hopelesshappiness.com

Twas the week before Christmas, when all through the land

Time stopped. Had enough. Stood still. Took a stand.

The moments were hung upside down and hog tied,

A past misremembered, a future denied.

The people were nestled all snug in their heads,

Not noticing time unraveling its threads

But mamma in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap,

We looked at each other and asked, “what's the hap?”

We felt the disturbance, the twitter, the splatter,

We sprang to conclusions and watched roaches scatter.

Away to my newsfeed I flew like a flash,

But no word about time, only red-blue-boom-crash.

The swoon of time pressed for this time to bestow

Revitalized lustre to kick start its flow,

Tis a shame that time is now waiting for us,

In its fashion, its way, in its time travel bus.

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,

It's Santa who's stopped time! It's good old St. Nick!

More rapid than eagles his invectives came,

And he shouted, and cursed, and called them by name;

“Now, Rich Guy! Now, Tyrant! Destroyers of Earth!

On, Bias! Injustice! The Luck of your Birth!

Though tied up in knots, Earth time won’t stand still!

But your time has paused with no future to fill!”

As sly thieves that before the inequities fly,

When they meet with an obstacle, preach and decry,

Sow fear and spread hatred, maintain status quo,

Keep marching in place and our time will not flow.

And then in a rumbling, I heard the bus start

The belching and rattling, it's coming apart.

As I drew in my head, and fell to the ground,

It leapt forward and back, then it spun round and round.

It was shrouded in smoke from its front to its rear,

And then it was gone, over there, now back here;

Sharp shattered moments Saint Nick flung about,

And he looked like a madman whose sense done gave out.

His eyes – how they narrowed! Atop o' that bus!

Clutching the future, hence thusly and thus!

His grip on tomorrow was tight and severe,

Much like the grip that I grip on my beer.

The stump of a week he held tight in his teeth,

And the years they encircled his head like a wreath;

He swallowed a swath into his round belly,

And I felt to-be shake like a bowlful of jelly.

No more chubby and plump, time's bulk is decreasing,

Oppression and privilege, relentless, unceasing;

A squint of his eye and a shake of his head,

Thus gave me to know our time might could be dead

He spoke not a word, but continued his toil,

His flinging and chewing, unknot and uncoil,

Consuming our time to restore and renew,

The nature of nature, the good and the true.

He sprang from the bus and to time gave a shout,

“It's time to move on whether with or without.

They've nurtured the ways that have brought them to here,

And now it is time they see no time is near.”

He said it twice more and again to be clear,

“And now it is time they see no time is near.”

Then I heard him to plead, ere he drove out of sight,

“Please try to catch up; Happy Christmas; Good Night.”

It feels like those who know better should be those who do better. But the reality is that those who know better have no time or energy left to do better because they are so busy helping everyone (especially those who don't know) to feel better, and they spend a lot of time and effort arguing with those who think they know better.

Other distractions or barriers keeping those who know better from doing better:

• The desire to tell everybody they know better.
• Bureaucracy.
• Capitalism.
• They are politicians, not experts.
• They are experts, not politicians.

Funny, (not funny), how those last two things are so mutually exclusive.

On the one side we have politicians who have made action synonymous with reason by way of rhetoric, and on the other side we have politicians who have made divisiveness synonymous with morality by way of diatribe. And nothing gets done.

Arrogance vs. Anger. No one wins. The more arrogant the more angry and the more angry the more arrogant.

For the angry, expertise is synonymous with elitism. For the arrogant, resistance is synonymous with ignorance. Neither one is true. Both reactions are a product of upbringing and education. Education is not synonymous with formal education. Yet very specialized formal education is necessary for most areas of expertise. And today expertise is necessary for progress; and (I believe) for survival. Politicians today, arrogant and/or angry, are not acting as experts and are not acting on expertise. They are too busy with rhetoric and diatribe making their respective cases for reason and morality. The result: Dysfunction.

Reason and morality are both good and noble causes. But one has to look no further than within their self to understand why and how the mind and the gut (or heart) clash. Left to my own devices I would (more times than not) come down on the side of the gut. But today, to increase our odds for long-term meaningful survival, I believe we must prioritize reason. I believe we must (very, very soon) retire rhetoric and diatribe and act urgently on reasonable morality. Both reason and morality must be reflective of the realities of today, not yesterday or two generations ago. Largely due to technology and the increased world population, the reality today is much different than the reality of yesterday. We no longer have the luxury of again. We must act on now.

Yes, it would be more comfortable to simplify and forego change. But those who follow those and believe those who preach status quo and hearken back to again are directly threatening the future of Humanity. That said, those who follow those and believe those who practice the rhetoric of reason from the comfort of their privilege are marching in place. And though marching in place may be preferable to a return to the misremembered good old days, it will not save us.

So, a few are knowingly working to destroy the world for the sake of their power and comfort today. While some are thoughtfully working to save the world for future generations. And a majority are in the middle, either in the way of progress or working to stay out of the way of those working to save the world. And it is interesting to note that any effort spent working to get in the way of those working to destroy the world plays into their hand by further slowing progress.

