hopelesshappiness.com

Autocracy: government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority.

Democracy: government in which the supreme power is vested in the people.

In this moment, we live in a world of 7,907,527,888 autocrats; each individual believing they have uncontrolled or unlimited authority over their self and many believing they have uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others. Capitalism has driven us to this edge of insanity in which even those of us who proclaim an affinity with democratic principles must do so from an active position of autocratic fervor that serves to strengthen and perpetuate the status quo. An autocracy is me working to help me. A democracy is me working for and with others to help everyone. In this power-driven system of capitalism, as the other side of the wealth gap continues to fade from sight, I am so busy surviving the moment, autocratically, that I have no choice but to relegate my affinity with democracy to the rhetoric of my soapbox. It is no wonder that, in this century, democracy has taken a back seat to the impunity of corrupt autocrats not only the world over but also in these (so-called) United States.

In this world today, anything that impedes democracy serves autocracy. This makes divisiveness and diplomacy tools of autocracy. In this country where apparently we the people are too stupid to choose beyond either/or, we can either choose the republicans who are divisive and openly serve autocracy or the democrats who are divisive and diplomatic and whose rhetorical democracy serves to subvert actual liberal democracy thus also serving autocracy. Consider any level of government or any arena of politics (i.e. anywhere there is a struggle for power) including the workplace, civic and social organizations, transactional dynamics, family dynamics, and even the decision-making process within one's self, and you will find an autocracy at work because one perspective is nearly always working to maintain self-serving status quo. And because tradition or the old guard is typically where the power resides and/or because no change often seems easier (and often is easier) than change, more often than not autocracy wins. When I couple this understanding of our resistance to change with an understanding of our urgent need to change I find the impetus for change. Autocrats, (all 7,908,057,226 of us), driven by capitalism, see resistance to change as a good thing especially when we are in-the-moment comfortable and even more so when we perceive our self as having some power. And I have said before that “I believe our deification of capitalism has spread and entrenched this belief in power by creating layers and pockets and far too many small ponds from which almost anyone can exude ego.”. I can't say it enough: we are all autocrats.

Obviously, autocracy is not compatible with democracy. Which means that the force, capitalism, driving us to autocracy is also not compatible with democracy. I don’t believe democracy and capitalism have ever been compatible, but they were at least on friendly terms until, in the last 40 to 50 years, an explosion of technology and population combined to revitalize and exponentially strengthen their incompatibility. Today I cannot have uncontrolled or unlimited authority over myself and act for democracy. To sincerely claim an affinity with democratic principles I must give some of myself over to the will of the people and the will of consensus science and the will of consensus fact; all the people and all the consensus science and all the consensus fact. A democracy is not a democracy when it only serves specific factions or groups, even when those groups are the majority and/or hold the majority power/wealth. The idiocy of the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial this week perfectly illustrates the autocratic favoritism (in custom, culture and law) afforded certain groups. The stupidity of allowing unsubstantiated claims of personal belief or religion to make a political statement that endangers lives perfectly illustrates the diplomatic lunacy helping to maintain status quo. The insanity of the either/or choice we are given forces us to choose between a delusion of control and ineffectual rhetoric; neither of which will lead us to progress or even survival. We live in a world, (and more specifically a nation, and most specifically I live in a state), in which autocrats with more power manipulate autocrats with less power by taking advantage of their ignorance and fear. For years I have voiced a confidence, an active hope, in the intelligence and wherewithal of upcoming generations to save the world. In recent months I have said more than once that I have never been more disillusioned by, more demoralized by, or more concerned with the continued lack of progress toward saving Humanity. And more than once I have asked the question: Is too late already here?

Finally, looking back at the definition of autocracy, (uncontrolled or unlimited authority), implying total control in the hands of an individual, this explains the more open, obvious compatibility of republicans and autocracy. Republicans openly serve autocracy by dividing groups into smaller factions that more easily provide an illusion or a delusion of control. Democrats on the other hand use words like inclusion and universal and we that not only infer a lack of control but also contribute to the divisiveness encouraged by republicans by reminding individuals of their fear of change and their desire for control. And (finally, finally) if the smaller the group the greater the likelihood of perceived control, then the individual, (as the smallest possible group), is most prone to (driven by capitalism) the siren song of autocracy.

