Lies

If I say it, it is true.

If I write it, it is true.

If I blog it, it is true. 

If I get likes, it is true.

If I get arguments with evidence, it's still true. Oh wait, I take that back. If I get arguments with evidence, it may not be true, but the person challenging my statement is a racist, or misogynist, or fascist. This will make my statement true. 

If I'm running for an office, from the Presidency down to local school board, and I have an opponent that seems to be gaining traction, I can claim that he or she cracked racist jokes, wants to ban books, or wants to marginalize some group or the other. 

I do not need evidence. It's true. Or wait . . . whether or not it's true, it must not be challenged, because I must not be challenged. And if I am on the side considered more "progressive," more "hip," more "cool." If my side has celebrities, athletes, college professors, and wealthy corporate-types on the team; then anything I say might as well be true, whether or not it is . . . especially if I have supported it with lies that demean my opposition. 

Ethics are gone. Honor is gone. Integrity is gone. 

Make it stop. Please. 

The Schoolyard-ization of Modern Culture

There was a "fight-or-flight" feeling, or sensation, that I remember from my childhood days. It happened rarely. But when it did, it was decisive in putting me on a high state of alert. It kind of froze you. There was an urgent thought, that in the next few moments my chances of being beaten up, or just punched and bloodied a little, had just spiked up into the "Imminent Threat" zone. 

There were a few kids in the neighborhood that found it too easy to land a few punches into the face, or stomach, of a smaller kid. And they would do so, on a whim: they were having a bad day; A bigger kid had just bullied them; or maybe they just wanted the experience of being "king of the hill," simply for being the only one bold enough to inflict physical harm on a peer. 

Now don't get me wrong. My childhood was wonderful. It was classic. Golden. In fact, I never was successfully bullied. Not by anybody. There were a couple of attempts. But I always fought them off. But casual violence committed for the sake of meanness was a reality in my suburban neighborhood. And all of us . . . all of us . . . knew the low-grade dread that, maybe today, you would find yourself on the wrong side of a bigger, tougher kid that just wants to punch somebody. 

I came across bullies throughout life, and that same sensation came back, when the bullies went on the attack. In the late 1990s I worked for a company that put a Boston Bigmouth over me as my manager. If anything wasn't close enough to perfect, he would call me and ream me out. Or send emails laced with invective. He worked all the time, and his emails would be sent out at bizarre times like 3:30am. The schoolyard feeling of dread was a constant companion during those months that I was under this manager. 

Society claims to abhor bullies. But in reality it celebrates and ennobles them. People that talk against bullying are the biggest bullies of all. 

I wonder how many other middle-aged adults are walking around, slightly on edge because of some other adult with power over them, causing them heartburn and blood pressure spikes? I wonder about the cumulative effect of all of this emotional stress, upon society as a whole?

Adults are going around, with money and power, acting like kids on a playground, unsupervised; ganging up on each other. Mocking and ridiculing that poor kid that, this week, is in the "doghouse." From Washington politicians down to small town Main Street mom and pop shops - we seem to love when someone from "our side" puts it to someone from the other side. 

It's demeaning. It's humiliating. It's dehumanizing. But it seems to make us feel good. Or, at the very least . . . makes us feel "safe." So we encourage some leader, or standard-bearer, to do the school-yard bully treatment against someone on the "other side."

That's what "cancel culture" is. It's what riot destruction is all about. It's what policies that remove people from society are all about. It's "My Gang" versus "Your Gang" on steroids. It's childish. It's unbecoming. But it's what adults have been doing to each other, more and more, especially since the mid-2010s.

We had rules to prevent children from acting this way, fifty years ago. Today we expect adults with power and money (on our side) to do the same, and more, to "The Other." 

It has become habit. It's becoming our culture. And it's very dangerous. 

The Problem with Experts

It's hard to tell which generation is in charge. But whoever it is, seems bent on driving the rest of us certifiably crazy. You wake up every morning, thinking that perhaps this time, you had a well-taken rest. You'll be prepared for this day. The sun is shining. What could go wrong?

But somebody, somewhere, has to go and share some ante-upping, snarky article or meme. 

You can't say anything . . . anything . . . without someone countering with some scientific study, some comedian's devastating wit, some tug-at-your-heartstrings tale of woe, some act of great courage sustained by a member of The Other Team. You must either back down at overwhelming logic, shame yourself for your cruelty ("You want people to die"), accept that you have been on the wrong side of history, or simply, just give up - you guys are gonna lose. 

The sky is blue.

Well, actually, it's not.

It's good to be honest.

Not if the honest person is a racist.

Etc. Etc.

This morning's installment is a slap in the face of people with lifelong, finely-honed opinions. It's patronizing for even the most hardened practitioner of elitist condescension. It was one of the first things to appear on my feed: an NPR article, entitled "The problem with thinking you know more than the experts."

If you aren't good enough of a human being to be ashamed of yourself . . . 

If you aren't self-aware enough to get how uncool you are . . . 

If you aren't sincere enough to own your hypocrisy . . . 

Then maybe this will make your realize how dumb you are:

You think you're smarter than experts! (LMFAO!!)

Here's the deal - - - everybody loves expertise. We all rely on experts. We trust them. We admire them. We're all proud of our kids when they become experts. But there's an exception to every rule. The exception proves the rule! And, the classic "expert" realizes this. Science is all about disproving the hypothesis. You're supposed to welcome criticism. And as we used to all understand (at least, up until about 1996), we need to welcome criticism from all quarters . . . even from (especially from) non-experts.

