hopelesshappiness.com

This week I have been thinking about cheating in baseball. If you have not been keeping up, the Astros were caught. When I first heard about their scheme, I was appalled, as many were and still are. But with a little research, I believe that appalled is an overreaction. Perhaps disappointed and saddened is a more appropriate reaction. There may be no crying in baseball, but there has always been cheating including and often especially sign stealing, which is what has created this latest uproar. It makes me wonder if some of these ballplayers crying foul over the Astros' shenanigans are being disingenuous.

This consternation and uncertainty about how to first define and then react to cheating, can also be applied to our politicians and to our life today in these United States of America. There are many parallels. Knowing that money is power: to be white is to have home field advantage; to have money is to steal signs from second base; and to be wealthy is to conspire with multiple operatives to steal signs from strategic vantage points outside the field of play. Today there are many politicians crying foul over rival's shenanigans. And of course it makes me wonder if many, probably most, and possibly all politicians are being disingenuous.

I believe most of us who are shocked and express outrage when we hear of purposeful violation of rules, do so because we have not been paying attention. And others who act distressed, (most especially those who should so obviously know better how things really work), are disingenuous. With some reasoned consideration, to be disappointed and saddened is a more appropriate reaction, but outrage also serves a purpose. This though, can also become a cycle. From outrage to disappointment to helplessness to the next outrage. And as each cycle passes, a few more drop out, going straight to feelings of helplessness, a shrug of the shoulders, and other more pleasant, less disconcerting distractions. I believe it is important to stay saddened and disheartened. To be distracted is to become okay with the status quo. But if I maintain a realistic constant hum of sadness and disappointment beneath bouts of outrage and the occasional distraction, perhaps I will pay closer attention and at the least vote out those who are most disingenuous, and maybe vote in a handful who are somewhat less so. Baby steps.

One takeaway from this is the reminder that to be wealthy is not only about money or talent or some other critical resource. To be wealthy is also a state of mind. To be wealthy is to feel entitled; to believe I am more deserving and I am better than the rest. And because I AM – taking advantage of the system, (though some may see it as cheating), is simply expediting the inevitable.

Having money, security, and/or some degree of comfort, is also a state of mind. The celebration we see in the dugout after a two-run homer that retakes a lead, illustrates this nicely when in the bottom half of the inning the home team hits their own two-run homer.

And probably the most important reminder for all of us is that home field advantage is also a state of mind. Yes, one can list many tangible factors that may aid in defining the home field, but it is not the tangibles that create an advantage. One's home field creates a state of mind that calms nerves and instills confidence, and it is this state of mind that creates the advantage. And in many instances, (perhaps most), this is a good thing, but it does not excuse overconfidence. Overconfidence enlarges ego and ego demands justifications. And it is not a very big stretch from justifying a greater degree of prestige (thereby influence and control) because it is OUR home field and we were here first, to justifying rules violations that simply expedite future inevitabilities. There are not very many dots to connect between believing in my esteemed prominence and cheating to ensure the integrity of my delusion.

Cheating to ensure the integrity of my delusion. Wow! Is this the ultimate, central and essential reason why we cheat? If so, (since we are all delusional to some degree), how does one not cheat? I suppose we could differentiate degree by the size of one's delusion? And maybe that's what we should measure: delusions. Seeing it in this regard, one with large delusions and access to wealth, will be more inclined to cheat. And if a delusion is a false belief or opinion, then skeptics, scientists and experts will tend to cheat less.

If I am going to cheat to ensure the integrity of my delusion, then I will work very hard doubting, questioning and seeking current scientific and expert consensus. I will not, ever, trust the beliefs or opinions of a politician. I believe the best politician is one who may be a tad less disingenuous with a somewhat smaller field of delusions.

I am sad. I am disappointed. I am disheartened.

