There is no way for America to persist for very much longer if the Electoral College remains unchanged. This is, perhaps, the most pressing issue facing our Nation. The left wants to eliminate it, the right wants to leave it untouched, and, both sides would destroy the country if they get their way. The problem of the Electoral College has been discussed and debated, in earnest, since Bush v. Gore. In America’s 232 years, the Nation has now seen 59 Presidential Elections. Of those, only five resulted in a President winning the election without winning the popular vote. In 1824 we see the first occurrence, and then again in 1876 and 1888. These first three instances come from an America quite different from the one in which we presently reside. We then managed to make it 112 years without issue. We have now had two out of the last five elections wherein the “winner,” lost the popular vote. The most recent incident was by a margin of nearly 3 MILLION votes. A margin of less than 200,000 votes cast for Biden in the states of PA, GA, NM, and, AZ, was all that separated America from a sixth occurrence. Subtract those votes and Donald Trump would have won a second term, this time losing the popular vote by over 4,500,000 votes. The 1876 election nearly threw the nation back into a civil war that it had only crawled out of twelve years earlier. Coincidentally, 77% of Americans currently believe the Nation is on the verge of civil war, again.
The obvious problem is that two approaches – the two most spoken about, would both ultimately lead to a civil war. The first is to leave things alone. Stick with the devil you know. However, when millions of Americans feel that their voice isn’t being heard, because of the outsized voice of the less populous states, they won’t be silent forever. Meanwhile, if the Electoral College is abolished, all of those states in the middle of the Country are going to grab their guns and Bibles, and, it’s not going to be pretty. Not only are the optics of each bad, but, each side would have the right to be mad, if the other side prevailed. Maintaining the Electoral College unfairly ignores the majority. Abolish it and the middle of the country would be utterly ignored in national elections. Who is going to waste their time traversing the wide open spaces of fly over country, when they need only to win the votes of the coastal states? Answer: no one. That’s the problem.
Still, there is another group that also has a right to be mad, for as long as the status quo is maintained. Certain states all but guarantee that nearly half of their citizens’ voices will never be heard, and, it’s not even on purpose. A NJ Republican has about as much chance of having their voice heard in a Presidential Election as the North Dakota Democrat (yes, I meant to say “the,” and not “a.” ND only has one Democrat in the entire state. jkjk… there are 2.45 Democrats in ND).
So, what’s the solution? It’s pretty straightforward, really. Apportion the electoral votes of each state with the popular vote of that state. For example, if 40% of NJ voted for the Republican, then 40% of NJ’s Electoral College votes would go to the Republican Candidate. This would eliminate the fear that the right has about having their voices drown out by the liberal coastal states, and, ensure the equal treatment of each voice which the left seeks. It also has the propensity to create a more engaged electorate, as both the NJ Republicans and the ND Democrats will have the chance to be heard (after all, 2.45 people is roughly 6% of the total population of ND). As Americans, we need to start looking for ways to come together, because, if we continue down the path of treating the ideas of others as if they are enemy propaganda, we will be the Americans that stood idly by and apathetically watched the death of The Great American Experiment.
An old friend wrote me a private message on Facebook to ask me what my thoughts were on Biden-Harris. The message came only a few hours ago, just before the election was called for Biden. I am sharing my responses with anyone who is interested in reading them, and, who is feeling anxious. For background purposes, I voted for the GOP, downline, since I turned 18 in 2000, then again in 2004, 2008, and, 2012. I also voted GOP in every midterm election. In 2016, I voted Libertarian. In 2020, I voted for Joe Biden. I am an attorney, who, during my law school career, took time out of my insanely busy schedule to be a McCain Poll watcher in Philadelphia. Admittedly, the Trump Presidency has turned me into an independent, who no longer accepts the position of any party, unless I have examined the issue, thoroughly, and personally concluded that the position has substantial merit. It is my opinion that the parties stand only for the perpetuation of their own existence. These are my friend’s questions, and, my (sometimes ranging) answers. I hope that it offers you a modicum of comfort, if you are concerned.
Best,
Jeff
1) your thoughts on Kamala Harris’ far left voting … she’s the reason I didn’t vote for Joe. I don’t trust her.
So, I hear this one a lot from my conservative friends. To me, it is a reflection of how insular most of our society’s social circles have become. I can tell you that the only thing that my liberal friends were more unhappy about than Joe Biden, was the fact that his VP pick was Kamala Harris. She’s a former prosecutor, with a track record of having been pro-cop. The Supreme Court leans hard to the right now, but, with respect to abortion, even if the Supreme Court of The United States of America banned it, the states would still be able to make the call. Also, this is a particularly divisive issue, which both sides will use to fuel the quests to regain, or maintain, power. At the end of the day, I am of the opinion that we need to prevent women from feeling the need to have an abortion. Lost in the abortion argument is the emotional damage that the mother and father of that child experience. We have too many ways to avoid the need for unwanted pregnancies to be fixated on abortions. The solution is to reduce the number of desired abortions to as close to zero, as possible. Outlawing them won’t lead to fewer abortions. It will just lead to unregulated, illegal abortions. Those most likely to pay the price for that are teenage girls, who, like teenage boys, lack the capacity to understand the full scope and potential consequences of such a decision. The end result is more likely to be adult parents losing their teenage daughters to unsafe abortions, as opposed to fewer abortions being performed. Of course, that is just speculation. Anyone who tells you that they know for sure what will happen is either a liar, or, a fool who lacks the capacity to see the many, many, potential outcomes of any action (or inaction). We are all doing little more than offering our guesses; some people just put a lot more thought and research into their guesses.
With respect to Socialism, there are really very few Democrats that want Socialism. The Socialism thing is literally a fear mongering tactic of the right. Each side has their fear mongering tactics. This just happens to be the right’s favorite. It is not supported by any facts. It is why AOC is an extremist even within her own party.
2) your thoughts on term limits for senate and house … I’m
On the fence about this idea, because, some of these new politicians, like AOC, are a little cray cray, but, you have these lifetime politicians causing nothing but decisiveness and sitting in a seat.
I don’t oppose term limits, but, I certainly don’t commit too much of my time to thinking about them, and, for two reasons: First, passing them would require those who are elected to act against their own interests. These people have literally sacrificed in every other area of life, whenever they saw an opportunity to gain a little more power, because, that is their highest priority. No one gets to that point without great effort and sacrifice, coupled with an over-inflated sense of self. They are completely convinced that the nation needs them; that no one else can do the job better. I can barely imagine someone drafting the legislation, let alone foreseeing a majority of those very same people voting to limit the duration of their own power trip. The only exception would be if some wild grassroots effort was made to vote out the majority of congress, and, the newly elected folks all having the integrity to see why they were voted in, and to act on behalf of the people… but, I think you see how far fetched that sounds, as a U.S. President currently threatens to upend hundreds of years of peaceful transfers of power.
