hopelesshappiness.com

42% of 4% own 46%. That is an inordinately high concentration of something. So based on this scenario, in a given set of 10,000 individuals spread evenly over 100 square miles, and with 10,000 shares to divide between the 10,000 individuals, 168 individuals living within the same 4 square mile plot of land own 4,600 shares, while every other 4 square mile plot of land averages only 225 shares each. That is an inordinately high concentration of something.

If these shares radiate some form of Goodness, the fact of the unbalanced concentration is very sad. If these shares are nonproductive, painfully destructive or otherwise stultifying, the fact of the unbalanced concentration is alarming. If those who hold these shares see them as positive and a majority of all others agree that they are positive, the fact of the unbalanced concentration becomes a fact of unbalanced power. If those who hold these shares see them as positive and a majority of all others believe them to be negative, the fact of the unbalanced concentration may become a terrifying fact of unbalanced power.

Yet this is the way of the world. In the above scenario, even living in the most bountiful 4 square mile plot of land, it is a powerful minority that owns (or controls) the specific resource; and in the remaining 96% of the land, one must poll 8,178 individuals just to find shares equaling those of the 168 individuals in the land of plenty, and then (to be credible) one must convince these widespread individuals to marshal resources. In our plot of land we may claim to believe in a democracy in which all citizens are equal, but in what kind of fair and just world does 8,178 = 168? And this “powerful minority predicament” often feels true-to-life regardless of one’s thoughts on the positive or negative characteristics and/or potential of a given bounty. The reality of the majority of individual circumstance is that it is frequently very sad, alarming, unjust, and/or potentially terrifying. Any other interpretation is delusional.

For me, this scenario provides an accurate visual of how a minority maintains power. If the resource, for example, is financial wealth, those who have are more likely to gain while those on the other side of the widening gap are more likely to remain. Regardless of how mightily the (financially) wealthy may profess their love of democracy and equality, I see no effort to level the playing field; the 168 remain powerful and the ranks of the 8,178 continue to swell, making it more and more difficult to marshal resources.

Though I believe financial wealth is the most obvious, and perhaps the most unjust, of potential minority power, there are a plenitude of other resources from which a small number of individuals are able to hold sway over greater numbers. Consider political office; or, (on a smaller scale), your boss at work; or a rule-making bureaucrat at the bank or insurance company; or your healthcare provider. Consider an actual resource such as oil; or water; or food; or, (again on a smaller scale), a specific food such as romaine lettuce; or a collectible such as Babe Ruth baseball cards. Consider a plentiful resource (that is controlled by a minority by choice), such as rugged, beat-up pickup trucks; or Subarus; or loud mufflers; or “Baby on Board” signs; or racist tattoos; or college degrees; or MAGA caps; or “World Peace” bumper stickers; or civilian firearms.

The United States comprises 4% of the world population. Americans own 46% of the 857 million civilian firearms in the world. Only 42% of the households in the United States report owning firearms. That is an inordinately high concentration.

Yet this is the way of the world.

Pomp and Circumstance:

"An ostentatious display of ceremonial grandeur."

"Histrionics, blatancy, fuss, ostentation, formality, bravado, bravura, showmanship, grandiosity, flamboyance, boastfulness, dramatics, flourish, flashiness, splendor, parade, swaggar, splashiness, garishness, dash, opulence, gaudiness, pomposity, pomp, flagrancy, pageantry, showiness, affectedness, grandiloquence, shamelessness, jauntiness, sensationalism, snazziness, exhibitionism, ornateness, vanity, rakishness."

The definitions above are (respectively) from www.phrases.org.uk and www.synonymfor.com. The quoted definition below, (with some liberties) is from www.dictionary.com.

Magic:

"Allurement, augury, bewitchment, conjury, enchantment, fascination, illusion, magnetism, power, sleight of hand, sorcery, sortilege, trickery, artifice, deceit, distraction, duplicity, pretense, treachery."

Superficial:

Lacking depth; lacking substance; lacking follow-through; ignorant; frivolous; out of touch with reality; cheap.

Cheap Magic:

Pomp and Circumstance.

The relevant irrelevance above, (though irrelevant), is relevant to today's newsmakers and their headlines. Our leaders today apear to care more for news-grabbing action than they do for carefully considered progress. We need more think and less do. We need more verbalogistic conversation and less rapid-fire verbowellistic horseshit.

These last few weeks I have had less time to think because I have had more to do. It has shown in my written thought. I believe thinking is at least as important as doing and maybe, (depending upon the circumstance), somewhat more important. I also believe that there must be some balance. Looking around, it appears we have lost our balance. There are some days in which this loss of balance feels less like an unsteady, slightly drunken stagger and more like out-of-control merry-go-round-inducing vertiginous bouts of eye-popping nausea. However, I would contend that we have always suffered splashy, showy, shameless tyrants, but it is only of late that some of the worst of these pompous know-it-alls have risen (temporarily) to greater heights thus gaining a (temporary) modicum of legitimacy.

As further evidence for my contention that tyrannical showmanship is fairly commonplace, today, sitting in a coffee shop, I was subjected to a nearby young woman's blatherings about the (self) important influence she is exercising at a new job, while (for an hour) her table mate barely spoke. Today I was subjected to a large garish pickup truck with very loud mufflers accelarating unneccesarily for a period of 5 to 7 seconds and 10 to 20 yards. Today I blatantly boasted to a colleague; I won't say about what, because that would only compound the bravado. These are all minor and relatively harmless histrionics; but examples of dramatic swaggar, nonetheless.

I believe, (though my wandering words profess otherwise), that there is a connective thread. It begins with choice of action as described below.

Level 1 Action: Pomp and Circumstance.

