hopelesshappiness.com

If I were one of the top 15 high school basketball recruits in the nation, it is reasonable to believe that I could go to a school with a strong history of tournament and Final Four appearances and have a reasonable chance of an active role on a national championship team. If I were in the next tier of recruits, (say 16-45), I would have a decision to make. Would I prefer a bench role on a top 15 team? Or would I choose a starting role on a next-tier team? This is of course oversimplified but, accounting for egos, I believe most tier 16-45 players would opt for a top 15 school believing they would not ride the bench for long. This coupled with those who better understand the reality of their circumstance and choose a subordinate role on a team with a greater chance of a national championship over a starting role on a perennial tournament team that aspires to the sweet sixteen, helps to explain not only why more top-notch players choose those teams in the top 10%, but also how the rich get richer.

It happened again this week. UConn won the National Championship; their 5th. Never mind three teams made the Final Four for the very first time, UConn successfully defended the Reich; the Land of Greater Opportunity, Entitlement, Power and Control.

This time last year I noted the amazing similarity between the wealth gap and National Championships and between the income gap and Final Four appearances. Top 10, Middle 40, and Bottom 50 numbers both last year and this year were not only aligned in that order but were also within on average (from wealth to championships and from income to Final Fours) 2.8 percentage points. And though some baby steps were taken from last year to this year in both Final Four appearances and U.S. income (each equitably gaining one-half percentage point), and despite the media / political hype surrounding and working hard to sensationalize these gains, these inroads for the little guy, the underdog, the unfortunate, the downtrodden did not change the fact that UConn still won and the gaps (no matter the form or venue) are still (overwhelmingly) wide.

This Year’s Numbers

Final Four Appearances:

• Top 10 – 48.2%
• Middle 40 – 43.5%
• Bottom 50 – 8.3%

US Income Inequality:

• Top 10 – 45.6%
• Middle 40 – 40.6%
• Bottom 50 – 13.8%

National Championships:

• Top 10 – 69.1%
• Middle 40 – 30.9%
• Bottom 50 – 0.0%

US Wealth Inequality:

• Top 10 – 68.2%
• Middle 40 – 28.8%
• Bottom 50 – 3.0%

Last Year’s Numbers

Final Four Appearances:

• Top 10 – 48.8%
• Middle 40 – 43.4%
• Bottom 50 – 7.8%

US Income Inequality:

• Top 10 – 45.5%
• Middle 40 – 41.2%
• Bottom 50 – 13.3%

National Championships:

• Top 10 – 65.1%
• Middle 40 – 34.9%
• Bottom 50 – 0.0%

US Wealth Inequality:

• Top 10 – 70.7%
• Middle 40 – 27.8%
• Bottom 50 – 1.5%

We invented privilege as a place to go to ground and wealth as a way to abscond with confidence. We are all liars: playing hide-and-seek from ourselves, keeping secrets, claiming we talk to God, and believing our worst memory will remain so.

I deserve comfort. Enlightenment should be grateful it is allowed to call on me. Regarding hardship, everyone is deserving except for me and mine. Random luck of the draw is not an impediment to success. Justice can be justified and individual experience cannot be trusted. My conscious, blanket rejection of injustice exonerates me from unthinking actions and behaviors that may do harm. Less powerful groups only have their selves and their leaders to blame. Inclusion is not the same as exclusion and membership or associate membership in a group does not make one a co-conspirator. When there is a consensus positive outcome, the most powerful group is responsible. When there is a consensus negative outcome, it is because efforts were undermined. We cannot trust our children to make up their own minds. There is no conspiracy. There is no common enemy; they've been replaced by associate members. The number of guns and the number of prisoners in America are necessary to fight crime and maintain justice. American exceptionalism and America's ideals are an accurate reflection of its practices throughout its history. Today, it is in our best interest to include admitted and probable detractors and nonbelievers so they may know better, do better, be better. Might is right and the powerful (not only do, but) should control the narrative. Common Humanity as practiced in capitalism is the only answer.

I believe the thoughts in the previous paragraph are (at best) faulty and (at worst) delusional and dangerous. Yet many of these are the thoughts that appear to be guiding us today; determining both our direction and our route. And though I recognize these thoughts as errant, I am as guilty as any other for (on occasion) seeking their security. I said in the first paragraph “we are all liars” – and we are. And we always will be. The problem is, too many of us don't recognize our self as such. Too many of us believe too fervently in our delusions. And though some with influence, with power, glimpse a little piece of Truth and sense the potential looming danger, they still appear to believe we are better off with baby steps. They still argue that we should embrace a common humanity rather than identify a common enemy. They still believe negotiation is better than an all-out offensive. This less-delusional, baby-step, embrace-negotiation faction though, does not appear to understand how well entrenched the more-delusional, much-more-dangerous traditionalists are. From the security and comfort of their well-fortified positions, the traditionalists indoctrinate. From their evolving, exposed and unprotected positions of uncertainty, the baby-steppers work to educate. And from their divided, disjointed positions of fear and anger and sadness, the masses find traditional indoctrination easier and more comfortable than education. So, in our current circumstance a smaller group of the wealthy, powerful privileged hide behind a very large flock of hypnopompic followers claiming righteousness by majority rule; it is still the much smaller group in charge. Yet if expertise and rational thought suddenly overpowered capitalist riches to become the currency that determines wealth, power and privilege, we would likely (eventually) have a similar circumstance in which a much smaller group would be in charge. Personally, I would prefer a small group of experts and thinkers over a small group of rich white men who inherited daddy's money.