The second reason that I don’t put too much thought into that is because it’s already in our hands. There are a few reasons that they don’t get ever seem to get voted out. First, is that they actually are good at their jobs, sometimes. This is reflected by the fact that most people want term limits and think that Congress is doing a terrible job, but, at the same time, say that their Congress person is doing a great job. What that means is that either their Congressperson is a good con-man… I mean, politician, or, that the system is actually working the way that it should work in The House Of Representatives, as the Congressperson is not tasked with merely acting in the interest of the Nation, they are literally tasked with acting in the interests of their own little slice of the country – their district, and it’s constituents. This may sound selfish, but, the reality is, we have very different needs in different parts of the country, and, those of us who have beach front property in California don’t know or care much about the price of a bushel of soy beans, just like the farmer whose crop of soy beans is set to be harvested doesn’t know or care much about beach erosion in California. Each of those two voters has legitimate concerns that only someone from their region is likely to be familiar with. At the end of the day, though, if we buy into the party BS, from either party, our elected officials will stay exactly the same, until such time as they step out of line with the party bosses, and, then the party will tell us how dangerous the Congressperson suddenly has become, and, will primary them, and, undermine them in every way that they can. It isn’t the political party which is to blame, though. The party is an entity; almost an organism. Like every organism, it will fight for its own survival, above nearly everything else. So, who is to blame? We the people. How so? It is the act of collectively buying into the fear-mongering of the parties that keeps us in line. There are some differences between the parties, but, not enough to justify our dedication to a party, particularly in light of the many checks and balances built into our system. Major change requires either bi-partisanship, or else possessing a super majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and the White House, and, even then, you might need SCOTUS to be on your side, and, even with all of that, the possibility exists that you are ultimately still facing a state’s rights issue to be decided by the individual states. So, voting out someone who you dislike isn’t going to be the end of the struggle, yet we still treat it as the “end-all-be-all,” in an almost primal way that belies our natural tribalism. As the old Arabic saying goes: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The parties so badly want us to perceive the other party as the enemy, but, they happily conspire to eliminate any possibility of a third party becoming a viable threat to the two party system.
A slight rabbit trail: Ultimately, the two party system is a lot like the civil unrest that our country has seen. Think about when you saw police shooting rubber bullets and pepper balls at crowds, and, using their night sticks. How often do you ever remember seeing the police do this during rioting or looting? Almost never. They use those tactics on PEACEFUL protestors who are protesting in an area that law enforcement doesn’t want them to be, for one reason or another (some legitimate, some very illegitimate). Once the rioting starts, the police drop back behind shields… no more clubs with which to beat people. Why? Because, the reality is, the people outnumber the police. The entire system is setup to create the illusion of stability and government control. If you refuse to pay your mortgage, the bank forecloses, and crushes you. If everyone refuses to pay their mortgage the banks get crushed and the entire system collapses. This is not a desired result; it is just reality. That’s why you don’t see any law enforcement rushing in to stop looters. There are simply too many looters for law enforcement to handle, in the heat of the moment.* However, while we don’t want the financial system to collapse, the end of the two party system would be a positive thing, in my opinion.
*This is not to say they won’t use video evidence and track people down later, once order is restored.
3) Nancy Pelosi, I feel, has been the most divisive person ever, and, she really showed that clearly when she tore the state of the union. She needs to not be speaker of the house — just my opinion. what do you think?
I think that she was petulant in tearing up the state of the union address. With that said, I think that Donald Trump was the most divisive President since maybe Andrew Jackson… and, possibly more divisive than Jackson. He purposefully provoked his opponents. I mean, if provocation was a pro-sport, Donald J. Trump would have been inducted into the hall of fame in his rookie year. He poked, prodded, pressed, and needled, until people on the other side exploded. It doesn’t excuse her behavior, but, it does explain it, a little bit. In terms of whether she should be Speaker, that is ultimately a political question. On one hand, I think she should, because she has shown the ability to marshal her members, who have a range from blue-Republicans to communists. That is a tough task and must be done if anything is ever going to get accomplished. On the other hand, I think she should have gotten the stimulus for America that she could get, because, if her party won big in the elections, they could finish the bill properly, after the election. If they lost, there wasn’t likely to be any meaningful stimulus; just an all business handout by the Republicans. Her failure to see that, to me, is a reflection of pure, and poorly thought through, partisanship. I don’t know whether I agree with much of what Pelosi agrees with, because I don’t know where she stands on a range of issues, but, the worst part about Pelosi is that she says and does things that make her the perfect boogeyman for the right. Outside of that, she’s just one of 438 Representatives. Every Representative has 1/438th of the voice of the House, the same as every Senator has 1/100th of the voice of the Senate. None of them should be fully credited, for better or worse, with what happens when they are there, because, none of them really have that much singular importance or power.
4) what are your thoughts on those saying Democrats are using Joe as puppet to advance the left’s progressive ideas… ie: 25th amendment to move Joe out and put Kamala in… who couldn’t even reach her party when she ran for president but now is a viable choice.
So, I’ve heard a lot about this one, too. The fact is, with respect to advancing the left’s agenda, there is little that the President can do, outside of signing into law, or vetoing, something that Congress passed. Presidents can issue executive orders, as long as the order lacks the need for funding, except in certain emergency situations. The biggest functions of the President are to execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress, to act as the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, and, in a diplomatic capacity on the world stage. However, it is worth noting that everyone is always trying to use whomever they can in DC to advance their own interests. Nothing that I saw in the debates suggests that Biden is the senile old man that I thought he was, prior to the debates, although, he is still clearly a VERY old man, lol. As I said above, Kamala isn’t actually a liberal/progressive, in my opinion. She is center left, with a strong emphasis on the “center” part. Of course, you will never hear that from the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Ben Shapiro, or, anyone else who trades on convincing conservatives that the sky is falling and if you don’t tune in daily, you won’t know when the Socialism is coming. All of the talking heads are just shills for someone, providing out of context statements, and half-baked ideas that look good on the surface. This is a left and right problem, but, I didn’t list any of the big ones on the left, because, I honestly don’t know who they are, and, I’ve never listened to them. I know they exist, though, because uniformity of thought doesn’t happen by itself, and the left is no less uniform in their tribalistic groups than the GOP.
5) I’ve taken the stance of watching how this all pans out. If anything this election taught us it’s deeply flawed BUT the sad thing is that the politicians are using minorities as their narrative to get their way.
So, again, I think that it has been emphasized even more during this election than in the past, because, Trump is sort of like a caricature of an actual human being, more so than an actual human being. I think that is partially by design, and, that he isn’t exactly who he tries to appear to be; as if some part of this is just sheer character acting. However, with that being said, since the late 1960’s there has always been a play for minority groups, as if they were some monolithic voting bloc. They are not. However, leaders among certain minority groups still try to force that monolithic reality on the group. Though not an ethnic minority, the evangelical church pushed Trump like pharmaceuticals pushed opioids. Of course, Biden had his “you ain’t Black,” moment. You expect politicians to pander to groups, but, I find the push from within the groups to be more disturbing, personally. It is a reflection of a doubling down on tribalism. We need to be focusing on ideas, as individuals, not as micro-tribes, because, when we act as a micro-tribe, we have surrendered our individual brains to the tribe, and, that is not a good idea. That is how individual voters become “useful idiots,” who do the bidding of the parties.
Look, I know that you hate whatever it is that schools are making your kids do – “school via Zoom.” I don’t blame you. I’d hate it, too. I bet your kids hate it, as well. After all, the only fun part of school, that pretty much anyone can think of, is socializing – and that sentiment is limited to the kids that don’t get bullied constantly. That’s one of the many reasons why my wife and I decided to homeschool our kids. But, we don’t do whatever you guys are doing – that’s not homeschooling. “Real” homeschooling takes many forms, but, almost never what you guys are all being forced to do. Also, don’t believe any of that rubbish about how your kids are going to fall behind – it is statistically proven that nearly everything taught in school is forgotten shortly after the course ends. That’s why public schools spend 5+ years in English classes teaching the same monotonous rules, even though the students have been tested on them over, and over. Not to mention the fact that textbooks are notoriously terrible, and often inaccurate. So, in many cases, it’s a good thing that your kids will forget what they were taught. People involved in the education complex need to believe that kids will fall behind because of all of this – it validates them. To accept what is plainly true, and, scientifically proven, of our educational system would be devastating to anyone who has made that their life’s work.