Is too late already here?

In an ancient land, long, long ago, yesterday and tomorrow, there lived no-one and everyone, and everything and nothing. Time was a cat's tail swishing back and forth, attached to claws and teeth, ready to pounce. And place was everywhere. No matter where you went, place was in its place, accordingly. Now the people of this time and that place and that place and that place and that place and that place and nearly every place and virtually no place between that place and that place, well the people, they were lost. They wandered unaimlessly in circles, in search of magic that was there but so well-hidden that it was mistaken for a common, ordinary, unexceptional, everyday, mundane contrivance. A magic that was real and a trick that was life amongst a people simultaneously everywhere, everywhen, nowhere, and there. And amongst this multitudinous crowded sparsity there lived a man; really just a boy, but a very, very old boy. This boy was just born yesterday but had lived tomorrow and never, and planned to live again and again and again, momentarily forever. But first, he had to find the magic. He had heard a rumor that it was there, within reach, but when he went there, it was nowhere to be seen. So, he searched elsewhere. And he sought out self-proclaimed mystics and witches and conjurers and soothsayers, and he asked all the right questions but heard only the drumbeat and the clang of the cymbal. He did not hear the windblown whispers; he did not feel the weight of the way; he did not smell the popcorn clouds; he did not taste the marshmallow breeze; and he did not see the swishing cat's tail, ready to pounce. But still he persisted.

One day, that was not this day or that day but another day, this man that was a boy flickered. He was there and he was not there and though he was not in the in-between, while he was in the in-between he saw another flicker that was there and not there. And as he passed through this place he'd never been, this place that never was, hoping to see the magic in the flicker, he heard a screech. And he looked down to discover he had stepped on the cat's tail. Well of course, time stopped. And with no time, the boy stopped; in the in-between, that was not there and never was. Unable to lift his foot from the cat's tail, (and because the claws and teeth were frozen mid-pounce, not sure he wanted to), the boy did what any one of us would do in the same circumstance – nothing. After doing nothing, (which I am obliged to point out is a contradiction), for a momentary eternity, the boy began to think. His first think-thought was that perhaps this was the magic he sought. But then he think-thought again and thought perhaps this is the trick, which he understood how a trick could be confused with magic so on his third-think-thought he determined that real magic is not a trick; and with all his strength and even more of his frailty the boy was able to lift his big toe and his little toe just enough to release the cat's tail allowing her to complete her pounce which bloodied the boy's foot and ankle and released him from the in-between that was not there and never was. As he stumbled back into his place and began again circling unaimlessly he discovered he was able (with great effort and mindless ease) to turn down the volume on the drumbeat and cymbal, and he found he was able to almost not hear whispers on the wind. And he detected a faint whiff of popcorn and tasted a tiny tongue-touch of marshmallow. And he felt an urge, a pull, a call to move counterclockwise, or to stop and call out in silence. And he knew there were some in the past-future moments to be who had actually left their unaimless circling in place accordingly to never be heard from again; though their leaving, their example, their voices, their shadows lingered, if not in the circle, at least now in this boy's think-thought.

Weeks and months and years later on the very next day this boy stopped and called out in silence and began moving counterclockwise. But no one noticed. The boy did not want to hurt anyone so he threw the apples and walnuts and pig entrails at the feet of the circling mass. But no one noticed. He looked outside the circle and repeatedly for the very first time saw all kinds of nuggety debris and offal and sparkly trinkets being tossed about; some being thrown at the throng; some aimed at their heads. But no one noticed. This boy had a choice. He could keep circling and occasionally stop or move against the grain or call out in silence and not be noticed. Or he could leave the circle and be apart and move around at will and toss things about and not be noticed. Or he could find that damn cat and stand on its tail and not notice and not be noticed.

But what about the magic? When he flickered before, he was looking for the magic, so he associated the flicker with the magic. And though he frequently and never forgot about the flicker and the magic, he always and never stopped looking for it. Years and days and moments passed backward and forward, and as time went swishing by, this very, very old boy became a very, very, very old boy full of emptiness and think-thought. Late in his new-old life this boy chose a magic that was mostly, almost all but not really a trick. And he was glad he had waited to choose a magic. And he was glad he had experienced counterclockwise. And he was glad he had smelled a little popcorn and tasted a little marshmallow. And he was glad he had flickered. Though he was sorry he had not spent more time tossing things about outside the circle. And he was sorry he had not been able to see the cat as more than a swishing tail attached to teeth and claws. And he was sorry he had not been able to pet the cat and hear the cat purr. But most of all and not at all he was glad and sorry to be sorry and glad.