You see, a clear view of a problem may require the eyes of someone from the outside; a layperson, an amateur, a skeptic. It's almost proverbial - the greatest breakthroughs come from outside the laboratory. 

And, this reliance on expertise, like all things, always only goes so far. You bring your expert, and I'll bring mine . . . and I'll bet they disagree. Or better yet - if my expert introduces factors that your expert did not consider, are you willing to part some, with your expert's conclusions? 

Effective problem-solving requires that we open up our minds a little bit. There's nothing worse, when you're trying to solve problems as big as COVID-19, than experts that will not entertain new information.

People don't have a problem with experts.

But they do have a problem with experts with power. 

Or, experts with money. 

Or, experts with different values.

Or, experts with no values. 

So yes, please, bring in your expertise. Invite all the experts you can manage. But let them adhere to the same rules expected of the rest of us:

Listen to others.

Empathize.

Go for win-win. 

Realize that creativity comes out of the tension of disagreement. 

The solution is, most frequently, somewhere in the mix of "All of the above."

The Triumph of Good

This morning, I awoke to a Facebook thread started by a lifelong friend of mine, in which he invoked the worldview of Star Trek, to inform the recent protests in Lansing, Michigan, against Governor Whitmer's COVID quarantine measures.

He pointed out that it was only a few thousand in protest, compared to millions of people that stayed home, ostensibly, because they were all too willing to do what they're told, by government.

It's a good point. Perhaps all protests should be viewed from this perspective. The Mainstream never takes part in demonstrations and protests. That is one normal curve we may never flatten out.

My friend suggested that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," of course, recalling the Vulcan logic articulated by Commander Spock.

Now, the thread could have taken a positive turn at that point . . . to discuss the reality that the few do have needs. Needs are not wants. Needs are things that we must have, in order to thrive, or even, survive. The thread could have touched on the truth that people are complex, and these problems are difficult. The participants in the thread could have sparked a new way of looking at things: Let's not retreat into our biased corners. But let's gain enlightenment from this one, inescapable fact: The Few Have Needs. And go from there.

Whitmer opponents could have come around some, to a little empathy for the Governor's predicament. Whitmer defenders might have realized: "Yes, it is true - the protesters have legitimate concerns that proceed from out of their own, unique, needs."

But it didn't. It spiraled downward into the expected ridicule and insult. You can feel the raw, negative emotions emitting forth, from even the most simply-worded retort.

The thread lingered on a set of Spock quotes, all of which tended to endorse Governor Whitmer (be that as it may, I have strong beliefs that a real 23rd Century Vulcan would have little regard for 21st Century American political philosophies or social movements; but that's another matter).

The thread stopped there . . . .like all debates in the Year 2020. A quote from Mr. Spock, a couple dozen "likes," and we're all done. Slam dunk.

But there's more to the story.

In the Star Trek narrative, Spock does indeed sacrifice himself for the needs of the many. He gives his life, in a wonderful parallel to fundamental Western values. (Note, first of all, that he was one, and one only, that made the sacrifice. He was neither a mob nor a movement).

But . . . in the next sequence of the narrative, Captain Kirk undertakes a foolhardy mission, risking war with Klingons, risking the lives of all of his friends, risking his reputation and career . . . he even destroyed The Enterprise, the ship that had been his life and companion. And, in the cruelest turn of events - his son, David, was killed during Kirk's mission  . . .

 . . . to save one.

He put it all on the line, for one person: his friend, Spock. Kirk said "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."

And so you end up with the full picture now.

You need both the many, and the one. You need logic, and emotion. You need Science, and spiritualism. You need fact, and opinion. You need Vulcan, and Human. You even need Klingon, and Federation. That really is the way out of our mess. It's the way out of any mess.

Going from Whitmer, to Whitman, we have a quote from the famous poet: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."

As Spock might conclude: "It is not logical, but it is often true."

As the Star Trek story unfolds, we ultimately find Kirk in league with his mortal enemies, the Klingons. Picard ends up partnering with Romulans. Even the Borg, to some degree, end up having some value to The Good Guys.

If Kirk and Picard can get in the same room with people they once despised, so can we. It is not something Gene Roddenberry may have intended, but it's true: If you want to beat a problem as big as COVID - you might have to get along with Trump. But in turn, to people on the other side, is a challenge . . . you might have to get along with Biden, or Whitmer.

Don't expect our "leaders" to lead the way.

Once Spock's life had been restored, his father, Sarek, asked Kirk if it was worth the cost.

"Your ship. Your son."

Kirk concluded: "If I didn't try, I would have lost my soul."

Americans are scoring a lot of debate points today. They're getting very good at gotchas, fact-checks, finding errors in logic, appealing to Science, referencing morality, accumulating "likes" and "shares." They're bolstering their respective corners, and defining the lines of principle that they will not cross.

But in a Nation built on consensus and protecting the rights of the marginalized . . . they are losing their soul.

I'll conclude by giving a nod to a great quote by Spock's foil, Dr. Leonard McCoy, who once said:

"I've found that Evil often triumphs, unless Good is very, very careful."

We are going to have to become a whole lot more careful than we have been, if we want Good to triumph.