Level 2 Action: preceded by verbalogistic conversation and resulting in beneficial productivity.

I believe "verbalogistic" (though not a word) is self explanatory.

In these last few weeks, I have found that in "less-think-more-do" mode some Pomp and Circumstance is unavoidable; and I have (re)discovered that I enjoy some amount of flourish. But, ostentatious ceremony is nowhere near the same zip code as reality. Reality is (at best) relatively unexciting and (at worst) involves pain, whereas flamboyant grandeur is an anesthetic upper. I understand the allure but I believe---(I very, very strongly believe)---that a sense of reality is far, far more important than the sense of entitlement that often encourages and then reinforces Level 1 Action.

This week circumstance has begun to settle and I am working to resituate thinking and doing back into a more advantageous balance; (at least advantageous in terms of verbalogistic reality). And if I take nothing more from this week's written thought than this concept of verbalogistics, I am much better off than before.

When an elderly and/or ailing family member comes to a point, we put them in an assisted living facility or a nursing home. When an elderly and/or ailing pet comes to a point, we put them to sleep.

No, I am not suggesting euthanasia for the elderly. Nor am I planning to open an elder care home for pets; (though there are a few in existence). I believe what I am noting this week is that in some families once a member is put in a long-term specialized-care facility, the family's perspective is similar to a pet owner who has made the decision to put an animal to sleep. We suddenly see the ailing elder, (human or animal), as transitioning beyond daily relevance.

There is an intense sadness that surrounds and permeates this process of dying. Death brings closure and, with memories, softens the edges of sadness. But dying is hard. I wonder, (and one day I will come closer to an answer), if dying is easier on the loved one than it is on those that love. Perhaps it is different for each individual.

I can look at my dog and say with confidence that, for him, dying is harder than what death will be. And maybe here is the difference between humans and animals. Humans know enough to fear the unknown. Death is an unknown. No matter living and dying declarations, I believe that for Humans there is and will always be some uncertainty in those final moments. My dog is just going to sleep.

I believe it is important for people to help one another through the process of dying which by default includes the countenance of death. I also believe it is important for people to help their pets through the process of dying, but any consideration of death is selfish and (for the animal) unnecessary. I do not believe my dog is concerned with what is coming. Dying is hard. Death does not have to be. My dog is just going to sleep.

... ... ... ... ...

Yesterday my dog went to sleep. So many emotions... Some people would remind me that he is a dog; and I used to be one of those that did not understand the need to grieve so fiercely for an animal. Elvyn is the only dog I have ever had, and after 14 years of sharing, I now understand. There is a line in a Leonard Cohen song:

"Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died"

Yes, he is a dog; and he is one of the best friends I have ever had. Yesterday he went to sleep. I miss him.

We should be angry. But after a time, we find various ways to let it go; become accepting; and quiescent. I believe this must be a necessary human mechanism that aids in the prevention of heart attacks; and murder. I believe that for most of us, this (agreeable, accommodating, amiable, compliant, conciliatory, obliging, solicitous) mechanism is on a constant cycle, always humming in the background, ready to gear up at the least sign of provocation. Provocation can come from another individual, a group, an organization, a circumstance, or a blend. Many, (if not most), believe that this complaisance is a right and proper state; to be good and kind little children is ingrained (to an extent) in each of us. Even though we should be angry.

I believe knowing that we should be angry, yet having the hum of good and kind constantly in the background, can on occasion create a conflicted state of anxiety difficult to escape. There should always be a degree of uncertainty running alongside the anger to question and temper the anger. But, if a circumstance or an individual or a group delivers an injustice perceived as extreme, I believe one may experience uncertainty of such intensity that they feel compelled to angrily oblige; which is obviously conflicting. In this instance I believe good and kind should be thrown out the window, because good and kind are in the way of moving on.

But if I am able to get past good and kind, how then do I deal with the circumstance? A heart attack or murder are not favorable options, but the anger must be expressed in some manner. If the source of the injustice is an individual within my reach, I may choose rational truthfulness directed at the individual. But if the individual chooses to not listen and/or is unable to comprehend? In this case, the act of expressing truthfulness has helped with forward movement. And if it is an individual, group, or circumstance beyond my reach, I believe that to express rational truthfulness to an empathetic ear will also help in some small measure. And, on occasion, rational truthfulness may find a target and perhaps chip away at injustice.

So far I have simply said 1) throw good and kind out the window, and 2) express your anger verbally and rationally. It seems basic, but since I believe we should be angry, thinking through the process helps me to reconcile various threads of daily anger. This in turn, coupled with a recognition that the source of the injustice is relatively inconsequential to the whole of Humanity, ensures continued functionality.

Some may question the wisdom of daily anger, but if one believes "we should be angry" (as I do), then a process must be implemented to handle that anger. And I would argue that to not understand why we should be angry is to be (at least a small bit) delusional. And I would also argue that rationally processed anger drives learning and adds to wisdom. I would much rather be angry than complaisant.

I believe step 3 is to rationally prioritize. With anger, there will always be a natural emotional prioritization, but while taking that into account I must also consider the potential productivity of a specific thread of anger. This means that on occasion it will appear I have let some things go. This is the process. I am channeling anger toward productive results while actively learning and working toward Truth and Wisdom.

Again, this sounds simple; basic. Yet without these rational reminders, I may find myself in a prolonged state of anxiety lacking productivity, much less learning. We should be angry. And if I recognize this, I must have a process.

Upon reaching...
...stretching
...yearning
I found that the reward
...was ill-named.

Some called it prosperity.

Some called it peace.

Some called it love.

After decades of straining
...and consistently finding it coiled
And ready to strike
I call it
What it is
...Reality