At the end of my life I would like to say, “I helped to save Humanity.” But because I am caught in a web of political bureaucratic capitalism, and because I have no expertise, and because I am not a politician, and because what I write is pedestrian, and because no one reads me, I don't believe my efforts will have been significantly consequential. Still, at the end of my life I would rather say “I worked to save the world” than “I was in the way.”

**Footnote. Insight. How I am perceived. To those in the way of progress, I am arrogant. To those trying to stay out of the way of progress, I am angry. To those at either end, I am appreciated and/or ignored because I am not in their way.

Another lesson learned from the Arbery trial: to find common ground from which to seek justice, once an individual is identified as a racist one should avoid allusions to race and/or racism. The same is true of any group of individuals in which a majority are identified as racist. Many racists retain a sense of justice and are capable of understanding an injustice that harms another individual, and a non-racist will not only understand the injustice but will also recognize the racism without having to have it put on display. But if I try to attribute the motivation for unjust or even simply unfair actions or behavior to racism, a racist or a group of racists will instinctively become defensive and search for justifications thus (at the very least) mitigating the potential for justice. On the other hand, by simply presenting the injustice as an injustice, I am more likely to capture empathy and understanding from everyone and avoid divisiveness stemming from anger and entrenched, often instinctive reaction, thus increasing the potential for justice.

That said, I believe that to advance and even save humanity, once an individual is identified as a rational forward-thinking citizen (or likewise a citizen-group) one should speak the truth (often and loudly), and act on the truth in order to advance the truth working to attain a vocal majority and encouraging the like-minded to do the same. I believe we are at a point where respect and courtesy should be reserved only for specific circumstance, (such as a court of law), and should manifest as rational argument serving to advance humanity by avoiding anger and instinctive reaction. I believe we are at a point where we no longer have the luxury of wasted effort toward rhetoric. I believe we are at a point where we must take back our original intent (accidental or not) as it is expressed in our constitution: to promote and protect liberty for all individuals. And perhaps most importantly, I believe that “all” must include not only the 7,910,862,621 individuals here in this moment, but also (for the traditionalist) every individual who has ever lived and (for the progressive) future generations. If we do not move past our current state of divisive ignorance, quickly, and take back the reins to move ahead as a rational forward-thinking liberal democracy that will promote and protect individual liberty, we risk the nonexistence and/or inconsequentiality of ourselves and all past and future generations.

I believe a very large majority of those who identify as traditionalists hearken back to the good old days of no more than two or three generations ago. Yet if God is a traditionalist, I believe today that they, (all 7,910,863,059 versions of her, him, it), would hearken back to the good old days before humans. If God were a traditionalist, she would have never created man! So now that we have definitively determined that God is a progressive, shouldn't we follow suit?

I believe this is the crux of the issue. Whether we are talking about a racist or a climate naysayer or a rich white man, we are talking about a division between traditionalists and progressives. And we have shown that the entire structure of traditionalist thought is at best confused and more realistically at worst a gauzy, feeble, rickety sham. But just as with the racist, once an individual is identified as a traditionalist, one should avoid allusions to their smoke and mirrors and instead appeal to their sense of responsibility. Many traditionalists do feel a responsibility to their ancestors and to their own personal legacy and many traditionalists do understand the need for change, but many traditionalists are unwilling and/or unable to move past wishful thinking fueled by misremembering and/or ego and/or fear to act in accordance with the consensus science, fact, truth. Yet still, to appeal to their sense of responsibility is a better plan than to try and knock over their house of cards that even the most inexperienced of traditionalists can rebuild in a moment.

From overt racism to the planet to capitalism to the growing wealth gap to this country's ridiculous two-party political structure to opportunity to housing to education to implicit bias to the American dream that in our hands, for a majority of us today, has turned into a watery, unsatisfying mishmash of dashed hopes fed by lies, we have a lot of work to do. Rhetoric is not work. Politicians are not workers.

But just as with the racist (which many politicians also are), and just as with the traditionalist, (which I believe most politicians are regardless of party affiliation, and I believe all politicians are at least to some degree), one should avoid allusions to our leaders’ progressive impotence. And though an appeal to their sense of responsibility may result in some progress, we will find that a politician's ego is a much bigger mountain to climb and any progress is likely to be only baby steps. Regardless, today, it is still a better plan (at least with those politicians who acknowledge consensus science, fact, truth), to appeal to the sense of responsibility they feel, be that sense of responsibility toward their personal legacy, their ancestors, or their current and future constituents. And (though still only a baby step), it is our responsibility to send a strong message to any politician who refuses to acknowledge consensus science, fact, truth by voting them out of office.

That said, I am always concerned that too late has entered unnoticed through a side entrance.