It is okay, and at times it is necessary, to be difficult; (i.e. doubt, ask questions, debate alternatives). It is never okay to lack empathy and a reasoned awareness. Of course, the difficulty therein is the ability to balance the (often) frenzied activity of being difficult with the thoughtfulness required for reason and empathy. When I pull back to consider my actions and their impact, I may lose momentum or someone else may pick it up and take it in a different direction. When I charge full steam ahead with little consideration for fallout, I may bulldoze innocent bystanders. So do I risk overthink? Or underthink?

Perhaps this has always been a factor differentiating those who take charge and those who let them; those who manipulate and those who deliberate; those who pretend and those who care. The challenge today though seems to have changed. Instead of stepping back to thoughtfully consider actions and then stepping back in to contribute to the flow, today it feels like one must forego debate, reason and empathy in order to keep up. When I do make an effort toward reasoned awareness, the challenge today is finding the flow once I am ready to step back in. Today those who are in charge are not only bulldozing innocent bystanders, but also the surrounding landscape in order to limit and control those invited to contribute. They are doing this by narrowing the channel, redirecting the flow, and strategically damming certain tributaries, thus reducing and even stopping the flow to some areas and rewarding other areas with an excess. There has always been a contingent of those in charge who work to maintain status quo and suppress rival thought, but today the divide and the numbers on each side are such that it feels less of a back and forth and more of a do or die; less of a give and take and more of a take and take more; far less of an overthink and far more of an underthink; less of a democratic republic and more of an authoritarian oppression. This all feels true on both a small and a large scale. Yet on any scale, to be difficult with no reason, empathy or debate, is not leadership; it is ignorance. And looking at all of this on the larger scale, it feels like we have split our one nation into two competing factions; and one faction has taken the lead. But I am not so sure, today, it would be much different if the other faction were in control. It feels today like this larger divide is so deep and so dangerous, (with no flow or natural growth, and sheer walls in some places, and jagged and falling rocks in other places, and constant tremors and upheaval for those of us standing in the dried-up riverbed looking up), that we may never find our way out. More so than at any time in my 60 years, I am seriously afraid for America; and by extension, for Humanity.

I had an active hope that perhaps the faction working to catch up might pull together and work to unite. At this critical juncture we need someone to stabilize foundations, level floors, shore up walls, carve steps and build bridges. Instead we have Democrats and Republicans.

Bottom line is this: a majority of us must somehow meet in the middle. From the middle, on both the large and the small scale, we must seek and empower moderation. In the second sentence above I said, “It is never okay to lack empathy and a reasoned awareness,” yet that is exactly what is lacking on and in the extremes. But, I don't believe that today our extremes are any more extreme than they have ever been; I believe though that today our extremes (what we used to call the fringes) have become far more powerful than they have ever been. I believe that our progressive-moderate to conservative-moderate middle still represents a majority of Americans, but because the actual majority has also come to represent the conformist-follower-disenfranchised-minority-immigrant-underprivileged-uninformed mass, we have made it easy for the fringes to hijack our power. I can also see why and how the extreme right is ahead. And I am beginning to believe that because of their fear tactics and their appeal to nationalism and traditionalism (i.e. change is bad), and because the moderate left and extreme left cannot come together in the universal oneness that they so enthusiastically espouse on most other fronts, the extreme right will continue to stay ahead. And I am afraid.

The middle is boring, and often appears to be a do-nothing road. But that is where we need to be. Under ideal circumstance, the evolution of our thought should be a slow process. We must start in the middle, carefully feel our way right and left, and (often specific to a single issue) accordingly adjust our position. They will be small adjustments, but over time, (look back 50 and 100 years ago), the middle shifts. Lurching and/or speedy adjustments create vertigo and nausea, though much less so for those at the helm.

I have recently said that radical change is necessary for the well being and (even) for the survival of Humanity. And I believe that. Yet above I claim that change is a slow process; and I agree that it should be. So perhaps I should temper previous statements by saying radical thought is necessary to move us toward radical change before radical action becomes necessary. When it becomes an in-your-face, (for some of us it already is), question of survival, you can bet the majority will be on board for radical change. Yet within our system, it will still take many small adjustments over a period of time. I like our system. I believe a significant majority of us like our system. A constitutional democratic republic suits us well. Today, the faction (i.e. fringe) with the lead is working outside of our system. Today, the faction (i.e. fringe) working to catch up appears comfortable within the power structures created and situated outside of our system. To work within our system, we must work from the middle. If we wait too long, we will have no choice but to work outside of our system. Today we must begin the painstaking, baby-step process, on both large and small scales, of electing leaders closer to the middle; and we must actively hope it is not too late.

In the meantime, we have the Democrats and the Republicans.

I aspire to egoless productive contribution. I like to believe that I am a skeptic and a learner and a thinker. In my actual day-to-day, I am a flawed human who too frequently perpetuates the status quo.

Every one of us is flawed and every one of us perpetuates; this should not be an excuse.

But because I see myself as I am and because I see us as we are, I am sad, which at times can demoralize and create personal feelings of inadequacy; and during these times I become quiet and still, thus perpetuating. More and more, my sadness becomes an excuse to stay within myself, thus limiting the reach of my contribution, but (so far) my sadness also remains a force driving me to better myself, and it continues to keep my ego in check. (So far) it is still a productive sadness.

To ensure it stays so, this week I am making the conscious decision and taking palpable action to not be so quiet and still. I am seeking a wider audience. I am working to extend my reach. It may be a futile gesture, but if I am to be a fool regardless, why not? For nearly eight-and-one-half years I have been posting my written thought weekly; (and perhaps, based on results, weakly). I don't feel that what I have to say is particularly new or original, but I do believe that each week I work very hard to come to a better understanding. And I do (very strongly) believe that by organizing my thoughts in written form, I am holding myself accountable. It is much easier, (and less complete), to spout off verbally and/or via one of the many technologically-enhanced spouting choices we have today. And, it is much easier (and still less complete) to have opinions based on entrenched beliefs and today's headlines, than it is to doubt and question and then to take action and actually do some actual research. (Yes, I did just double-down on actuality.)

A solid, stable and consistent sense of how things really are is important, because one's actions in a given moment are directed by one's perception in that given moment. Reality will always be filtered by both external and internal filters, and, (depending upon the filters), to varying degrees, it will always be poorly lit, and/or out of focus, and/or funhouse-mirror-skewed. I like for my reality to have minimal lighting and focus problems with no wavy mirrors, and this is why I work very hard doubting and questioning and studying. I believe that to

1. base my reality on verifiable evidence and/or (in a given moment) reasoned consensus and majority expert opinion, and
2. to be able to differentiate between an expert and not an expert,

will keep me closer to reality. And I believe that 1) reason and 2) recognition (as stated above) are two teachable skills necessary for the long-term survival of Humanity; obviously skills that must be learned and practiced by a large majority of Humanity. From where I sit we appear to be a very long way from that majority, hence my decision to be less quiet and still in order to encourage (even a handful of) others to reason and recognize.

I understand that my contribution may not amount to even a dimple in a wrinkle in a ripple in a disappearing wave in an ocean, but the same dimple doctrine applies to any scorn or ridicule I may fear as a result of my efforts. I believe that for me, in this moment, the critical factor has become effort leading to personal learning and growth; and if the example serves a greater purpose, say a wrinkle instead of a dimple, okay. Though my purpose should not be to market or promote my effort, if I can do so expeditiously and if I truly believe that my thought and effort can contribute to a greater good, first for individuals and thus by extension for all of Humanity, then perhaps I have an obligation.

So beginning this week I aspire to enterprising egoless productive contribution. And regardless of the outcome (or lack of outcome) I must consistently remind myself that my purpose is the effort (toward personal learning and growth) and not the meta-effort (to promote my purposeful effort).

Again, high-def reality, though it exists, is beyond human discernment. But with effort, utilizing reason and recognition, I can continually adjust the lighting and focus so I am able to (at least) maintain visual contact and (perhaps) come within arm's length.

To lose sight of actual actuality is to have no purpose.

Near the end of his book (“A Thousand Small Sanities”), Adam Gopnik asks a complex and intriguing question. A concise version of the question is immediately below, followed by a summary of the circumstance:

Are the sharks eating the people because of the Democrats or because of the Republicans?

It appears sharks are coming closer to shore in the New England area and they are doing what sharks do; they are eating people. The Democrats blame the Republicans, claiming man-made climate change is causing the sharks to come closer to shore, and the Republicans blame the Democrats, claiming it is an overabundance of “protected” gray seals attracting the sharks. The seals are protected from the fishermen who kill them as pests because they negatively impact the fisherman’s livelihood. Mr. Gopnik marvels at both the absurdity and the significance of this argument between Republicans and Democrats; and I have to agree. Perhaps if we were not so busy blaming each other we could maybe find some time to sit down and reasonably resolve the issue together; (the absurdity). Yet it is completely characteristic of the divisive times we live in; (the significance). It seems like “sharks eating people” is a pretty important problem to figure out, and because it is, I am confident (in my assumption) that some serious, sincere experts and authorities did come together to work on a solution. And I am also confident in assuming that there were pontificating politicians, (both Republicans and Democrats), on the sidelines stoking fires and taking advantage of enflamed emotions. So, I am blaming partisan politics for not working on the actual shark problem, and I am also claiming that the Republicans and the Democrats have chewed up and spit out far more people than have the great white sharks along all of our coasts combined. That being said, now how do we resolve the problem of our Republican-and-Democrat-infested political waters?

To work toward an answer to this question, I want to extend this analogy. Here we go:

• The sharks closer to shore are the Republicans and the Democrats.
• The sharks in deeper water are the enfranchised elitists who empower the Republicans and the Democrats. (Note: some of the sharks closer to shore are also enfranchised elitists.)
• The fishermen are the capitalist conservatives.
• The gray seals are the minorities, the immigrants, the underprivileged and the disenfranchised.
• Those protecting the seals are the progressives.
• The experts and authorities are the liberals.
• The people being eaten are part of the uninformed mass.
• The people not being eaten are conformists and/or followers and still (to varying degrees) part of the uninformed mass.

As sharks, the Republicans and their benefactors are coming after the gray seals. They believe there is an overabundance of seals adversely impacting the fisherman’s way of life, and they want to be rid of them in any way possible. Republican sharks love to trigger emotions, most especially, it seems, fear; and they are good at it. They probably also came up with a slogan. Maybe something like – Let's make fishing great again!

As fishermen the capitalist conservatives simply want to ply their trade with no interference from outsiders; be they seals or those protecting the seals. Many of the fishermen (and perhaps most) don't have any negative personal feelings against the gray seals, they just want them out of the way so things can go back to the way the fishermen remember them. Let's make fishing great again!

As gray seals the minorities, immigrants, underprivileged and disenfranchised would like nothing better than to get away from the shallows and extricate themselves from the turmoil, and now they have numbers, but those who are protecting them did not think to also provide them with an escape route. Though they are sentient beings and (according to many) as deserving of consideration as anyone, they are still looked upon as gray seals and treated as pests. They are trapped.

As sharks the Democrats and their benefactors are all about the big picture and don't really see individuals. When there is blood in the water, they consider it a painful but necessary part of the process for the greater good, and they feast upon the resulting anger and sadness, spewing it back out to move the masses toward radical change. After all, a shark has got to eat. And though the Democrat sharks go to great lengths to ensure equality of outcomes, they also realize that it is better to be a shark than a gray seal or one of the uninformed.

As those protecting the seals, progressives truly believe they are doing their part to save the world, and in a sense, they are. But do they have to be so Damn smug about it? I know an accepted norm today, was a radical idea yesterday. And most radical ideas that become accepted and ultimately do help us to progress, like it or not, come from progressives. And many progressives know this, and they believe strongly in the likelihood of improvement, and they believe it would come much quicker if only everyone would listen to them. Additionally, many progressives do not believe they are ever wrong; about anything. And they are so Damn smug about it.

As experts and authorities, the liberals ask a lot of questions, make a lot of suggestions, and seem to make a lot of mistakes. I suppose that is typical of their process of trial and error, and they probably make fewer mistakes than we are led to believe by the sharks and the fishermen and the protectors, but still, one would think they would have more confidence in their plans. The fishermen and those protecting the seals seem pretty certain about their paths. Why can't those who actually implement and execute know beforehand the best thing to do? Is this the 21st century or what? Shouldn't we be able to traverse the path from point A to point B with fewer twists and turns? Are you an expert? Or not? How can we trust so much uncertainty? Come on man… Do your job.

As a people being eaten, the individual ignores and denies the first signs of danger and even the first nibble or two, and then they are surprised as Hell when they are bitten in two.

As people not being eaten, the uninformed mass continues to ignore and deny, and remains blissfully unaware.

As a people not being eaten, many conformists simply go along to get along.

As a people not being eaten, some individuals realize that on occasion they must conform in order to not become a gray seal.

As a people not being eaten, the follower is afraid and seeking comfort and security.

It is okay to choose to be a fisherman, an expert, an authority, or a protector.

It is not okay to choose to be a shark; and as a shark, it is not okay to choose to swim close to shore.

The fishermen and the protectors should, (at least on a somewhat consistent basis), consult with the experts and authorities.

By definition, experts are avowed lifelong learners and skeptics.

Authorities who are not avowed lifelong learners and skeptics are not authorities; they are sharks who occasionally wear people suits.

Experts and authorities recognize their limitations and understand the inevitability of change and unpredictability.

Experts and authorities do not come across as overconfident.

Today, confident certainty is overconfidence.

The gray seals often have no choice.

And because they have no choice, the gray seals have no confidence and no hope.

Though the people being eaten may have a choice, the fact that they are eaten is understandable and forgivable.

Though the people not being eaten may have a choice, the fact that they remain oblivious or the fact that they continue to follow is understandable but maybe not so forgivable.

Though the people not being eaten may have a choice, the fact that they conform is understandable and (on occasion) forgivable.

Today, sometimes I am a gray seal…

…and sometimes I am a people not being eaten.

Forty years ago, and up until about fifteen years ago, I spent some time as a shark. But back then, I believe we sharks stayed further from shore doing what we did in deeper waters, and doing it in a way that maintained, (more so than upset), the balance.

Perhaps my memory is faulty. As I really think about it, perhaps as a (very small) shark I did come closer to shore than I like to remember, and perhaps I did so, so I could don my people suit, crawl on to shore, and pretend to be an authority.

As a shark, I felt powerful.

As a people not being eaten, I feel powerless.

I realize now though, that as a shark, I was deluding myself. When presented with a gray seal or a people just begging to be eaten, the only real power I had, was the power to choose to swim away. To eat those at a disadvantage was not power; it was instinct and greed and gluttony; it was easy. To choose to swim away though, back into deeper waters requiring moderation and balance – that is power.

As sharks, we need to exercise this power to choose, and as people not being eaten, we need to drive all the renegade sharks, who are choosing instinct and greed and gluttony and easy, back into deeper water.

We have structures in place that offer the depth and nuance necessary for moderation and balance. These structures were created to keep our sharks, our Republicans, Democrats and enfranchised elitists, in their place; and these are the waters in which sharks should swim. There will always be sharks. Today, they are far too close to shore.

On paper and in theory, we are a republic. In practice we are a privileged democracy in which the majority is tallied from a select group of enfranchised elitists and conformists. A republic is established to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. But today, not only is the minority unprotected, the promise of equal opportunity for the minority has become a barely whispered hint of “Maybe; if you're really, really very lucky.” Our judicial system is complicit. And because the will of the majority is the will of a select group of enfranchised elitists, (which is not the will of an actual majority), and because of the complex entanglement of today's bureaucracy, in practice our democracy is not an actual democracy, of any type. So, if in practice we are no longer a republic and we have become a perversion of a democracy, what exactly are we? I see our democratic tendencies and I say a perversion of democracy, because I believe that as long as there have been power struggles, (i.e. politics), there has been an uninformed mass of conformist followers who give physical weight to the will of a majority thus allowing for a measurable claim of majority; but the difference between then and now (I believe) is the ever-lessening equality of opportunity created in large part by the ever-widening wealth and power gap. Yet the sheep still flock. So, even if we can continue to maintain a friable connection with democracy, we appear to be drifting further and further from any kind of Constitutional Republic. Our judicial system is complicit; (it is worth repeating). So, what are we?

Some say we have become a plutocracy. Some say we have always been a plutocracy. And I suppose a plutocracy and a privileged democracy share many of the same characteristics. So the privileged plutocrats would like to continue to claim democracy, but if they were forced to admit to any type of oligarchy, they would declare it an aristocracy. With the generations piling on though, any self-proclaimed aristocrat, (especially one involved in any form of politics), has very likely become a distant echo of whatever excellence may have contributed to the good fortune handed down. I would like to believe that we are not so far down this path that we are forever lost. I am not quite ready to label us as miscreant. Despite the plutocrats and our current day-to-day practicalities of plutocracy, we still have the structure of a republic and the underpinnings of a democracy, so if (first and foremost) our judicial system would come out of its coma, shed its skin of partisan hues, and properly interpret our Constitution, perhaps we can begin to halt this hideous transformation that has us hulking and rooted, and perhaps we can blaze a new trail that will allow us to continue our pursuit of the Founding Fathers vision.

So I guess that's what we are. A seemingly indelible hulk, unmoving, unthinking and at risk of crumbling into a handful of footnotes in some far-flung future's historical compendium. Today, in this moment, we are a Hulkocracy.

A hulk is defined as “a bulky or unwieldy person, object, or mass.” What better definition for our individual politicians, and our partisan cliques, and the complexities of our bureaucratic entanglement. Though we are what we are, depending upon one's perspective, we call it by different names. A plutocrat (self-recognized or not) lives in the past and calls it a democracy. A conservative votes for a democracy. A liberal hopes for a democratic republic. A progressive sees a plutocracy. And today it is this insistent, entrenched segmentation that has created our massive, immobile unwieldiness. We need to move from our respective fortifications and reach out to each other to better understand the fear, anger, sadness and (sometimes) joy that has us so divided.

As previously said, our judicial system is complicit. Until we recognize the minority as those who do not have a voice, (hence, those who do not have a say), and until we recognize the necessity of nonpartisan Constitutional judicial intervention to protect all individual rights, and until we acknowledge a wealth and power gap that is forcing a (soon-to-be-if-not-already) majority of citizens into this minority (socially / financially disenfranchised) status, we will remain a Hulkocracy.

According to bankrate.com, if income were suddenly lost, more than 50% of Americans would be unable to financially maintain for more than three months, and more than half of those could not make it for even a single month. The majority of us are already financially disenfranchised. And this is very much a silent majority, because once I recognize my financial disenfranchisement, my fragile state makes it very difficult for me to speak out on anything that could endanger what little security I do have. So, to avoid and/or mitigate social disenfranchisement as well, I must conform. I must become a follower. I must become a sheep. The minority has become the majority, yet as a member of that majority-minority I am not a part of the privileged majority beyond being able to, (with someone's permission), barely hang on to my conformist-follower status.

Again, the actual majority is the de facto minority and the de facto majority is the select group of enfranchised elitists who (erroneously) believe they represent democracy. And I suppose there is some truth to the claim that it has been this way since our Founding; but somehow, today, we are still in a position to overturn this de facto reality by interpreting and applying the de jure potential of our Constitution as (I believe) it was meant to be employed. But until we do, the nagging question, “When will it be too late?” will continue to nag.