Throughout ages, humankind has battled against it's own for the sake of gain or glory. There are blights upon history where there was also extermination mixed in with dreams of global domination. Some of the most talked of personalities of distant past are those known for how impressively far they had went in pursuing that goal, at least in the "civilized" world of their times.... Alexander the Great, Augustus Caeser, Napolean Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler.

While these well-known notables are discussed, idolized or dispised and even having Hollywood movies telling the stories, we do not always talk about what went on behind the scenes. Nor is it always touched on why things were so necessary in desperate times.

Then we turn to discuss "the little people". That is anyone that isn't changing world events by leading a massive number of armed forces or expanding an already huge-empire. It's the people for whom there is no mention in any kind of history book, that isn't listed in a Who's Who annum and who's fate we simply do not have the zeal for learning.

On Politics and Prose, there has been mention of cowardice during battle. While discipline and keeping the unit together is of upmost importance in any military organization, shooting someone because they ran from a battle, cowered in hiding or failed to act in some vain heroic act (for which they apparently were ill-suited) is right or wrong? The person who was cowardly was right or wrong? We want to see things in black or white.

Whaling is also mentioned. While it's debateable how badly the Japanese may need to hunt down and kill these sea creatures is more so for Norweigans who may be struggling. It's like the deer hunter who kills more than his allotment or the fisherman that exceeds his legal catch. Yet if they are starving or really struggling to 'stay afloat' financially for the necessaries, is it wrong to do so? To me, that is why we have judges in the first place. We all know it's wrong... but was it an unnessarily wrong-doing?

Someone that is homeless and starving steals a loaf of bread in an open-air market. Another person drives off with a tankful of gasoline for which they didn't pay. Yet someone else takes something that isn't theirs and sells it to purchase whatever it may be to which they are addicted. In the first example, we sympathize... in the second example, most can empathize... yet in the last example, how understanding are we that the person got hooked on something and can't stop?

Doctors are sued all the time for malpractice. Are they being sued for honest mistakes? Or are we less understanding they are human (and thereby fallible) because of the amount of money they make when they leave something inside after surgery?

To what extent is it okay to do wrongs? A man walking in an isolated region and seeing someone drowing in a freezing river might not jump in to save them. Would I? Would you? We don't know until we get forced into the point of action or inaction. Maybe we haven't been swimming in ages or have had a dream of drowning in such a river?

Is it okay to use illegal drugs to counteract pain? When it was mentioned someone stealing to support their habit, it's likely you didn't imagine that possibility. We might rationalize that it almost never happens. Yet we (Society/State) jail innocent people and the 'State' has even executed some. Why can't there be innocence in wrong-doing? That child that may have stolen the loaf of bread may not know it is a crime, but we always here "ignorance of the law" is not an excuseable excuse. At what age or point did ignorance become unviable? Shall we say anyone of adult age? Even the age of adulthood is disputed by how soon you can try or imprison someone for murder, for drinking or gambling, for marriage, for owning a gun and for being drafted.

If I were 18 and unable to buy a firearm, wouldn't it be ironic if I were drafted into military service and given the weapon for which I couldn't own beforehand? Isn't the state breaking it's own laws? Yet they may cite "in a state of emergency". Isn't starving, struggling to get to work to pay the bills or supporting a habit that can't be broken such emergencies?

Perhaps Society is too busy worried about keeping a spot-less record or focusing on those that seem white-as-snow while we all have harboured dark thoughts, commited wrong acts (not necessarily illegal) and done things in pursuing justice or punishing disloyalty/lack of disipline. How do we know we've went to far... or not enough??

At what point do we not realize that the "have nots" may have to do something illegal to survive, just like nations (or empires) had once entered wars for fertile lands for crops, for ever important resources, for mere greed or by feeling righteous. The little people are held accountable while we still talk of the achievements of larger-than-life figures and powerful nations.