I do have some credibility here. I was a kid who hated school, received mediocre grades (at best), and, was generally headed nowhere. That was me until the end of 8th grade, that is. In the late spring of my eighth grade year, I discovered homeschooling, and, promptly harassed my parents until they agreed to homeschool me – a great sacrifice to both of them. I had what you’d call a bit of a turn-around, and went on to graduate from a state university, and, eventually, from a well respected law school. My kids have been homeschooled from jump street. They are all ice hockey players, who, outside of hockey, have wildly diverse interests – fossil hunting occupies the majority of my twin sons’ attention these days, that is, when they don’t have hockey sticks in their hands. My daughter is the avid reader, lover of all things science, and, of all things art. My wife does the majority of the teaching. I jump in on a few subjects because, well, I love the subject matter. My wife and I each focus on the subjects that we enjoy teaching. I have no fear of them not getting into college, because, colleges LOVE homeschoolers, because, homeschoolers think outside the box (having been raised outside of it), and, are generally extremely well educated.
Now that you know what my credentials are, allow me to say this: homeschooling doesn’t have to include endless hours of work. Our normal “school day,” is your normal half-day, and, our approach is based on good science – yes, there is science on how to educate. On top of this, learning, for us, never really stops. Think about your favorite hobbies. What formal classes did you take to gain your (most likely, dense) knowledge of the subject? In all likelihood, none. Furthermore, when you see an article about some cool weather event, or, some recent discovery, why do you bother to read it? Because learning is interesting, and exciting, and, what we are naturally drawn to doing! It takes real effort to do what we, as a society, have done to learning – to make it a thing not to be desired. This doesn’t mean that it’s all puppy dogs and rainbows – although, there really are a lot of puppy dogs and rainbows. There are still classes that I hate, that my wife hates, and that our kids hate, and, that we collectively suffer through. Math (which is left to my wife – I don’t want to take any credit for that sort of suffering), for example, is not anyone’s passion, in my house. Still, math makes up 30 minutes of our day, and, then it’s over.
As for the dinosaurs? I couldn’t tell you anything about dinosaurs, except for what I’ve learned from my kids. That’s their passion, and, they are very well versed in the subject – an impressive feat for two kids who just turned 13, and whose only motivating force is their own interest. How do we attempt to motivate them in any given subject? Usually by looking for the lighter fluid of intrigue – that thing that makes a thirsty mind need to know more. Fossils came from a road trip, where we literally got to see dinosaur tracks embedded into the earth. That was it for that one… they were off to the races! Our home butterfly growing kit was all it took to get my 10 year old daughter asking if we could look up resources to learn more about the metamorphosis process. All we did was order some caterpillars online. We didn’t force anything. We guide, we try to be the intellectual match, and provide the lighter fluid, but, that’s all that we need to do. We got into the universe, and solar systems after we made a road trip from NJ out to Kentucky to see the 2017 solar eclipse. Get the picture? We are not rich – money is almost always tight. Lawyers from my generation – especially as a first generation college student, have large amounts of student loan debt. However, for our family, it is hard to call any of it a sacrifice. A sacrifice would be sending them to public school. That would be hard on all of us. We enjoy our time together – and, we are keenly aware that it is limited. In the immortal words of Darius Rucker – “it won’t be like this for long.”
I’m telling you all of this because, I can’t imagine how horrible it must be to try to do public schooling from home – for student or parent. I want you to know that there is a different way, that doesn’t involve misery, and, where you get to actually enjoy your time with your kids, instead of fighting with them over whether they have done their hours of busy work. I also don’t want you to call what the public school system is having your kids do “homeschooling.” It’s not homeschooling.
We’ve all played the role of the chump at one point or another, falling victim to a dubious claim, or fake quote. I personally love the one from President Lincoln, admonishing people that they can’t trust everything they read on the internet. Sadly, not all fake news is quite so obvious. So, how do you sort it all out, and, why should you trust me? You sort it out by examining the credibility of the evidence, and, you should trust me because I’m an attorney. Stop laughing. I’m serious! Allow me to explain. I’m not your attorney, and, I’m not opposing counsel. I’m speaking to you from the position of a neutral – like a judge. Lawyers are professional researchers, advisors, and debaters, among whatever other things you may want to call us. We exist because, despite what you may wish to think, the world is full of ambiguity, uncertainty, and different ways to look at the same information. This reality allows us to look at the facts, and, find the positions which support our client’s case. However, our arguments are not the end of the matter. They are, in fact, the middle of the matter. The end of the matter, is when the arguments are brought before the judge. The judge weighs the credibility of the evidence and arguments presented, and decides what he believes to be the more compelling side (there are more precise ways of explaining this, but, for our purposes, this will suffice). Which means that we need to do a good job at the beginning, when we are researching. Imagine missing something big, and, not finding out until you’re in front of the judge, with your client standing next to you. Not an experience that you want to have. It is with that in mind, that I ask you to trust me, and, allow me to help you figure out how to sort through the mess of information for yourself.
The first problem that we have, collectively, is that we are all playing the role of “lawyer,” these days, instead of being the judge. What I mean by that, is that we are so busy arguing for “our side,” that we have abandoned the role of truth seeker, entirely. You can think of it like this. The information with which we are presented is like a witness, giving testimony on the stand. If you’re a Republican, and the witness is Fox News, you are likely giving a vigorous defense of the witness, yelling out objections when your Democrat-friend is cross examining the witness, and, lobbing softball questions, and defenses. If the witness is CNN, then, the tables are turned. Can you see the problem with this? The lawyers are not fact finders – that’s the role of the judge (or the jury… but, let’s pretend we are only dealing with judges, for the sake of the analogy). Lawyers are the story tellers – we create the narrative, we spin the facts in the way that advances our side. It’s not that we lie – we literally are not allowed to do that. We just present the facts in the light that best suits our side’s position. That’s not a great way to exist outside the courtroom. In fact, it’s destroying us. We must learn to play the role of the judge, or, our Republic will fail; the Great American Experiment, will be over.
So, how do we play the role of the judge? Well, that’s going to be a struggle, because, it involves skills that you were probably never taught. For instance, we have a school system that has terrible text books – and always has, and teaches that the often incorrect (and even more often, over-simplified) information within those books is true. We are taught not to question, or challenge, but, to accept what we are told as true. Unfortunately, such a system designs suckers. To be the judge, you have to retrain yourself not to accept anything, without supporting evidence. You have to learn how to weigh the evidence. You have to accept that you might not like the truth; to choose an ugly truth over an uninformed falsehood. Finally, you have to accept that you will never have complete evidence. The judge wasn’t there when the events transpired, which brought the litigants into the courtroom. There may have even been better information available, which the lawyers missed. The judge has to work with the information at hand, to be able to draw the best conclusions possible, being open to the fact that s/he may be wrong, in the conclusion that is reached – that’s why we have appeals. Changing one’s position because new information has come to light is not called “flip-flopping,” it’s called being rational.