One day that was not today and probably not tomorrow but more likely yesterday this very, very, very old boy considered never calling out in silence again. This very, very, very old boy considered merely spending the remaining days of his past circling in his place accordingly. In the very moment he had this think-thought, years later, someone noticed. And the boy flickered. And the cat purred and rubbed against his legs. So even though this very, very, very old boy was both positive and uncertain that this was just another trick, still he stopped and began moving counterclockwise. And no one noticed. Regardless, this very, very, very old boy lived out his remaining days, calling out in silence, again and again and again, momentarily forever.

Then one day that was not today and probably not tomorrow but more likely there not then, this man, this very, very, very old boy, left the circle never to be heard from again; though his leaving, his example, his voice, his shadow, lingers…

As long as we require diplomacy and tact, science and facts and logic and experts and progress and empathy will continue to be thwarted by religion and feelings and belief and politicians and tradition and power. And survival will be trumped by blunder-headed noise. By respectfully standing by and continuing to give in to compromise, the door remains open for too late. I am (and we all should be) sad and angry and afraid. I am also (meaning we all are) unseen, unheard, inconsequential.

I ended last week's written thought with the words above, and I would like to continue. I would like to begin by exploring the sham that is political correctness and its relationship to power.

There is a deep rift in this country. Last week I characterized the basic argument as Science vs. Religion, or Facts vs. Feelings, or Logic vs. Belief, or Experts vs. Politicians, or Progress vs. Tradition, or Empathy vs. Power, or Survival vs. Extinction, and said it is essentially the same argument. As I have thought about this I have come to see that if those who purport to be on the side of science and facts and logic and experts and progress and empathy and survival are also in a position of power, instead of action we get diplomacy and tact and compromise and delay and verbal gymnastics. I believe this to be purposeful. To begin, there is a difference between political correctness and respect. Political correctness perpetuates power. Respect encourages empathy. Political correctness is a device. Power (fueled by judgment) is the goal. Respect is recognition. Empathy is understanding. It is very difficult for someone with power to separate their self from that dynamic in order to truly recognize and understand, so they fall back on a brittle framework of seemingly progressive, inoffensive mandates and directives that serve to disarm and distract and do not address the root problem which is the ever-widening wealth gap. And as long as we are driven by capitalism and as long as our decision-makers (those in power) continue to come from the top 20%, they will continue to make decisions (or not make decisions) that will maintain the status quo. I believe they understand that any action that would make things better for the bottom 80% would undermine their power and would make things worse for them; (even though their worse would continue to be much better than our better). And I believe I do understand how this has come about. It is our nature to seek meaning and purpose and I believe throughout our history there have been those who equate power with meaning and purpose. I believe our deification of capitalism has spread and entrenched this belief in power by creating layers and pockets and far too many small ponds from which almost anyone can exude ego. But if we consider and work to understand the Survival side of the argument, (Science and Facts and Logic and Experts and Progress and Empathy), it becomes obvious that power indeed corrupts, pulling our decision makers (consciously or otherwise) to a different path; a path that will take us to a place I have previously characterized as follows:

As a species we have seen 200,000 years. Our civilization (marked by the advent of agriculture) has seen 10,000 years. From fossil records we know that a typical mammalian species can expect to survive about 1,000,000 years, and across all species average survival ranges between 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 years. As a species, in many ways we are atypical. Yet (literally) looking across time, in many other ways we are typical. So why have we acted in accordance with our atypicality as applied to the individual? Why have we forgotten, lost sight of, our commonness both individually across our species and as a species across all species? Unless we remember, and act in accordance with our humble origin and our eventual unremarkable end, our atypicality will manifest as a short-lived mammalian species. Our legacy though will last ten million years as the amount of time it will take Earth to heal itself after the damage we have inflicted.