So do we identify a common enemy and wage a nonviolent, rational war, an all-out offensive, utilizing experts in an effort to overpower delusion? Or do we continue baby-stepping our way to a legacy of a short-lived mammalian species that inflicted long-lasting harm to a once beautiful planet?

It may still be up to us – if we hurry…

When I say, “good enough is not good enough,” I believe it scares people, because I believe that for most people good enough is good enough and for a lot of people not-quite good enough is also good enough and for too many people not-at-all good enough is, well, still okay. Good enough. A phrase that when you say it frequently, it starts to lose its meaning; on multiple levels. Today, where the overriding goal for most people is comfort and it is expected that you will go into a job (or any endeavor) just planning to get by, who really wants to work with (or worse yet, for) someone who is never satisfied? So much easier (and far more cheerful) when everyone goes along to get along, and we pretend that one-hundred-percent of those in our cohort are above average, and we are happy with the bare minimum because to be dissatisfied is to be troublesome, difficult, vexing, fractious, ungrateful; and once we are labeled as any of those things, we are ostracized in as polite and pretentious of terms as is possible, because after all, we must be sure that no matter what, we all get along.

My current-day dilemma is I am job-hunting and I don't know how to market troublesome, difficult, vexing, fractious, ungrateful. I like to ask the question, “is it better to be truthful or nice?” And I have a natural aversion to anything less than (at least 75 or 80 percent) truthfulness, and I have not figured out how to tell a prospective employer that I am frustrated in my current position by varying forms of Good-Enough. In my struggles with this explanation, I believe I only succeed in helping them to see a time down the road when they will be faced with my dissatisfaction. I have tried to spin this as improvement, lifelong learning, adaptability, raising the bar, and the desire for a new challenge, but I think all they are thinking is, “Yikes! What would I be getting myself into?” I am intense and serious; and I know this comes across in an interview, and I know this is (again) often thought synonymous with troublesome, difficult, vexing, fractious, ungrateful. And I do understand how striving for excellence can get in the way of pretentious camaraderie, but when did comfort and simplicity overtake and strangle the life out of the satisfaction from hard work and high standards?

I even understand that with 8,023,375,108 people here on this planet in this moment, there has to be more give than take, (and I am a strong advocate for improvement through some form of social democracy), but this reality should not punish those of us who, despite believing Truth to be unattainable, are still searching. The question remains – how do I market these (misinterpreted) attributes that should be my strongest selling points? How do I not scare people – and still be truthful?

There are other factors in my current desire for change: an increased workload, below-average pay, the aforementioned polite, pretentious disengagement, superficial promises and priorities, excessive, misguided bureaucracy. But once again, though I am happy to share reasonable examples, facts, statistics and even a spreadsheet or two, if I am truthful I will come across as troublesome, difficult, vexing, fractious, ungrateful.

To job hunt implies dissatisfaction. But I am finding that in a job interview, to be truthful about the nature of that dissatisfaction is injudicious; counterproductive. Yes, I am unhappy with the status quo; with any status quo. And my current job description could be summed up in one word: maintain. And with the increased workload I am barely able to do that. And I realize that if or when I do find a different job, I may go into a new circumstance where once again, good enough is good enough; but at least I will have the challenge (for a little while) of a new learning curve, and maybe I could even advance from below-average pay to average pay.

My current department finally got approval (several weeks ago) to hire another full-time person to help with the workload, but we are counting now in months the time this process has taken so far, and the job is still not posted on the list of over a thousand available jobs, and by the time it is posted and we go through the process of screening and interviewing and making a decision on a person willing to accept below-below-average pay to do a difficult, uncomfortable job, and then we account for their new learning curve by further increasing my workload at the beginning (if we move quickly) of a new academic year when the workload is already at its heaviest… well, it sounds and already feels like a never-ending saga. I would not be surprised to learn that this apparent unwillingness to do the right thing is a (conscious and/or subconscious) part of my punishment for striving toward excellence and for encouraging others to do the same and not going along to get along. Regarding my current circumstance and partially in hindsight:

• I never wanted kind words.
• I never wanted reassurance.
• I never wanted justification; i.e. excuses.
• I never wanted apologies.
• I never wanted promises.
• I never even wanted acknowledgement that my perspective is valid.

In the past four years I have received all of these things but all of these things have turned out to be mere delaying tactics. In hindsight, what I did want was change for a significant better. What I want now is a different job. But I don't know how to market troublesome, difficult, vexing, fractious, ungrateful.