So, how do we weight evidence? Well, for starters, we fact check EVERYTHING. I fact check myself – CONSTANTLY. I start to say something to my kids that I learned in school, and, then, I stop, and say, “you know what, let’s look that up.” Why? Because human memory is faulty, and, because, when I grew up, scientists thought there were only nine planets in the UNIVERSE. Our knowledge was, and is, so vastly incomplete, that, remaining open to the possibility that we are wrong is critical. But, when we talk about “fact-checking,” what do we mean? Whose facts? Well, we want first hand evidence, whenever possible. If the witness says, “I never wear red ties,” and we have video of him wearing a red tie, that’s pretty solid evidence – although still not conclusive, thanks to technology, so, we need to seek the totality of the evidence. If we are talking about a scientific study, then, we need to know what kind of study it was. Does it follow the “rule of large numbers?” That rule is one that applies in any study – and, at the roulette wheel. Just because the ball landed on red ten out of the last eleven spins, does not mean that it lands on red for ten out of EVERY eleven spins. To find out how often it lands on red, we need to spin the wheel at least 100 times, and, 1000 would be better, and 10,000 would be better still. Why? For the same reason that you can flip a quarter and get heads three times in a row, even though there is only a 50/50 chance that it would land on heads, and, that, on average, it would land on heads one out every two flips. Small sample sizes give untrustworthy results. Then, we need to ask whether it was a double blind, controlled, randomized, study. That kind of study removes the ability of the researcher to accidentally, or purposefully manipulate the data. It’s not that you should throw out every other study, but, you certainly shouldn’t trust them very much. You should eye them with skepticism, and seek confirmatory or disconfirmatory evidence – and, seeking such evidence only for the sake of getting closer to the truth, not to support your preconceived notions.
After you have done all of this, you should evaluate for risks – judges, since we are using the analogy, do this when setting bail. In the world of finance, there is a different way of framing risk. It is the consideration of the existence of what is called, “fat tail risk;” a low probability event which, if it occurred would have massive ramifications. In other words, the risk of rare events with big consequences; the Chernobyl events, if you will. If the risk is small, but, the consequences large, you might reconsider taking the risk, in making your decision.
If you put all of this together, you’ll be pretty solid at spotting hoaxes, and identifying valid claims. You still might come to a different conclusion from someone else, who is applying the same approach, but, that’s ok. This approach means that you’ll be able to understand one another’s perspectives. It also means that you’ll both be approaching the information from a well reasoned position, and be more open to reconsidering your conclusions, based on new information. It becomes a collaborative process, instead of a competitive one, where you seek to defeat one another’s arguments. It removes the us vs. them tribalism that has ravaged through our society more savagely than the Pandemic. Truth isn’t about choosing sides, and, no side has a lock on the truth – that’s just the claim that the lawyers make.
The moment my twin sons’ Squirt AA team won their Columbus Day Tournament in 2017. You can’t social distance and play this game.
I hate what I’m about to write. As a youth hockey coach who has eight seasons behind the bench, and, as someone who has played the game since I graduated from the inaugural version of the “learn to play hockey program,” I want you to know, that I genuinely hate writing this, to the core of my being. I hate it for all four of the hockey players in my family, including myself, who are impacted by the inescapable reality of the impossibility of playing the game right now. I hate that my daughter will miss her planned return to the ice. I hate that my sons, who were born for contact hockey, will not get the first year bantam experience that they’ve been looking forward to since mites, but, hating it doesn’t change the reality. We can’t play hockey right now. It’s just that simple.
As USA Hockey, and the Atlantic Amateur Hockey Association, or the “AAHA,” for short, both gear up for a 2020-2021 youth hockey travel season, with tryouts by email, the gory details of what they are, and aren’t, saying should give every parent pause – and, I’m being very generous when I frame it that way. USA Hockey’s “plan,” is bad enough, considering that it only makes recommendations; an ironic, if not remarkable, decision, considering the fact that they require coaches to wear helmets during practice, even though the risk of death or serious injury related to a mite coach not wearing a helmet is remarkably lower than the risk that numerous people will die from COVID-19, if we try to play anything resembling actual hockey right now. The AAHA’s plan, on the other hand, is downright absurd. Taken in their totality, the two plans are impractical, implausible, and, most likely impossible to implement. In short, they are the results of a desperate desire for normalcy, where none can exist. They are the panicked attempts of an entire industry to wish the problem away, with almost comic guidance, if it wasn’t so damn dangerous, and so profoundly sad.
What are they actually suggesting? Well, the AAHA wants you to “tryout” by emailing the coaches. Then, you’ll have to pay, of course, if your kid “makes the team.” When will “hockey” actually “start?” Well, that’s a great question that no one at all in the AAHA region can answer, because, you know COVID-19. Rest assured, ice skating rinks will be among the last places to open, for patently obvious reasons. The only things to do at rinks involve congregating and not social distancing, after all. Public skating? Yeah right! Even ignoring the unsanitary skate rental situation, how are you going to be 6 feet away from everyone in all directions??? I don’t want to do the math, but, you have one person taking up a circular space of 12 feet in all directions (6 feet to the left, 6 more to the right, 6 to the front, and 6 to the back). With a width of 85 feet across, that’s good enough for 7 skaters across, and, at 200 feet long, you can get 16 deep – so, there’s room for 112 socially distanced people, as long as no one moves… That doesn’t really matter, though, since gatherings of more than 50 people are likely to continue to be banned until there is a cure or a vaccine, but, who cares about social distancing at public skating? We are hockey families, right? Well, the rinks might care, since, you know, they have to make enough money to stay in business. Mind you, it won’t just be public skating that they lose. The version of “hockey,” that they have in mind isn’t conducive to adult leagues, since it doesn’t involve the actual playing of hockey games. Wait, you didn’t know that? True story! We’ll get into that later, though. For now, let’s leave it at “no adult hockey, and, no public skating.” Oh, and, no snack bar, since even USA Hockey and the AAHA seem to grasp that the rink lobby must be closed. Learn to play hockey and mites are unequivocally out, since little kids cannot be counted on to remember that they can’t engage in typical human interaction, and, kids who can’t skate well enough to be in a league simply fall all over themselves and each other, so, those are both out. It’s getting harder to imagine how the rinks can make any profit at all, isn’t it? I think that’s because there isn’t a way to make this math add up.
Now, let’s get to the details of what is going to pass for “hockey.” As soon as the rinks are allowed to open, the AAHA’s advice is for coaches to get their players on the ice. So, basically, the second they get the chance, they are going to crowd rinks with the greatest number of players allowable by law – that’s totally not going to result in a wave of new cases! As any learn to play hockey student can tell you, learning something new is an imperfect, imprecise, process, and, that you’re worst at the beginning. So, all these coaches, implementing a new approach that is radically different from anything they’ve ever done before is going to be a mess. The current approach takes zero consideration for any learning curve, expecting coaches to get it perfect the first time. That’s delusional, and dangerous. Especially considering the fact that all of us youth hockey coaches are such completely reasonable people, when it comes to the sport that we love, right?! None of us will push it too far, too fast, right? Sure. Now that we are all back in the actual rink, there will only be practices – for how long? Dunno. Likely until there is – you guessed it, a vaccine or a cure… so, probably, well into next season. Angling drills? Body checking drills? Sorry, Charley! There is no contact. In fact, there is literally no contact of any kind. Six feet of social distance in all directions, remember? Players will not be allowed on the benches, because they can’t possibly fit a full forward line on the bench, without violating social distancing guidelines, let alone a team. You’d need a 30 foot long bench for five players! But, you can’t have a coach behind the bench – no way he’s 6 feet behind the players. They recommend drills where the players don’t stand in line – surrrrre, I’ve got a ton of those! Besides, what player doesn’t want to have a practice where they never for a second get to stop moving. By the way, what kind of choreography are you going to need to do, to keep the players six feet apart while they are doing these drills? No crashing the net. No small area games. Can’t work on edges, since that always involves players standing in lines. Good thing the lobby is closed, because, you’re going to need the entire rink for players to get dressed. Oh! They want players to wash every piece of their gear, after every single practice, in the highest temperature water setting. Right. That’s as laughable as the suggestion that they made for sending the players off the ice after practice – players should be individually sent off the ice, to avoid having them congregate, and, time should be built into practice to permit this dismissal. No word on how they’ll avoid them congregating before practice. How much space do you need off the ice, to keep all players 6 feet apart? With a full roster of three lines, and two goalies, the line to get onto the ice will be 102 feet long. Is anyone else seeing how absurd, and unworkable, this plan looks?
