There used to be a zone dividing too soon and too late. I believe in too soon, but I could argue it should never be too late but do understand that there frequently comes a point of acceptance; giving in. So acknowledging its practical reality, it appears to me that this zone has narrowed, considerably from the time I started paying attention (decades ago) to now; in some places to the point where only a blurred line remains. Today it is like one millimoment we are saying it is too early to tell and the very next we are saying we have expended too much time and effort to turn back now. I believe this stems from our ever-growing personal fear and dislike of criticism, so we hesitate holding others accountable and over time this hesitation has become the norm, pushing the point where we should have questioned status quo so close to acceptance we are unable to differentiate, and we miss the opportunity. And in hindsight we should regret this lack of decisiveness. I say should because more often than not those who should regret are their selves a product of decisive indecisiveness, so their regret (due to the narrowed-no-zone) is either momentary or nonexistent lessening everyone's potential for learning from mistakes. Furthermore, this decisive-indecisiveness dynamic is strengthened because we don't appear to fear premature action that is expedient and/or congenial. So we make expedient, congenial decisions and fear the difficult ones. And because this path is easier and more comfortable, it has also resulted in layers upon layers of leadership unable to make hard decisions.

Some might argue that hard decisions are made every day, but I believe we might have different definitions. I see a hard decision as a decision that creates as much or more hardship for the decision-maker as it does for his or her constituent(s), whereas most, (I believe), see a hard decision as a decision that creates hardship for another and (momentarily) makes the decision-maker feel bad. Additionally, those who apply the second definition frequently (if not always) confuse expedient congeniality with compassion.

So then, the question becomes, is this mistake preferable to excessive hardship? Or, in other words, is indulgence preferable to injustice? Though the trade-off is not equitable, I'm afraid the answer is still yes; even when it tends to condescend - (which it frequently does). It is sad that we are unable to make hard decisions (according to my definition) to narrow our ever-widening wealth and power gaps allowing us to perhaps work on once again widening the zone between too soon and too late. Accountability would be less uncomfortable if it were not tethered so tightly to injustice. Again, the status quo is not progress, accountability (though today it may lead to it) is not injustice, and most significantly indulgence is not compassion. To move from status quo to compassion to accountability to progress to Justice would require hard decisions. And today we are incapable and/or unwilling.