I think it is safe to say that the bad guys win more frequently than the good guys. I think this is why I have come away from reading so much nonfiction and have increased my load of fiction. In fact-based nonfiction the writers are the thinkers, the bad guys are the actors, and the good guys are the losers. In fiction, though they may not win all the time, at least the good guys are heard. So, perhaps if (in real life) we could agree on who the bad guys are, the good guys might, (if not win), at least occasionally be heard. From where I sit, as a jumping-off point, I would define a bad guy as:

• A millionaire.

Sure, other distinctions, qualifications, characteristics come to mind but as an objective measure and in line with recent thought I believe anyone with a million dollars or more supports, promotes and perpetuates bureaucracy, convention, certainty and division; and I believe that is bad because it takes away from Beauty, Truth, Wisdom and Justice. And don’t be distracted by how much an individual millionaire or billionaire claims to give away to help the less entitled. Sleight of hand does not excuse pretentious excess.

Why would a millionaire act in any other way than to protect their assets? They are not asked to think, they are programmed to perpetuate. So they act in the interest of their self and the other whopping 4 to 7 percent of Americans who share this distinction, leaving 93 to 96 percent of Americans less entitled and more than 50 percent of Americans underprivileged. Yes, in this regard thinking and acting are mutually exclusive. And not surprisingly, to further entrench this unthinking ignorance, a hugely disproportionate percentage of our legal representatives in Washington are bad guys. Regardless of the political rhetoric, good guys have no chance to be heard.

I know I am beating a horse that is on all manner of life support, but the saddest part of this circumstance is not the 93 to 96 percent less entitled, nor is it the 50+ percent underprivileged. The saddest part of this circumstance is the undue, (once?) avoidable hardships we are inflicting upon future generations. Extinction? According to some, a very real possibility. But even if it comes to that, considering the off-ramp, extinction would come as a relief on so many different levels.

Yet the actors do not want to hear it. The actors do not want to think. They merely want to act. And then to make it worse, to further substantiate context, followers are more likely to follow actors than thinkers. This is largely because actors require very little from their followers; quiescent subservience is easily accomplished by dulling our senses with a superficial, meaningless layer of comfort. Thinkers on the other hand require effort...