This isn’t hockey. It’s not even hockey practice. Worse still, it eliminates most of the reasons that we put our kids in hockey in the first place. There’s no team when you can’t get changed in the locker room together, sit on a bench together, work through disagreements together. There’s no overcoming adversity by battling back, late in the game – because there’s no game. I don’t know how you form new friendships when you can’t get closer than 6 feet apart, with mouth guards in, and never get to even fist bump each other, which USA Hockey is, absurdly, ok with. Perhaps, if the players fully extend their arms, they can pull off a socially distanced fist bump, but, come on. That’s obviously not how it’s going to go.
Please don’t misunderstand me – I’m not arguing against the social distancing rules. This is what they had to do during the Spanish Flu with similar activities, and, it’s what we need to do now. As painful as it is, there shouldn’t be any games right now. It’s not safe. It won’t be safe until there is a vaccine, herd immunity, or, a cure. Now, there is the chance that we, as a nation, will simply open up for business, in a foolish bid for herd immunity, thereby allowing untold millions of people to die, since the strain of such a massive wave of infections would mean that anyone who needed a hospital bed to survive would die – since there would be a shortage of bed in the tens of millions. That would be foolish and imprudent – not to mention emotionally and financially devastating beyond even what we face with a patient, annoyingly slow reopening. However, I don’t think we will do that, because, even most of the tough-talkers will retreat from their positions when the people who they love start dying. At that point, this conversation would be moot, since everything would likely shut down again. What this present approach is trying to do, is to have it both ways, by not reopening, and, not waiting this out – and, what do we all know about the ability to have it both ways? You can’t.
Even these rules, or, in USA Hockey’s case, “recommendations,” will slacken once the pucks hit the ice. Why? For the same reason that we have to “skate” players from time to time for touching a puck after they were explicitly told not to touch the pucks (DON’T TOUCH THE PUCKS! I yell it in my sleep during the middle of the season)… it’s because we love this game. It is, I think, a fundamental part of us. We are like junkies. We can’t help ourselves – we can’t be trusted with the pucks. And, what happens then? If even one team relaxes on the rules, it will start a wave of new cases, that rips through entire teams, if not whole organizations, and, then through families. And, what if the rules don’t slacken? Then, what are we even doing out there? We should at least come up with a new name for it, because, it’s sure as hell is not hockey.
We like a lot of things that have, for the moment, been stripped away from us:
Walks on the beach, vacations, going outside without being afraid that we might become violently ill and die or bring the plague upon our family, amusement parks, free water ice from Rita’s on the first day of spring, professional sports, that thing about the murderous virus – again, getting to watch our kids play sports, and going to the grocery store without being forced to go, in a singular direction, through every aisle (why in the hell is the word “aisle,” spelled that way? Never mind, I’ll look it up later), because – social distancing. But, of all the things that we miss, there is one thing that I think we miss the most – it’s a bad habit, though, and, it’s time to give it up. It’s our deeply misguided sense of certainty, and, honestly, it’s toxic. To the frustration of everyone who has not previously had the sense of certainty beaten out of them – which, I believe is life’s most frequent method of teaching about uncertainty, the last few weeks have been… rough, to put it mildly. “The Coronavirus,” and CoVid-19, the disease that it causes, are new in humans. This means that we, collectively, “know” – and, this is a technical term – “jack squat,” about the ways to treat it, the ways that we catch it, and the ways to protect ourselves, and our families, from it.
The trouble is, we have a whole bunch of experts, telling us that they do “know.” To make matters worse, the experts at the top, Dr. Anthony Fauci, in particular, seem less confident, and “we the people,” are not used to seeing a prominent expert looking uncertain. There is a reason for this – we don’t give uncertain people the spotlight in America. The media, and politicians alike, stick with “experts” who “know.” What we all know about the experts with whom we disagree is how wrong they always are. We are less convinced that our preferred experts have a similar track record – rest assured, they do. In fact, in the late 1980’s, researcher Philip Tetlock proved that the so called “experts,” performed worse than “a dart throwing chimpanzee.” This is, understandably, maddening. What’s far worse, is that these less accurate than, head-or-tales-call-it-in-the-air “experts,” continue to get a spot on the talking-heads-tv-shows. What we don’t often see, are the Dr. Fauci’s of the world. We prefer our deeply flawed, less than 50-50 experts, who provide us with false certainty, to a truth teller – because, very often, the truth is, “we don’t know.”
So what the hell do we do with, “we don’t know?” How can that be valuable? Well, it’s actually incredibly valuable. If you listen carefully, a Dr. Fauci doesn’t stop at, “we don’t know.” He tells you what we think is true – what the possibilities might be. From there, we make our decisions: what are the chances things go this way, or that way? What is the worst case scenario? What are the chances that the worst case scenario happens? We do this everyday without thinking. For instance, you know that people die in car accidents, but, you still get in a car. Coincidentally, CoVid-19 is killing more Americans every day, right now, than die per day from all accidents, of any type – which happens to be the third leading cause of death in the United States. It’s no joke.
So what do we do, when something is killing people, and, we don’t know how to stop it? We take the extra cautious approach, because the risk is high enough to warrant it. This is why civilization has come to a grinding halt, globally. It isn’t because people were overreacting. If you have a 1 in 100 chance of dying by going on a rollercoaster, then you don’t go on the rollercoaster – unless you’re a moron. Some morons will still roll the dice. Don’t be the moron. It costs you very little to skip outings which are not required. Death, on the other hand, costs a great deal. Extreme illness, which occurs in 15-20% of cases, costs a great deal. So, you stay inside. Some “experts” say take Tylenol for now, because NSAIDs cause this virus to proliferate. Some say that’s just a myth. Unless you have a need to take NSAIDs, use your brain – take the Tylenol. The same with masks – if some say they work, and some say, it’s just a waste of time to use a mask, then use the damn mask. What, are you afraid of looking stupid? I think that you’re pretty stupid if you’ll risk serious illness, to avoid looking stupid, so, let’s assume it is something else stopping you, and that I just can’t figure out what that thing is, and move on. These choices are not particularly difficult. Some of the questions are, of course, harder to answer. These, I will not even try to answer for you – because you need to use your own judgment, based on the available information. If the available information changes, don’t start wringing your hands – just make the adjustment. It should not be a surprise that the information will change, once you accept uncertainty. The approach should always be the same, though. Ask yourself, “what happens if I choose this course of action, versus the other available options?” Then, look at the chances that each outcome takes place, and the consequences of that outcome. Then, ask yourself if you can live with that outcome. Oh, and, for God’s sake – do try not to be a selfish bastard. Think about the impact that your actions have on your loved ones, and, on someone else’s loved ones. If we all look out for ourselves, there is only ever one person looking out for you. If we look out for each other, there are countless people looking out for you. The second way is objectively better.
