have been reached without one side having any intention of honoring them. North Korea’s now well known lie to the Clinton administration regarding nuclear power and “the bomb” is a good example of the acts of duplicity that have resulted from “talk.” And, it now appears that the agreement North Korea entered into with the Bush administration will prove to be just as worthless?

Following are some of the comments I received about my conclusion that the U.S. should withdraw from the UN, along with my responses:

COMMENT: “It might be useful to try to write about the virtues of the UN? Who else would be sent now to Lebanon-Israel border zone?
HRS: It would probably be possible to put together another military force for this assignment, perhaps using some of the same troops that have been volunteered to the UN force, just as NATO troops are now being used in Afghanistan. The difference is that in Afghanistan NATO troops are fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. In Lebanon, the real issue is whether or not the UN troops will disarm Hezbollah, or at least try. They have already been told that they are not authorized to use force, which will allow Hezbollah to rearm and prepare for the next assault on Israel, at that point under the auspices of the UN. So, what good are they?

COMMENT: “What other forum is there for nations to talk to each other?”
HRS: Perhaps none at the moment, but there’s nothing to prevent us from organizing a more constructive forum of like-minded nations.

COMMENT: ”Look into its history? Did they do some good somewhere?
HRS: Sure they have done some good. Past performance can be important, but the UN is no longer the same institution it was in its early years. And, organizations that are no longer effective or, worse yet, corrupt, should be dissolved, in favor of something new that works.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (historian): “First, the U.N. is not the idealistic postwar organization of our collective Unicef and Unesco nostalgia, the old perpetual force for good that we once associated with hunger relief and peacekeeping. Its membership is instead rife with tyrannies, theocracies and Stalinist regimes. Many of them, like Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam and Zimbabwe, have served on the U.N.’s 53-member Commission on Human Rights. The Libyan lunocracy–infamous for its dirty war with Chad and cash bounties to mass murderers–chaired the 2003 session. For Mr. Bush to talk to such folk about the need to spread liberty means removing from power, or indeed jailing, many of the oppressors sitting in his audience.”

COMMENT: “Do the participants really have to be friendly to each other? (Polite, yes!)
HRS: No, they don’t have to be friendly, but there’s a big difference between not being friendly or having different strategic interests and outright hostility. As for being polite, I don’t see anything polite about the recent behavior of Venezuela, Iran and Sudan at the UN General Assembly. Antagonistic would be a better word. And, having to listen to insults and threats is not “talking” in the sense that is intended to solve problems.

COMMENT: “USA does pay way too much, and look at the value of the HQ there in NYC!! But, where else should be the HQ? How about Albania? Or Mogadishu??? Or Russia?”
HRS: My gut reaction is: Who cares where they go? Let someone else pick up the tab. They will be just as biased against the U.S. in any venue, but at least we don’t have to listen to their insults on our turf and pay for it.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: “There is no intrinsic reason why the U.N. should be based in New York rather than in its more logical utopian home in Brussels or Geneva.”

COMMENT: “Yes it is flawed, but maybe somehow the participants are the ones to pull
up their sox and improve it. This guy Bolton (whose appearance is against him) is actually terrific!!! Let’s see what he can do? Mending is better than ending???”
HRS: I agree, Bolton is terrific, and I would also like to see him lose the mustache. At least I think so without seeing him sans facial hair. Who knows, if we saw him without it, we might like him better the way he looks now.

As for the “participants” improving the UN themselves, I don’t think so. The institution has reached the point where it is far too corrupt and out of control to be reformed from within. The only way that might be accomplished would be to use the power of the purse strings, and that doesn’t seem likely, because it’s doubtful that the other members who provide the bulk of its funding would be willing to do that.

I also don’t think we should stop talking, I just don’t think anything is accomplished in the UN that cannot be done better in another, or other, forum. There are plenty of ways to communicate without The UN, which I believe is not only a waste of time but a deterrent. Those organizations that are a part of the UN and that are worthwhile can and should be continued, either independently or as part of some other organization.

However, I don’t think that “mending” is necessarily “better than ending.” Sometimes it’s necessary to scrap something and simply start over.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: “There is no law chiseled in stone that says any fascist or dictatorial state deserves authorized membership by virtue of its hijacking of a government. There is no logic to why a France is on the Security Council, but a Japan or India is not. And there is no reason why a group of democratic nations, unapologetic about their values and resolute to protect freedom, cannot act collectively for the common good, entirely indifferent to Syria’s censure or a Chinese veto.”

© 2006 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved