hopelesshappiness.com

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People of the United States: Not just the rich, the powerful, the entitled – Everyone!

in Order to form a more perfect Union: We will never reach perfection, it is a work in progress; it should be a work in progress. In this moment it feels like we are standing still or moving backwards. No work. No progress.

establish Justice: The rich, the powerful, the entitled talk a good game, but when the object of the game is to maintain status quo, empathy, compassion, justice are lost in the weeds of their words.

insure domestic Tranquility: Perhaps this originally meant peace among the states giving federal government power to quash rebellion, but today this concept of states has evolved into entrenched factions (which are sometimes partially defined by state borders) and when it is our federal government (all three branches) that perpetuates divisiveness and encourages rebellion, where do we turn? Our lack of domestic tranquility has made us a laughingstock.

provide for the common defence: Who are we defending ourselves against? Who is the enemy? I see the biggest threat to progress, to justice, to domestic tranquility, to our general welfare, to liberty as the rich, the powerful, the entitled. The creation of foreign enemies can be and has been a misdirection, a sleight of hand, meant to distract us from this internal threat. I would go so far as to say that this campaign to maintain status quo is a stealth form of domestic terrorism. Americans are dying every day from injustice, from a lack of empathy and compassion, for the sake of the almighty dollar, for the sake of a misremembered past, to maintain existing wealth, power and entitlement.

promote the general Welfare: Welfare regards the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity of a defined group or people and General implies “We the People of the United States.” I interpret this phrase to mean equitable opportunity; for Everyone. As a people we lack in this regard.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty: Somehow our government has come to believe it is their job to dictate who is allowed what freedoms. They have it backwards. Our government was created to protect the preexisting freedom of equitable opportunity. Freedom came first. Our government should be subordinate.

to ourselves: (Once again), Everyone.

and our Posterity: Oh! Wow! The Future! Is there a future? Do we care about future generations? Today we certainly do not act as if we do.

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In this moment we do not need a new Constitution. We simply need a proper interpretation; a drastic scaling back of the power of the executive branch, a depoliticization of the judicial branch, and a restoration of civility and interdependence in the legislative branch. Our Constitution is a living, breathing document that must be seen and interpreted in its entirety, taking into consideration how interpretation of one piece may influence protections laid out in another piece. Our Constitution is a healthy, living, breathing document, with the potential for a long life; but it cannot, without us, deliver progress, justice, peace, security, goodness or freedom. Unfortunately, “We the people of the United States” are on life support.

This week I jumped through hoops. There was the preventative health hoop, the bureaucratic hoop, the authoritarian hoop, the capitalist hoop; all more pronounced this week, creating more discomfort and more pain than they do most weeks. I found it difficult this week to walk as much, read as much, think as much, write as much as I normally do. When the hoops are lined up in waiting, as they were this week, it is difficult to be creative; it is difficult to project myself outside the box; it is difficult to believe that progress will be made. To advance, to evolve, to improve one must step out of line, yet some weeks, days, hours, moments, there we are, in our place, obedient, subdued, in line.

Perhaps this coming week I will work to regain my discordant flow.

Yet, in a way, the low hum of unthinking, quotidian conformity was comforting. Though I claimed above that the hoops created discomfort and pain, I also found that by just doing what I’m told, what is expected, what suits the status quo, in a way, releases me, frees me from the discomfort of change. And sometimes the discomfort of change is more painful than the discomfort of being told what to do. Perhaps the initial discomfort and pain I refer to was simply an adjustment. I had an opportunity this week to upheave. I chose not to, I think because I was too busy with hoops. It was just easier to jump through one after another after another, than it would have been to jump through one, try to go around another, then dash off miles in another direction and return in time to determine how to handle the next. The flaming hoops are different. The flaming hoops must be dealt with or their keepers will chase you down with bigger fire; but sometimes rather than jumping through, the fire can be extinguished and the firekeepers temporarily mollified. But that is a lot of work. This week it was easier to jump.

To be free of discomfort is often to be stagnant and stuck. But to be free to act is often to be anxious and troubled. This week I am debating which freedom I prefer, personally. As a culture, as a species, I believe it is necessary to be anxious and troubled. But is it necessary that I personally be anxious and troubled? Or is it okay for me to step back, in line, and be free of discomfort. It has become abundantly clear that I am not, nor will likely ever be, in a position of power or influence from which I can help us (as a culture, as a species) to advance, evolve, improve. Yet I still work as if I can make a difference. And I have to wonder, if I stop making that effort will the “stagnant and stuck” part create even more discomfort? Or will I grow accustomed to the low hum of unthinking, quotidian conformity? If this week is an indication, I believe there is a good chance I could learn to live, comfortably, stagnant and stuck. I look around and there seems to be consensus agreement.

Perhaps this coming week I will again jump through hoops.

It is much easier after all to stick my head in the sand; ignore the facts and the statistics; close my eyes and cover my ears. For me though I find it very difficult to shut my mouth, yet when I am jumping through hoops and/or when I am around other hoop jumpers, that is exactly what I am being asked to do, and in fact, not infrequently, told to do. So when everyone else has their eyes closed and their ears covered, I typically walk, read, think, write

So perhaps this coming week I will, after all, work to regain my discordant flow.

To justify the-existence-of-one-thing-at-the-expense-of-another.

It is the relationship that is disconcerting. The one-thing can be one's self; usually a rich, powerful and/or entitled self. The one-thing can be an ideology, or a doctrine, or an organization, or an individual other than oneself. The one-thing can be anything that requires sustenance for its continued existence. An excellent example of one-thing within this dynamic of one-thing-at-the-expense-of-another is an employer; most especially a large employer. For an employer’s continued existence, it must be fed. An employer eats the blood sweat and tears of its employees, and to continue to survive, an employer constantly demands more for less. A large employer believes that by stacking layers upon layers of individual drivers they can increase productivity and efficiency, but from where I sit it appears that what pops out of the hat is the Donnie Darko Rabbit brought forth to intimidate the lower layers into a more-for-less mindset and to protect the uppermost layers from reality. Thus, as the demand for efficiency becomes ever more urgent, the bottom layer(s) are squeezed the hardest, and, the more layers of junior justifiers between the-expense-of-another and the chief justifier, the greater the expense as felt by another. I used to be a junior justifier. Today I am just another expense item trapped beneath layers upon layers upon layers and guarded by a few very scary rabbits.

Justification is not justice.

Yet justification has become our fallback position and for many junior justifiers it apparently feels like justice. And the closer a junior justifier is to the chief justifier, the less they see, hear or care, and the more righteous their justifications.

Last Fall I received a 2% increase in my hourly pay taking me from $18.40 to $18.77. This week, after hearing last Fall “Congratulations-on-your-two-percent-raise-it’s-what-everybody-got” I have discovered (thanks to my abilities with a pivot table and to the release of the annual salary report required by the state) that “everybody” did not include the entire university/campus system (approximately 10,000 individuals), the department I work in, the department I work most closely with, all other individuals with whom I share my job title, the leadership team closest to my responsibilities including the university president, and 8 other groups. In each of the first five groups, from 2020 to 2021 the average pay increase for combined hourly and salaried personnel was (respectively) 4.36%, 3.15%, 6.04%, 3.75% and 7.26%. And in the additional eight groups all but two exceeded my percentage increase. Obviously a large number of people did not get the 2% memo. The two groups who (interestingly) received a smaller percentage increase? 1) The group of individuals within the dataset making less than $20 per hour, and 2) Custodians.

I included eight individuals in the leadership team, (all making from $190,000 to $600,000 per year), but if I take out one individual who did not receive an increase, (I would like to believe she did so on principle), then the pay increase for the other seven ranged from 4.50% to 12.45% with an average of 8.18%. Again, my pay increase was 2.01% and I can’t help but feel that (because it was due to rounding) the .01% was given begrudgingly.

The saddest part? This is exactly what I expected to see. I am not at all surprised.

One individual included on the leadership team has the last name Jones. Out of curiosity I calculated all the Jones’s systemwide and it is no surprise that I also cannot keep up with the Jones’s. Their overall average increase was a whopping 13.83%. Again, my pay increase was 2.01% and I can’t help but feel that (because it was due to rounding) the .01% was given begrudgingly.

From 2020 to 2021 there was an increase of 19 individuals (from 9724 to 9743) within the parameters of this dataset. It is encouraging that approximately 10% of those making less than $20 per hour in 2020 have moved into the set, (or been replaced by someone hired into the set), of those making $20 or more per hour in 2021. It is discouraging that the increase in average hourly rate for those making less than $20 per hour was only 0.33% from 2020 to 2021 whereas the increase in average hourly rate for those making $20 or more per hour was 2.32%. Salaried personnel within this same set received an average annual salary of $104,984.07 in 2021 reflecting an average percentage increase of 4.03%, whereas (respectively) the numbers for hourly personnel are $40,356.96 and 3.45%. If the real dollars from the 0.58% difference between salaried and hourly personnel were added to the hourly personnel it would increase their percentage increase by an additional 1.50%. In addition, those making $100,000 or more in both 2020 and 2021 received an average annual increase of 5.40%. More simply put, the richer get richer and it doesn’t mean as much. Even more simply put, the wealth gap is alive and doing very well, thank you very much.

Looking again at the leadership team responsible for decisions leading to my 2.01%, I have to ask these seven individuals, why? I know you talk a good game, equity, justice, empathy, but can you talk me through this? 8.18%? Please help me to understand. If I had received your group-of-seven 8.18% instead of my 2.01%, I would be within 9 cents of the $20 club. You, both individually and as the group-of-seven, are the one-thing and I, along with thousands of others, are sustaining your existence at our expense. As said before I am not surprised. And the fact that I am reasonably calm and rational tells me that I have (sadly) grown accustomed to rhetoric and duplicity and contrivance and subservience and helplessness.

Here, I would like to note that I do see some validity in some justifications, and others I realize I am not in a position to judge. And I understand that I am working to the same end.

That said, I still feel helpless, discouraged, disillusioned, demoralized. To me the issue is not my 2.01%. I will continue to make noise and ultimately find my peace. Nor is it necessarily your 8.18%. Though I believe many rich, powerful, and/or entitled individuals will continue to make excuses in their search for a bigger piece. To me it is the relationship that is disconcerting. One-thing-at-the-expense-of-another.

Justification is not justice.

1. “It's fair because it's the rule.”
2. It's fair because it's how we've always done it.
3. It's fair because it's how it is.
4. It's fair because it's how it should be.

I do not agree with the statements above, but this past week it was brought to my attention that some, (perhaps a great number of), intelligent, coherent, functional individuals do abide by one or more of these declarations. I also discovered that with some prodding, coaching, an individual could stretch their thinking to understand and admit that a rule may be unfair and that it might be okay to work to change an unfair rule. This discovery was for a rule in a low stakes circumstance, but still is (I believe) a potential first step toward fair. I believe it likely becomes progressively more difficult to convince (perhaps a great number of) intelligent, coherent, functional individuals to work to change a tradition, a higher stakes circumstance, an entrenched belief.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one’s own.” To imagine is to move beyond how we've always done it; to move beyond how it is; to move beyond how one has been taught it should be. To imagine is to escape rules. To imagine is to be free of one's self. I might go so far as to say that the preeminent manifestation of imagination is justice and the lowliest, ugliest, most ignoble expression of Humanity is negligence. Negligence requires no imagination and very little depth of character. One who thoughtlessly accepts, abides, perpetuates a rule or tradition that neglects or divides has no imagination. On the other hand, one who makes a rule that purposefully neglects or divides has a cruel, wanton imagination. Perhaps the bigger problem between the two is no imagination. There will always be imaginative, wanton cruelty and there will always be those who revel in its form; but I believe (to those with no imagination), imagination can be explained; taught. Perhaps a second bigger problem is a selfish, underutilized imagination. Perhaps underutilized because within the confines of our American way today, imagination is usually not rewarded and it is frequently punished. To encourage and perpetuate imagination, its utilization must be constantly reinforced and rewarded. That is not happening in this country.

I have identified three problems:

1. To be imaginatively cruel.
2. To be unimaginatively simple and simultaneously intelligent, coherent, functional.
3. To understand yet ignore injustice.

In recent decades, in this country (sadly) we have two political parties and a great mass of divided constituents. One party is imaginatively cruel. One party (despite their rhetoric) largely ignores injustice. And the great mass is unimaginatively simple. Previous to recent decades we essentially had one political party (ignoring justice) and the great mass for the most part undivided yet still unimaginatively simple. It feels that by creating division and adding a party that champions imaginative cruelty, we have taken a step backwards; but perhaps not. Perhaps by drawing out cruel, wanton imagination, we can stamp it out. It has always been there, but only in recent decades has it been exposed; openly and (more and more so in recent years) unapologetically acting in our politics and so blatantly in our daily lives. Now that we can see it, perhaps we can encourage its extinction and by doing so perhaps we are more likely to reinforce and reward imagination. Though even if we reach this point of greater likelihood, because imagination is a defining characteristic of Humanity, we must still reconcile our Humanity with our American system of capitalism and consumerism; an uphill battle. I have said before, “humanity impedes efficiency and our system today impedes our humanity.” But again, perhaps today’s flagrant, unashamed, brazenly obvious, tastelessly conspicuous, meretricious, unabashed, screaming practice of cruel, wanton imagination resulting in naked negligence will prod us forward.

I frequently feel out of place. I feel out of place because I strive to be free of my self, and because I strive to be free of my self when many, (perhaps a great number of), intelligent, coherent, functional individuals prioritize comfort, I feel out of place. It is not a comfortable feeling

To be an intelligent, coherent, functional individual who is also unimaginatively simple is to choose comfort. I could choose to choose comfort. But though comfort may return one to their self, their place, comfort perpetuates negligence.

To be imaginatively progressive, to be imaginatively compassionate, to actively seek justice, to add depth to one’s character requires discomfort. Discomfort encourages and perpetuates imagination and (as said) the preeminent manifestation of imagination is justice.

I seek discomfort to encourage and perpetuate imagination.

So…

I feel out of place because I am out of place.

This week after the Kansas City Chiefs marched downfield and scored on the first drive of overtime, thus sending the Buffalo Bills home without having a chance to possess the ball, there has been considerable commentary and controversy surrounding the NFL's overtime rules; (no less than the Wall Street Journal and NPR have weighed in). Cries of unfairness and injustice! Demands that the rule must be changed! The rule states: "Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner."

The odds of an offensive TD on a given drive are approximately 1 in 5; 21.12%.

The odds of a defensive TD on a given drive are approximately 1 in 100; 1.26%.

So, by receiving the kickoff, (by virtue of a coin flip), a given team is 16.73 times more likely than the other to win on that first possession. And in the playoffs I would conjecture this number is somewhat higher because in theory these are above average teams. And furthermore, the odds favor the team who receives the first kickoff, even when they do not score on that first possession. It does seem a bit lopsided. And this, coupled with the Kansas City Chiefs being on the other side of the rule three years ago in a playoff game against the New England Patriots, will likely lead to a change in the rule. In the NPR article, Philadelphia sports reporter Taryn Hatcher was quoted saying, "NFL overtime rules are so trash, which is honestly an insult to trash."

As said, by creating an uproar many believe there is a reasonable chance the rule will be changed to allow for more equitable opportunity. Equitable opportunity. We can reasonably propose equitable opportunity to the NFL, but it frequently appears to be a truly novel concept in the arena of social justice. Though I am a football fan, and I do agree the NFL overtime rule should be changed, (as do many members of the Kansas City Chiefs), I was struck on Monday by not only the quantity of commentary but by the passion felt for this obvious abuse, when, with not much research I found similar numbers illustrating a bigger injustice that has been going on much, much longer. This is from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), as quoted from brookings.edu: “three-generation poverty is over 16 times higher among Black adults than white adults (21.3 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively). In other words, one in five Black Americans are experiencing poverty for the third generation in a row, compared to just one in a hundred white Americans.”

In poverty's overtime, Black Americans are winning. I feel that should be said one more time: In poverty’s overtime, Black Americans are winning.

To complicate further, according to the Congressional Research Service, a black child is more than 10 times more likely to be born into the bottom 20% than the top 20%, compared to a white child at 3.7 times or an Asian American child at 1.4 times. To the child, the circumstance they come to is the flip of a coin, and as pointed out by the overtime controversy, if it is necessary to flip a coin we should do what we can to provide equitable opportunity moving forward.

But, according to this study quoted in Vox, white children are more than 4 times more likely and Asian-American children are more than 10 times more likely than Black children to move from the bottom quintile of income distribution to the top quintile. This does not reflect equitable opportunity.

Unfairness? Injustice? Traditions and rules that are an insult to trash? Yes! Where is the uproar? Where is the demand for equitable opportunity? Where is the rules committee?

The numbers, the facts, tell us a story of how difficult it can be to overcome circumstance that is not of one's own making or choice. If you can see the injustice of the NFL overtime rule, then you must see the inequity of race that is built into our American way. Or is it really more fair that Black Americans are born fighting such odds than that your NFL team is sent home from the playoffs? I started to ask, are we really this superficial? But I believe the relevant question might be, why are we this superficial? Some might claim that the parents make the circumstance, but there are so many avenues to go down, so many numbers and facts and real life examples throughout our entire history, up to and including today, that show how odds have always been more highly stacked against Black Americans.

As a nation, we were founded on these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” And as a nation we have failed to live up to those words, but that is not the point. When we have a vision, an objective, we will never attain it in its perfection; we are meant to work toward it. Those who are disappointed that we have not lived up to those words must get over it so they may expend their effort toward improvement. The NFL overtime rule is perhaps a way to wake up a few sleepwalkers and redirect the attention of a few whiners to perhaps work together toward “a more perfect Union.” And if along the way we’re able to get the rules committee to change the overtime rule? Great! Because equal should not exclude those who start out on defense; which I suppose does describe Black Americans.