It pains me to say…

But perhaps I have no choice but to be less than truthful.

Maybe the best way to do that is to get in front of it by acknowledging the obvious: that by definition to job hunt is to admit to some dissatisfaction. In my case my dissatisfaction stems from my job description (to maintain) and my pay (below average). And a new job that pays more, regardless of departmental philosophy on good-enough, will also provide new opportunities and a new learning curve. This is not being entirely truthful but it does (more succinctly) sum up my dissatisfaction and it might-perhaps-maybe partially mask my vexatious nature. It would be a step forward as opposed to my current circumstance in which I am at best standing still.

All this said, I still believe my vexatious nature is a necessary strength and I believe, for the sake of survival, more of us need to champion hard work and high standards.

All quoted definitions from dictionary.com chosen for purposes of this thought.

Power: from Old French – “to be able.”

Power (as a noun): “a person or thing that possesses or exercises authority or influence.”

Power (as a verb): “to make powerful; inspire; spur; sustain; enable.”

Deference: “submission to or compliance with the will of another.”

One's deference to another comes from fear, respect, or some combination thereof.

Today, the greater the influence and/or the greater the deference paid, the greater the power.

What happened to Power as a verb?

It seems to me that the greatest power would be to enable and/or sustain, unconcerned with deference and beyond one's self interest.

Today, we are under the impression that to enable another will somehow equitably disable our self.

If one requires deference from another to feel powerful, the power they exercise is an abuse.

I have said before that Justice requires empathy minus entitlement and self-interest.

Justice also requires Power as a verb.

Humane: “characterized by tenderness, especially for the suffering or distressed.”

Human: “feeling; fallible; forgivable.”

To be humane is to consider Justice for all of Humanity, past, present and future.

To be human is to consider Justice on a much, much smaller scale; i.e. one's self or one's close, personal cohort.

By its nature, any process, system or ideology is interested only in itself and cannot express or emote tenderness.

Any process, system or ideology that stands alone or is left largely to its own devices is inhumane.

For a process to be humane it must be carefully guided by one or more humans whose priority is Justice.

Capitalism is inhumane.

A practicing individual capitalist can be both human and inhumane.

A practicing individual capitalist can also be both inhuman and inhumane.

A practicing individual capitalist, no matter how it is spun, will never be humane.

Nor will any size group of practicing capitalists, (from two friends to a political party to a country to western civilization).

To be humane requires one to be human; though paradoxically to be human will limit one's ability to be humane.

Today, when we work to improve a process, (in theory) we are working to gain efficiencies, but more often than not, we are merely adding layers of bureaucracy.

For our future, when we work to improve a process, we should also consider Justice.

Any process, system or ideology that never or seldom delivers on Justice should be scrapped and we should start over.

Any process, system or ideology that inconsistently delivers on Justice should be reworked.

Again, Justice requires empathy minus entitlement and self-interest AND Power as a verb.

Justification of a process, system or ideology is not Justice.

Capitalism is inhumane.

Three weeks ago today I lost my last baby tooth. Around Christmas I could feel a familiar childhood ache, I reached into my mouth and I could wiggle that tooth. I was never one to try and force a tooth out, or yank it out, and I definitely never told anyone after the first time or two because Dad would always say “let's see” and next thing I knew he had a tooth in his hand and I had a bloody hole in my head. Same this time; I told no one. I just slowly worked it back and forth over the next several weeks and after dinner, Saturday February 18, when I wiggled it, it obediently laid over on its side and finally, in my 63rd year, gave up its ghost.

This past week I had a dentist appointment. I have been seeing this Dentist for more than 30 years and for more than 30 years she has been after that tooth. I am happy I never let her have it. Now, she of course wants to fill the space, talking about bridges and skyscrapers and drilling deep into the subsurface and other heavy construction, but as with the baby tooth I will again put her off for as long as I can.

I am collecting holes in my head. In addition to this newly acquired collectible, I lost an insufferable adult tooth (probably) 20 years ago and never had that hole filled. In 1998 I had a square cut out of my skull for a vestibular neurectomy and a week later went back for surgery to repair a leak in which my brain juice (cerebrospinal fluid) periodically came flooding both out my nose and down my throat. I have also had both eyes resurfaced (cataract surgeries) which may not qualify as new holes but in the neighborhood, and a few weeks ago, in a routine brain MRI, they found a “tiny cavernous angioma” – incidental, not dangerous, and oxymoronic, but perhaps the prize of my collection. UCLA Health says, “A cavernous angioma is a blood vessel abnormality characterized by large, adjacent capillaries with little or no intervening brain.” Not only a fairly uncommon hole, (0.4 percent of the population), but the “little or no intervening brain” part substantiates what my wife has been saying for years; you can imagine.

Brain, yes. Eyesight, yes. Fix those holes and fix them quick. But incidental? Not dangerous? Not even painful? Oxymoronic? These things can wait. What is more oxymoronic than a 30 year urgency for a 60 year old baby tooth? But then what do I know? After all, it is a medical fact that I have little or no intervening brain.