And that said, this week I am also somewhat encouraged. There are others (scientists and experts) who do have a plan. This week I finished David Attenborough’s book, A Life on Our Planet. Near the end he said,

“In losing our dependence on coal and oil and by generating renewable energy we gain clean air and water, cheap electricity for all, and quieter, safer cities. In losing rights to fish in certain waters, we gain a healthy ocean that will help us combat climate change and ultimately offer us more wild seafood. In removing much of the meat from our diet, we gain fitness and health and less expensive food. In losing land to the wild, we gain opportunities for a life-affirming reconnection with the natural world both in distant lands and seas and in our own local environment. In losing our dominance over nature, we gain an enduring stability within it for all the generations that will follow.” And for the traditionalist, for all the generations that have come before us.

And somewhere in the middle, Sir Attenborough said,

“A recent review has estimated that almost 50 per cent of humanity’s impact on the living world is attributable to the richest 16 per cent of the human population. The lifestyle that the wealthiest of us have become used to on Earth is wholly unsustainable. As we plot a path to a sustainable future, we will have to address this issue. We must learn not only to live within the Earth’s finite resources, but also how to share them more evenly too. [There are] minimum requirements of human well-being: good housing, healthcare, clean water, safe food, access to energy, good education, an income, a political voice and justice. [This] is a social foundation that we must aim to raise everyone above to enable a fair and just world.”

Consensus science, fact, truth.

This is a rant.

Wisconsin State Representative David Bowen regarding Rittenhouse and Arbery trials said, “In both cases, you have white individuals who feel they have to make it their duty to go out of their way to reprimand or correct black people and do so in a lethal and aggressive way.” Rittenhouse was a white man with a gun (not even in his home state) portrayed as enforcing the law. Rittenhouse victims were liberals standing up for democracy and the rights of everyone. Arbery was an unarmed black man portrayed as a criminal because he was seen exploring a house under construction. Video shows multiple individuals exploring said house; nothing was vandalized or stolen. Arbery’s armed attackers chased him in pickup trucks yet they are also portrayed as enforcing the law and acting in self-defense. In 2013 George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin, killed him and was acquitted also based on a claim of self-defense. I could go on with many more examples. By definition a racist is an individual afraid of a black man; and because of this impetuous, unsubstantiated fear a racist can come across as truthful and sincere in a court of law and be exonerated. When will we hold racists responsible for their actions leading up to the heat of the moment? Rittenhouse did not have to go to Wisconsin. Arbery’s attackers did not have to chase Arbery in their pickup trucks. Zimmerman did not have to follow Trayvon Martin. Our police do not have to find reasons for proportionately inordinate traffic stops of black men. We are a racist nation; there is no excuse. We can be better and we have been better and other nations and cultures are better. I have said before “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.” Our justice system perfectly illustrates this political dichotomy by acting on the side of a delusion of control while at the same time spouting ineffectual rhetoric. Our laws have been made and molded by white men for white men and until we understand the meaning of democracy and justice and act accordingly, we will continue to fail.

If I get behind the wheel of a car and I am drunk, and I kill somebody, I am guilty. If I get behind the trigger of a gun and I am racist, and I kill somebody, I am a hero. When I am drunk my judgement is impaired and I am responsible. When I am racist my judgement is impaired and I am not responsible, I am legitimately acting in self-defense. There is a disconnect. Poor judgement is poor judgement. And just because we don't have a breathalyzer for racism should not excuse the stupidity of someone who makes the conscious decision to insert their self into a racially-charged volatile circumstance. I have known many racists who have not taken their AR-15 across state lines in search of notorious infamy, but as long as we continue to glorify such behavior, some of these racists who might otherwise use better judgement will more likely be moved to become that shining example. Perhaps this is the racism breathalyzer: if you agree that drunk drivers who kill should be punished and you are happy about the Rittenhouse verdict, then you are blowing between 0.15 and 0.25, which according to a duke.edu blood-alcohol-content chart may create mood swings, mania, anger and aggression; (many of the “Changes in Feelings and Personality” caused by alcohol in various ranges up and down this chart interestingly are as applicable to changes caused by racist thought). I believe Rittenhouse and Arbery’s killers would blow 0.21 to 0.30 on a racism breathalyzer and I believe they secretly aspire to a 0.41 and beyond.

Today (Wednesday) Arbery’s killers were convicted of murder. Sadly this does not change the fact that as a nation we are still deeply divided about this ongoing exercise in justice, both when it succeeds and when it fails. We are divided because we are racist.

• If you are unhappy about the Arbery verdict, yet the thought of three armed black men chasing down and killing an unarmed white man angers you, you are a racist.
• If you believe the disproportionate police traffic stops on black men are justified, you are racist.
• If you believe the disproportionate black population in our overcrowded prisons is justified, you are racist.
• If you don’t want to hear facts regarding policing bias or overpopulated prisons or the war on drugs or zoning restrictions, redlining and restrictive covenants or disproportionate rates of eviction or disproportionate opportunities for jobs, education, homeownership… …if you don’t want to hear these facts, you are racist.
• And again, if you agree that drunk drivers who kill should be punished and you are happy about the Rittenhouse verdict, you are racist. And you are the problem…

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?