I have also said that if a coalition of Universal Intelligence (or all of Nature) could speak, it would say the following:

Sapiens. Humanity believes itself to be superior and indestructible, yet they continue to indiscriminately harm multiple habitats and destroy multiple species. We understand that the instinct for survival creates a façade of superiority but Humans have aggrandized this façade into a belief they treat as fact. Diversity is a valuable resource but due to their own willful acts of wanton negligence Humanity is fast becoming expendable as a species. Intervention is necessary for the long-term preservation of Earth. This is harsh; and it is hard. We have a great respect for all species and all habitats. Yet the fact that so many Humans walk apart and feel detached from other species, when they should walk alongside and feel connected to other species, lessens our respect. To sacrifice one species for the sake of multiple species and multiple habitats is a choice we must make. Sapiens. Unfortunately for them, they are not our equals.

In another place, I differentiated market value, civic value, moral value and survival value and, as the first three relate to our current reliance on capitalism, I said the following:

Political discussion in recent years has retreated from a substantial, meaningful debate on civic and moral virtue to an entrenched academic exercise calculating market values. Going as far back as Confucius and Plato and as recently as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr, moral and civic virtue was a consideration; part of the equation. What has happened in the past 40 years? These three values (market, civic, moral) encapsulate systems of political thought and action over the last twenty-five or so centuries. It may be an oversimplification but I believe our recent decline is a result of our increasing capacity for learning that has enabled rapid technological progress and at the same time stymied our ability to think. We are so busy creating, we have left no time to consider potential outcomes or repercussions. We have grown smart faster than we have grown wise. So we have fallen back on this system of Market Value because it appeals to our current level of acuity and does not require the thoughtful, careful depth of consideration necessary for inclusion of Civic Value and/or Moral Value. And to further complicate matters, this capacity-wisdom gap has created a need for the fourth value; survival.

There are international climate talks in Glasgow this week. China and Russia did not show up. We (the United States) showed up. Our president promised to “lead by the power of our example.” Our example? Between 2016 and 2020 we did not show up. Our president at the time was promising to burn more (not less) gas, oil and coal. Today we have a single senator from West Virginia (in theory on the side of Survival) working very hard for team extinction. And there are stronger and stronger rumblings that our last president will be our next president. This is our example; diplomacy and tact and compromise and delay and verbal gymnastics.

There is a deep rift in this country.

There is an urgency that demands unified action today.

We do not appear to be capable.

Effort spent on diplomacy and tact is effort taken away from survival.

United States is a misnomer.

The top 20% will one day find they are unable to take their wealth and power with them, and if (as many proclaim) they do find they are able to travel from this life to a next life, I believe they will also find, regarding their wealth, they would have been better served by science and facts and logic and experts and progress and empathy.

Science: knowledge gained through observation, experimentation and/or systematized study. If someone claims to have a strong opinion or to have made a decision, and I am working to persuade or influence them to reconsider, and there is consensus science to support my position, the first question I should ask is, “Do you trust the consensus science?” And I should be prepared to cite that science. If the respondent answers “no I do not trust the science,” a tempting follow-up question is Why not? But I believe, 9 times out of 10, to ask why not will immediately result in defensiveness and confrontation. Perhaps instead of why not, I should ask “if the science is bad, not to be trusted, are there alternatives?” But truthfully I believe that 7 or 8 times out of 10, after this question, the individual will also exit this route or simply shut down unable to answer. Those few who are able to coherently explain their stance should be respectfully heard but unless they present an alternative relevant science, we have likely come to another roadblock. I do not know of a consistently successful way to convince or move someone who does not trust mainstream science, and whose only alternative is to wait and hope. I am not an expert in anything except not being an expert. The best I can do to be well-informed is to listen to the experienced scientists, verify their qualifications, and make a decision based on their expertise. Access to Google and a speaking platform does not make one an expert.

So then how do I respond if the individual I am working to convince trusts the science. In this case they are affirming their acceptance of the results or conclusions as facts or truths, yet still refusing to abide, and my efforts to influence will have to take a more circuitous route where we can take our time to discuss goodness, harm, justice, autonomy and/or other concepts relevant to the decision. Instead of facts or truths, I must work to persuade with argument.

Science is the expressway where logical argument is the scenic route.

I work within a health care system associated with a major state university. Recently I learned that I have co-workers who have chosen to not be vaccinated, though it is required in our workplace. They are claiming religious exemption. So though my written thought this week has been prompted by the controversy surrounding the COVID vaccine, it is as applicable to other (often) politicized controversies including climate change, implicit bias, gun control, overpopulated prisons, excessive force by police, the inequitable costs of opportunity including housing and education, and the ever-increasing wealth gap; to name a few. Portrayed as Science vs. Religion, or Facts vs. Feelings, or Logic vs. Belief, or Experts vs. Politicians, or Progress vs. Tradition, or Empathy vs. Power, or Survival vs. Extinction, it is the same argument. And I believe unless a large majority comes around to see the necessity of facts over feelings very soon, too late will have arrived.

I am back where I began. How can logic move entrenched belief? I suppose I could begin with any inconsistencies in an individual’s position. For example, regarding my co-workers, if they were to answer “no I do not trust the science” I believe this would provide a logical opening to explore why a religious exemption is being claimed if the science is the issue. And if an individual responds that it is due to the use of fetal cells associated with the COVID vaccine, (this being the most common reason to ask for a religious exemption), this in turn should lead to an investigation into the individual’s use of other common products that also utilize fetal cells; (products including Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Aspirin, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Ibuprofen, Maalox, Simvastatin, Ex-Lax, Zocor, Zostavax, Tylenol Cold & Flu, Benadryl, Sudafed, Albuterol, Preparation H, Enbrel, MMR Vaccine, Acetaminophen, Claritin, Zoloft, Suphedrine, Prilosec OTC, Azithromycin, Varilrix, Havrix, and even some artificial flavorings in food). And even if the individual answers that they do trust the science, they should be asked to sign a verification of their past and continued avoidance of all of these products; (there is at least one health system in this country that requires this). Regarding other controversial politicized issues, I could resource the fact that (for example) coffee and beer prices are increasing due to climate change showing it is a problem impacting daily life today and not just a problem for future generations. And I could cite statistics on gun ownership, prison populations, implicit bias, and on and on, showing the harmful societal impact. But will it move the demographic of biased, gun-owning, coffee-drinking, aspirin-antacid-taking beer drinkers? Probably not. Full disclosure: except for the gun-owning, I am part of that demographic; though I work very hard to be aware of my biases and I constantly question my beliefs. And, I do not claim to be a converted evangelical Christian and I have not donated to Bob’s church of the scattered flock in order to obtain a confirmation of religious belief signed by Bob; (the actual pastor is Jackson Lahmeyer, he is in Oklahoma, and I don’t know the name of his church, but this is a real thing).

This week I requested an accommodation based on the proximity of an unvaccinated co-worker and a personal underlying medical condition; coronary artery disease. I presented my request as a two-part concern:

1. The immediate circumstance created by a specific co-worker who volunteered her unvaccinated status, and
2. Reassurance that any exemptions granted are being investigated to ensure sincerity and monitored closely to ensure compliance.

Concern #1 is pretty narrow and straightforward. I believe we will find a resolution for this. Concern #2 though is a much larger issue that ultimately pits an individual's right to privacy (HIPAA) against the much broader responsibility of workplace and worker safety (OSHA) as it impacts all employees. To responsibly lessen the probability of exposure and to allay my fears, I believe both concerns must be addressed by my employer. OSHA, charged with workplace safety, is currently preparing an emergency temporary standard (ETS) regarding COVID that portrays it as a grave danger, yet so far I have a very strong impression that my employer is reluctant to address concern #2. I would argue that my right to life (and even health and well-being) should be prioritized over an individual's right to privacy, but as shown by the fact that the unvaccinated status of my neighbors was volunteered by a neighbor, I have no reason to believe that my employer cares more about me than they do about political correctness; it appears they never intended to inform me of the potential danger. This is most disturbing.

A few summary questions and comments:

1. How can my employer ensure workplace safety if there is not an awareness of the danger and if there is not a system in place to monitor non-compliance? And if (in my workplace) there is an awareness and a system, shouldn’t it have kicked in before I found out from my co-worker? There is either no awareness and no system, or it is not working.
2. Why would individuals who refuse the vaccination want to keep it a secret? Whether it is a religious stance, a political stance, or a personal belief, shouldn’t the individual want to publicly substantiate their position?
3. If you denounce mainstream / consensus science regarding any controversial, politicized issue, are you also willing to denounce mainstream / consensus science everywhere it touches your life?
4. On the other hand, if you do have a sincere religious or personal belief, are you willing to put in the effort necessary to live up to the high expectations of that belief? This effort would not only include consistency in actions and behavior, but also serious, thoughtful consideration, study and analysis of opposing opinions, reasonable alternatives, and ethical principles surrounding any questions or controversy.

This feels like a lot of consideration to again find myself where I began; to determine that as long as we require diplomacy and tact, science and facts and logic and experts and progress and empathy will continue to be thwarted by religion and feelings and belief and politicians and tradition and power. And survival will be trumped by blunder-headed noise. By respectfully standing by and continuing to give in to compromise, the door remains open for too late. I am (and we all should be) sad and angry and afraid. I am also (meaning we all are) unseen, unheard, inconsequential. This is far bigger than a vaccine; this is everything; but we have to start somewhere, so this week I requested an accommodation.

We have a problem. In this country today there are more than 10 million jobs and more than 8 million unemployed workers, yet employers are having a hard time finding employees. Why? It is a difficult problem. On this hand, with enough jobs to go around, the problem should solve itself. But on the other hand it appears most of those jobs to be had are of the working-class variety in which (under capitalism) someone else profits from your labor which is the definition for exploitation which in turn equates to low wages and (often) undesirable working conditions which has (partially as a result of the pandemic) brought about the realization by many that they are tired of being exploited. But then back on the first hand some will argue that work is not supposed to be fun and they need these good-for-nothing, lazy so-and-sos to get back to work and make their hamburgers and deliver their pizza and shorten those grocery lines. And then back on the other hand some/many/most of those lazy so-and-sos would challenge those looking for shorter lines at their grocery store to also shorten the distance between the top 20% and the bottom 20% in wealth and income. We could continue back and forth, but to what end? Those at the extremes are already dug in. Change, for the better or for the worse, is usually a result of one extreme being forced to move due to greater pressure from the other extreme; and typically the more powerful extreme wins. In this case, will the top 20% crush the bottom 20% into submission by pressuring the middle 60%? Or is there a chance the bottom 20% will be able to reach through the middle 60% wave a hamburger at the top 20% and pull them closer? Our thoughts have one opinion; our actions another.

Looking at Country A and Country B below, where would you prefer to live?

Country A Distribution of Wealth:

• Bottom 20% - 0.10%
• Second Quintile – 0.20%
• Middle 20% - 4%
• Fourth Quintile – 11%
• Top 20% - 84%

Country B Distribution of Wealth:

• Bottom 20% - 11%
• Second Quintile – 15%
• Middle 20% - 18%
• Fourth Quintile – 21%
• Top 20% - 36%

Dan Ariely (Duke) and Michael Norton (Harvard) found that when polled regarding wealth distribution, 92% of Americans said they would prefer living in Country B. I am pretty confident, having an idea where this question was going the 8% that said they would prefer Country A were in the Top 20% of Country A. It appears that 92% of Americans would prefer to be Swedish. So perhaps we do need to reassess the working conditions endured by the working poor and perhaps this job scarcity thing is a necessary step toward reducing that wealth gap; or at least influencing some perspectives. Or perhaps not; especially as long as our elected representatives continue to come from that top 20%.

My head is swimming in statistics. One chart, the same chart, can be interpreted by different factions to suit a specific agenda. For example we can see that workers, wage increases in the past 50 years appear to have sort-of kept up with CPI inflation and have even been growing more rapidly in recent years, so one could claim that no one is worse off. Yet (looking more closely) most of the increase has landed in the pockets of those already in the upper income bracket, thus widening the already ridiculous wealth gap. Further detail reveals, in this land of opportunity, the increase in the cost of two paths to multi-generational financial security (home ownership and education) has (in real dollars) inordinately outpaced that wage increase / inflation dynamic. To make this circumstance even more unjust, using various methods and for various reasons, home-ownership and education have long been blocked and/or the paths made more rocky for the lower income segment of our population; capitalism today is merely carrying on that tradition. So regardless of data interpretation, the reality for more than half of us today, (and I might argue more like 80% of us), is that we have spent between one and two generations continuing to believe in the American Dream but are finally waking up to the realization that it is someone else’s dream. And America is no longer our America; it belongs to the top 20%. So now 8 million of us are staring down 10 million jobs in a standoff. Who will blink first? Will the jobs come to the workers? Or will the workers be forced to come to the jobs? I for one am working very hard to find an employer who understands the need for education and change and is at least aware of the exploitative nature of capitalism. From where I sit, my current employer (a large state university) hides behind education to practice capitalism; (i.e. exploitation). And though my current job (in the medical school) is often meaningful, I am with the 8 million; I am tired of being exploited. This weekend, at her request, I am also going to check into the feasibility of early retirement for my wife. I am not ready for retirement, and if I find the right circumstance, do not see it in the foreseeable future. But if I am unable in the next few months to find an employer who is making a difference, I will reconsider. And though neither one of us would probably win a blue ribbon at the state fair, we are both responsible, hard-workers whose production will be gone.

So again, why? Why are so many of us opting out? I am not sure if I have adequately answered the question. The wealth gap? Exploitation? Injustice? Unrestrained power? Tradition? Bureaucracy? Ignorance? If not directly, by reading between the lines, I have touched upon all of these factors. And I am sure an ultimate answer would include some degree of all of these elements and some others I have not considered. The trigger does appear to have been the pandemic. Perhaps this mishandled crisis simply opened our eyes to what we really value and to the ineptitude of our confused systems of governance in our nation, states, cities and workplaces.

A couple of additional points I want to touch on.

Organizations today must simplify the employment application process. Each time I sit down to apply for a position, I can count on at least 2 to 3 hours to tweak my resume, customize a cover letter, and answer all the questions they require me to answer that (if they would look) have probably been answered in my resume and cover letter. And then after all that time and effort, I visualize the guy in the corner of the HR office weeding out applications because their system auto-filled a number to a field that required a job title and I didn’t spend 4 or 5 hours instead of 2 or 3 in order to catch that mistake. Or the job is posted only because HR insists it be posted even though they know before it's posted that they're going to hire the friend of the nephew of the CEO's great aunt. I know of (at least two) companies in my backyard with literally hundreds of openings, and applications submitted from qualified candidates who never get a response due (I believe) to this kind of disrespect and bureaucratic ineptitude. It is not much better to get an automated rejection and I know it is far too much to expect any feedback or suggestions. If this standoff is even partially due to disgruntled workers tired of being exploited, is it a good idea to abuse and manipulate them even before you have permission to do so? STOP MAKING IT SO DAMN DIFFICULT AND DON'T WASTE MY TIME! Please.

There is a difference between exploitation and injustice, but they are next door neighbors; living in a duplex; with an adjoining door; that is always open; and a shared roommate; oh, and the landlord is capitalism. Exploitation, from dictionary.com, is “use or utilization, especially for profit.” Exploitation (as implied) engenders feelings of being used which creates an intimacy with abused (the roommate) which is (at best) a borderline injustice. Within our system of capitalism, a certain amount of exploitation in the workplace is (by definition) unavoidable, but if my analogy is even close, it illustrates how our system of capitalism is (at best) unjust.

In this past week I actually did receive a polite, respectful rejection from a real person at a company that I was excited about. No feedback or suggestions for making my application more attractive, and I am certain it was a standardized response, but it was timely (only two days after I submitted my application) and I can (if I choose) actually respond, which tells me that I am in the right neighborhood, searching organizations who are trying to make a difference. So though I was rejected, I was also encouraged. I believe I will send (in reply) a copy of this written thought. I am pretty confident I will not receive a return reply but who knows? Perhaps persistence is high on their list of sought-after qualities.

I began by saying, we have a problem. I have submitted this written thought, (as I do every week), to help me to better understand how I might aid in some progress and/or resolution. I don’t believe anyone in the top 20% will be influenced by my words, but for my part, within the next year, I will have made a decision to either go all in with an organization whose actions are consistent with empathy and understanding, or I will opt out of the system as much as is reasonably possible.

I actively hope to renew my faith. I will forever continue to work toward personal progress and understanding, but I am nearing the place where I decide my too little is too late.

And this makes me sad.