All of this takes thinking. It’s hard work, and, maybe that’s part of why we don’t like it. Life is not a scantron test – no matter how often someone tries to present it that way. In fact, life is a philosophy class, with a whole bunch of questions that have imperfect, or entirely non-existent answers. Ironically, our schools don’t teach philosophy, so, most of us spend the majority of our lives, alternatively, looking for “the answer,” or hiding from the fact that the question exists at all: what should I do with my life, can you have it “all,” how do I find happiness, etc. Maybe the other reason that we want someone to give us the answer, is so that we have someone else to blame, just in case things don’t go, “just so.” Neither of these motivations are justified, though. Nearly every good thing you’ve ever had required hard work (surely thinking will be no exception), and, you can engage in all the blaming that you’d like, but, in the end, we make our own decisions. So, I’d ask you to allow this crisis to teach you to accept uncertainty, and, embrace that, once life returns to whatever we will eventually call “normal.” You’ll make better decisions, and, you likely lead a happier life, because, you’ll be the one making decisions. You also won’t be blindsided when things don’t go according to plan. You’ll happily acknowledge that nothing is certain, so, why would you ever be certain of an outcome? Of course, I can’t be certain – but, neither can you. It’s just the best conclusion that I can come to, based on all the available information.
Too many of us have believed a big, fat, lie, and it must be corrected – or else our children, if not we ourselves, will live to see the death of the great American Experiment. This is the lie: The people that disagree with “us” are dangerous. They are idiots, and, they are the enemy of our Nation. Allow me to explain both the lie, and the truth.
There are brilliant people on both sides of the aisle. Intelligent minds can disagree. So, how did we come to believe the lie, who sold it to us, and how do we change it?
So, how did we come to believe the lie?
Believing the lie is relatively easy to explain. After all, people love a good game of “us vs. them.” From your favorite sports rivalry (Yankees vs. The Sox), to gender wars (anything you can do, I can do better!), to racism (see: “hands up, don’t shoot!” See also: “Jim Crowe,” “Japanese Internment camps,” and “Irish slaves.” For an international flair, see: [pick the name of any nation ever] war atrocities… starting to get the picture?) and the compulsive need to identify eye shapes, or, the way a particular ethinicity smells (when they are wet, or don’t wear deodorant, or because they eat an abundance of a particular spice). Our natural instinct is to pick teams and then find a million reasons to die for ours (literally – like in a war, or metaphorically – like being a Philadelphia Flyers fan; a perennial death to self), and at least as many reasons to justify the assassination of the the “them” (literally – drone attacks, or metaphorically – as in, who ever met a Boston sports fan that they didn’t want to run over with their metaphorical SUV?) In ‘Murica, we alternate between the metaphorical, jocular, political-attacks during the best of times, and literal assassinations in the worst of times. We have allowed those who are greedy for power to manipulate us, from time to time, and drag us into the gutter of the more literal divisions, and the more literal assassinations. Make no mistake about it, if the “swamp” is in Washington, D.C., its origins are, nevertheless, in the human mind – and the latter is the one in the most dire need of draining. We are once again at a crossroads in the U.S., and in all of Western Civilization.
Who sold it to us?
This goes back to at least the presidency of Bill Clinton, although, perhaps back to Ronald Reagan’s. The efforts of Congress, during both presidencies, to achieve their political goals through attacks on the character of their opponents, as opposed to the ideas of their opponents, massively contributed to the beginning of the sociopolitical avalanche. Universities accelerated it (See: “The Coddling Of The American Mind,” by Haidt and Lukinanoff). Donald Trump represents a reinforcement of the cultural battle lines and the backlash to the P.C. movement that was grown in the Universities and fostered by the coastal elites. The clash of social revolutionaries, and populist sentiments, have been co-opted by some of the worst examples of humanity – those who feel a compulsion to seek power over their fellow citizens. Few who desire power are worthy of, or fit to possess, the positions they seek. Unfortunately, too many who desire power are capable of figuring out how to obtain it: division through fear. You will find this behind nearly every war that has ever been waged – the use of fear to gain power and manipulate the masses. The political left and right have spent the past 20+ years trying to convince us that the other side is the enemy. Thanks to the advent of social media, we can now find a meme supporting any baseless pre-existing idea that we have. We were sold these ideas by people seeking television and radio ratings, and people seeking political power… and a few that were well intentioned, but, we all know what road our “good intentions” pave – and we were, collectively, all too willing to buy.
How do we change it?
If we don’t change the tone, end the demonizing and dehumanizing of those with whom we disagree, and genuinely wake up, we are destined to join the dust bin of history’s once powerful nations, whose collapse necessitated the re-creation of classroom maps and globes. There are no simple answers to the problems with which humanity is confronted – and there never have been. While I have enough hubris to think I can contribute some solutions, I’m humble enough to admit that my ideas do not represent the only answers. Nevertheless, if we aren’t searching for solutions, what’s the point? In light of this thought, I offer the following…
The first step to getting out of this epic mess in which we find ourselves is accepting the complexities of the mess, itself. There are a lot of people offering simple solutions to complex problems. We like simple solutions because they usually give us an excuse to actively avoid thinking, and give us someone to blame. Unfortunately, they’re typically about as useful as used chewing gum, and are almost always inadequate.
Next, figure out who has been labeled “Them” – that’s who is to blame for our problems! Everything would be amazing without THEM.Except that it wouldn’t be. “They” aren’t the problem. The collective “we” are the problem. If that thought makes you feel slightly indignant, then take a chill pill, and check yourself before you wreck yourself. A world which includes “me” can’t ever be perfect, or free from error or flaw. If you can’t relate with the preceding sentence, then, I think you need something stronger than a chill pill. With that in mind, it might be easier to imagine that some ideas that you think are brilliant are actually bound to be terrible. We need each other. We need a dose of humility. We need to remember that disagreeing doesn’t need to make us enemies. Have a conversation with someone that you disagree with – and not so that you can convince them to believe what you believe, so that they can stop being wrong. Instead, try to understand where they are coming from and who they are. The shouting voices that have been the source of all of your information on “who these other people are,” lack something in the way of objectivity, and something more, in the way of credibility, when they speak about the motivations and beliefs of the “they.” The enemy of our democracy – the greatest danger to our Republic, is mutual, unchecked, self-assuredness.
This is not to say that all ideas are equal. This is not an argument in favor of relativism. We can objectively assess arguments, but, unless that assessment starts in a place of intellectual humility, we will continue to only seek ideas that support our already self-assured, pre-existing beliefs, while savagely dissecting any contradictory information with a degree of thoroughness never experienced by those pieces that fit our worldview.
One last thought: I said that the lie was, “the people on the other side are … idiots.” On the whole, this is true, at least, in part because blanket statements are myopic and stupid; they represent some of the worst in us. Of course, some of the people on the other side are idiots – some of the people on whichever side we stand are idiots. We, too, are individually, sometimes the idiot. So, accept the fact that, sometimes, you are the idiot and sometimes I am the idiot – it is a role that we all take turns playing. Then, make the decision not to paint an entire group with such broad brush strokes. Work hard to figure out when you’re the idiot, so that you can be less of an idiot, and try to have a little bit of grace on the other idiots. This whole “humaning” thing is not easy and we are all fumbling along.
Ahhhhh… Election Day! A day that means so very much (more) to me (than it used to). (It used to be) A day when the nation went out to cast a(n at least somewhat) well informed vote (which has been reduced to a day of mixed emotions – sorrow over the decay of our democracy, co-mingled with absolute glee, over the fact that we won’t continue to receive dozens of political robots-calls every hour)! Robocalls aside, elections are important. In fact, they are critically important. If you think they don’t matter, imagine a world where a weak leader beats Abraham Lincoln; a world without a Winston Churchill* – in other words, a world where Neville Chamberlin makes a peace treaty with Adolph Hitler, and then eventually gives him the key to London, too. Given this significance, it is reasonable that passions would run high. Here is where we come to the point, though. Too many of us have believed a big, fat, friggin, lie, and it must be corrected – or else our children, if not we ourselves, will live to see the death of the great American experiment. This is the lie: “The people on the other side are dangerous idiots.” Allow me to explain both the lie, and the truth.
There are brilliant people on both sides of the aisle. Intelligent minds can disagree. So, how did we come to believe the lie, who sold it to us, and how do we change it?
So, how did we come to believe the lie?
Believing the lie is relatively easy to explain. After all, people love a good game of “us vs. them.” From your favorite sports rivalry (Yankees vs. The Sox), to gender wars (anything you can do, I can do better!), to racism (see: “hands up, don’t shoot!” See also: “Jim Crowe,” “Japanese Internment camps,” and “Irish slaves.” For an international flair, see: [pick the name of any nation ever] war atrocities… starting to get the picture?) and the compulsive need to identify eye shapes, or, the way a particular ethinicity smells (when they are wet, or don’t wear deodorant, or because they eat an abundance of a particular spice). Our natural instinct is to pick teams and then find a million reasons to die for ours (literally – like in a war, or metaphorically – like being a Philadelphia Flyers fan; a perennial death to self), and at least as many reasons to justify the assassination of the the “them” (literally – drone attacks, or metaphorically – as in, who ever met a Boston sports fan that they didn’t want to run over with their metaphorical SUV?) In ‘Murica, we alternate between the metaphorical, jocular, political-attacks during the best of times, and literal assassinations in the worst of times. We have allowed those who are greedy for power to manipulate us, from time to time, and drag us into the gutter of the more literal divisions, and the more literal assassinations. Make no mistake about it, if the “swamp” is in Washington, D.C., its origins are, nevertheless, in the human mind – and the latter is the one in the most dire need of draining. We are once again at a crossroads in the U.S., and in all of Western Civilization.
Who sold it to us?
This goes back to at least the presidency of Bill Clinton, although, perhaps back to Ronald Reagan’s. The efforts of Congress, during both presidencies, to achieve their political goals through attacks on the character of their opponents, as opposed to the ideas of their opponents, massively contributed to the beginning of the sociopolitical avalanche. Universities accelerated it (The Coddling Of The American Mind, by Haidt and Lukinanoff). Donald Trump represents a reinforcement of the cultural battle lines and the backlash to the P.C. movement that was grown in the Universities and fostered by the coastal elites. The clash of social revolutionaries, and populist sentiments, have been co-opted by some of the worst examples of humanity – those who feel a compulsion to seek power over their fellow citizens. Few who desire power are worthy of, or fit to possess, the positions they seek. Unfortunately, too many who desire power are capable of figuring out how to obtain it: division through fear. You will find this behind nearly every war that has ever been waged – the use of fear to gain power and manipulate the masses. The political left and right have spent the past 20+ years trying to convince us that the other side is the enemy. Thanks to the advent of social media, we can now find a meme supporting any baseless pre-existing ideas that we have. We were sold these ideas by people seeking television and radio ratings, and people seeking political power… and a few that were well intentioned, but, we all know what road our “good intentions” are used to pave – and we were, collectively, all too willing to buy.
How do we change it?
If we don’t change the tone, end the demonizing and dehumanizing of those with whom we disagree, and genuinely wake up, we are destined to join the dust bin of history’s once powerful nations, whose collapse necessitated the re-creation of classroom maps and globes. There are no simple answers to the problems with which humanity is confronted – and there never have been. While I have enough hubris to think I can contribute some solutions, I’m humble enough to admit that my ideas do not represent the only answers. Nevertheless, if we aren’t searching for solutions, what’s the point? In light of this thought, I offer the following: the first step to getting out of this epic mess in which we find ourselves is accepting the complexities of the mess, itself. There are a lot of people offering simple solutions to complex problems. We like simple solutions because they usually give us an excuse to actively avoid thinking, and give us someone to blame. Unfortunately, they’re typically about as useful as used chewing gum, and are almost always inadequate. Next, figure out who has been labeled “Them” – that’s who is to blame for our problems! Everything would be amazing without THEM.Except that it wouldn’t be. “They” aren’t the problem. The collective “we” are the problem. If that thought makes you feel slightly indignant, then take a chill pill, and check yourself before you wreck yourself. A world which includes “me” can’t ever be perfect, or free from error or flaw. If you can’t relate with the preceding sentence, then, I think you need something stronger than a chill pill. With that in mind, it might be easier to imagine that some ideas that you think are brilliant are actually bound to be terrible. We need each other. We need a dose of humility. We need to remember that disagreeing doesn’t need to make us enemies. Have a conversation with someone that you disagree with – and not so that you can convince them to believe what you believe, so that they can stop being wrong. Instead, try to understand where they are coming from and who they are. The shouting voices that have been the source of all of your information on “who these other people are,” lack something in the way of objectivity, and something more, in the way of credibility, when they speak about the motivations and beliefs of the “they.”
One last thought: I said that the lie was, “the people on the other side are … idiots.” This is true because blanket statements are myopic and stupid. They represent some of the worst in us. Of course, some of the people on the other side are idiots – some of the people on whichever side we stand are idiots. We, too, are individually, sometimes the idiot. So, accept the fact that, sometimes, you are the idiot and sometimes I am the idiot. Then, make the decision to not paint an entire group with such broad brush strokes. Work hard to figure out when you’re the idiot, so that you can be less of an idiot, and try to have a little bit of grace on the other idiots. This whole “humaning” thing is not easy and we are all fumbling along.
*ed. note: Churchill was not elected – he was appointed. Nevertheless, the analogy stands, as an effective contrast between the weak leader and the strong leader.
It had been five weeks. Five weeks since my wife gave birth to our first child and our second child. Five weeks since my wife and I had a complete night of sleep. And, for two people that spent everyday, for the previous decade, outside of the house, it had been five weeks since either of us had left home (except of course for me to go to work, or grab some groceries). To that point in my life, it was the most difficult thing I had ever been a part of, however, I am profoundly grateful for it, in so many ways. Of course, there are my twin boys. For my wife and children, I would give, or do, anything. However, this article is about the other life changing gift that I received, which came not despite the suffering, but, rather, because of it.
We all have pivot points in life… moments when things changed: our perspective; our reality; our plans for the future. Moments where our expectations of what it will be like to be married, or a parent, or a professional athlete, or whatever… meet their untimely end, at the cold, heartless, hands of reality. In those moments we have some life-defining choices to make. These are the words that were offered to my wife and I, by one of her life-long best friends, in just such a moment. They forever changed the way that I understand my circumstances.
It was in the midst of this fifth week being parents to twins, with me on the cusp of a (minor) mental breakdown, that our friend looked at us and said, “I have a riddle for you…” Great… just what I need! A mental workout in the midst of sleep-deprivation-torture! Thankfully, she didn’t wait for my reply (because it wasn’t coming). She says, “how do you make a happy man sad, and a sad man happy?” Again, I don’t think I gave her so much as a shrug, or a grunt. She continues, “you just tell him: this, too, shall pass.”
The effect was instantaneous – like an atomic bomb went off in front of me. There was this near sense of panic – but I don’t want this to pass!This is it! I’ll never get this time, never get these moments again. And then that idea washed over me. A moment ago, I had thought that I was the sad man… the one for whom the riddle is meant to be happy, if only I could just grasp the notion that I would get through this and then I wouldn’t have such problems anymore – no more little newborn babies that needed me to wake up at all hours of the night (full disclosure, I took vastly fewer night feedings than my wife did – she carried the brunt of the burden). Someday there wouldn’t be baby bottles, and bath time, and all these “burdens.” This was the idea that was supposed to make me happy, because these were the burdens that were contributing to my (sleepy) sorrow. The thing was, I didn’t want it to pass. I wanted part of it to pass, but, that’s not how life works… in that moment, I was immediately confronted with the reality, that, like it or not, the parts that I liked would pass right alongside the parts that I didn’t like – and there wasn’t a damn thing that I could do to change that fact. And that was the moment that I learned that I wasn’t the sad man, after all.
I discovered something else really important in that moment of dawning recognition. There would always be something upon which I could focus that would make me the happy man, and something upon which to focus that would make me the sad man. I’ve spent nearly fourteen years as a husband, and nearly twelve years as a dad. With the end of each stage, I have had a choice: long to return to some previous stage, or find the amazing parts of the present stage. First, it was no more sweet little infant, but, we were reading stories together. Then, no more clinging to me for protection from some perceived danger in a team mascot at a sporting event, but, they were watching the game with me. And I can look forward, and tell you that, someday, my daughter won’t want me to engage in a dreadfully draining game of “pretend,” providing terrible foreign accents for her stuffed animals… but, you know what will be dreadful about that future moment? That she will no longer want me to provide terrible foreign accents for her stuffed animals. So, for the time being, you can find me in her room, sitting on the floor, surrounded by stuffed animals, playing with my daughter. I will be there, making the most out of every moment with those stupid stuffed animals – because this too shall pass. When it does, I will choose to find joy in the next stage. It will not be some forced, manufactured joy, because it is always a choice, and there is always some good and some bad wrapped up in the choice, some “price of entry.” I know what I will endeavor to choose.
Listen, if you’re not sure whether you buy in yet, I want you to try it. I want you to imagine that there is a magic genie, and he comes with only one offer: he can make this “time,” and all that comes with it, pass (or you can refer back to some other time in life, if now happens to be all easy-breezy for you). I want you to think of every good thing that is part of the “time” that will pass, as well as every “bad” thing. The genie can make it all disappear, if you so choose… Do you take his offer? If the answer is “no,” then you know that, as far as you are concerned, this isn’t a time to be the sad man, even if it is a time of heavy burdens.* Since this is a time of heavy burdens, and you’d still choose to endure those burdens, then how great are the “good things” about this time?!? And since those good things are so great that you’d choose to endure the heavy burdens to get to experience the good things, shouldn’t those good things be the place that you focus your thoughts?
One last thing… When my sons were a little over a year old, our best friends – a husband and wife who my wife and I had known since freshmen year of college, told us that they were moving back to the husband’s home state of Michigan, half-way across the country. When they told us, I cried like a baby. I can still remember my friend saying to me, “it’s going to be ok,” and I replied, “I know it is, that’s why I’m crying.” That reply must surely have confused the hell out of him… but, what I meant was, “I know that someday, I’ll be ok with this idea that our best friends are half way across the country, and that our kids won’t grow up hanging out every week. I know that someday I will have accepted that idea and it won’t break my heart the way it does now – and that, is at least as devastating as the pain that I feel presently, when it is not at all ok.” This, in my opinion, is actually one of the positive sides of times of grieving and mourning. Letting the agony out can’t be escaped (at least not in any healthy way). While it may not feel like a “good thing,” it is, in the sense that it is a necessary thing. A friend moving away is one thing; the death of a close loved one is something completely different. It shreds you to the very core of who you are – and it even takes a fews pieces out of the core. I speak from personal experience, when I say, you needn’t worry about a time when it is, “ok” with you that they are gone – it will not ever be ok. It will always be there. With time, it becomes a part of you, like the limp that a soldier brings home with him from a far off conflict. Eventually, our wounds are as healed as they will ever be, but, we are never quite who we once were – forever, in some way, less than entirely whole. Nevertheless, those overwhelming moments in the days, weeks, months, and yes – years, after a loss are valuable, and not worth trading, or wishing, away. They are good in their own very unique way; something which must be gone through, and from which escape would not be a benefit.
Whether you are dealing with the sleepless nights that follow the birth of a child, the election of a leader that you feel is destroying the fabric of your country (I’ve not been a fan of either the last President, or the current one, so don’t think this is meant to be a political statement), or the loss of a loved one – there is good to be found in the moments that you are enduring. If you spend this time focused on the reasons that you wish time would pass, you’ll miss all the reasons why you desperately wish that it would not pass. Don’t bother fixating on the time that you’ve already wasted, because you can’t get it back, and you will only lose the present moments, in the process. And yes, this too shall pass – but the good news is that there will always be something of great joy and value in the moments ahead, as long as you actively look for those things!
*If your honest answer is that this is a time worth wishing away, because there is no value in this time which outweighs the burdens, then please, please, talk to your doctor, or setup an appointment with a counselor. You need someone to help you through this, if you cannot see the way on your own. There are people that love you – the problems of this moment are temporary, sometimes, we just need a little help to be able to see that.
No… Really a British secondary school district implemented a “gender neutral dress code,” which obviously doesn’t take the common sense approach allowing little girls to wear shorts – don’t be silly. The policy just says that boys can either wear pants, or skirts. In other news, U.K. officials say men may now choose a career path of “barefoot and pregnant,” but, ladies must stay in the kitchen and out of the job market. Now, before I continue, I’d like to just stop and point out that, this,this is the moment that we all most of us, usually, go off the rails, because we know that every one has lost their god damned minds and we mentally attach whatever idiot idea to which we were just subjected, to a group of people which vastly exceeds the number of people that believe, support, or are responsible for, the aforementioned idiocy. Let’s not do that this time, ok? In fact, the British headlines belie the fact that, they too, can’t believe that the teenage boys are being forced to wear skirts.
Here’s the thing though – this is the kind of point-proving-stupidity that is the source of political and social regression. The idea of a gender neutral uniform policy isn’t a bad idea. After all, why should my daughter be forced to wear a skirt? She isn’t a doll for society to dress up and make into their image, and, she isn’t second to a boy by virtue of her gender. On the other hand, it should be obvious that the solution to leveling the playing field is to take the shackles off of the unjustly imprisoned, it isn’t to place shackles on everyone else, in the name of fairness (calm down, it’s just an analogy – I’m not saying that wearing a skirt is a prison sentence). If you are wondering how this leads to regression, it is in the inevitable backlash. The backlash will come, and things will revert to the way that they were, or else become even more conservative. Sociocultural pendulums are the inverse of the rational real world pendulum. They gain momentum with each swing. Then, instead of girls and boys both getting to wear shorts, and focus on their education, they’ll all be wearing burqas. Not really, but, you get the point.
thereluctantcommentator 