The God Riddle

Marcus Aurelius is often credited with the most succinct evaluation of divine wrath and human existence:

Live a good life. If there are Gods and they are just, then They will not care about how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you lived by. If there are Gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship Them. If there are no Gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.

It s a very neat and tidy philosophy. It does not claim or deny the existence of deities. It simply removes them as the motivating force for being a decent human. Nearly every organized religion has some framework of acceptable and holy behavior that adherents attempt to emulate. For the most part, religions tell us not to victimize others. That's not really a bad plan or even difficult to follow.

The Judeo-Christian tradition often talks about invoking God's wrath. This ranges from heavenly fireballs to floods to bears eating children. The Lord, your God, is a jealous God. Fearing Him is a sure way to make sure we don't misstep and anger him.

The world is currently struggling with the idea that God is a discrete entity. The religious insist that He is, even though there is no scientifically qualified evidence to the fact. Atheists believe that He is not, but have no evidence either. The atheist movement is growing, and will likely continue to grow as knowledge becomes more easily disseminated by the internet. The biggest detriment to the creationist slant is that scientists are continually proving the biblical narrative to be largely inaccurate. Given enough time and learning, God will lose.

God will lose because we regard Him contextually. He, to us, is a conscious being. He knows all. He sees all. He had a plan for everyone and everything. We have our own consciousness and agency. God, therefore, must as well. That is all we can grasp.

Science is pretty uniformly on board with the Big Bang Theory. The Red Shift is clear cut evidence of an expanding universe. A universe in the process of expansion is bigger now than when I began writing this sentence. That said, go far enough back into history and it is a foregone conclusion that the universe was very small indeed. It may be correct to say that all matter was condensed into an infinitely small space, otherwise called a singularity.

That singularity, as mentioned, contained every atom of every galaxy. You, me, the people on the highway this morning commuting to work, this computer on which I type, and the electricity running it once occupied the same space. In that state, time had no meaning. Time and space are two axes of the same plane. One does not exist without the other. Thus, the singularity of all that the universe would become existed without time or dimension. It was both infinite and without form at the same time.

Within that singularity was also contained every possibility, every conscious being (or soul, if you wish) that could ever exist, and all knowledge that could be accumulated. Every thought that could be had, choice that could be made was first part of the singularity. And of that limitless potential and understanding, we were scattered into the existence we know now, to take what form we would. The singularity had been the giver of life, the bringer of death, and omnipotent over all that could exist.

What if... just what if the singularity was God.

While the narrative that we've become familiar with through religious tradition typically includes conscious and deliberate design, it can neither be proved nor disproved that the singularity possessed thought. The narrative may only have been a fabrication to explain existence to ourselves, but it is not in conflict with this possibility.

It also allows for atheism. Presupposing that there is sentient life elsewhere in the universe, it could easily be surmised that they are not Christians. Neither are they any of the other 4,200 other religions in the world, if they are religious at all. The singularity ceased to be when it gave birth to all that we know now. It could not bring us into being without destroying itself. The Alpha and the Omega are no more.

It's an intriguing thought. At least it is to me...

The leap isn't even a difficult one to make. Creation myths usually include one all powerful, or all encompassing deity. The singularity fits that role as being all powerful (containing all the energy in the universe) and all knowing (aforementioned aggregate of all information). The all powerful was simply the most powerful creative force. None of the singularity's offspring will ever be as powerful as it was. And only as the singularity could the repository for all knowledge be in one place; a feat which the offspring can never achieve.

As corporeal entities, we are blessed with inherent limitations. We ourselves are a conglomeration of energy, information, and mass that was once part of the singularity. There is nothing greater than the singularity to which we can aspire. Doesn't that meet the definition of "God"?

Chronic[les]: The Drugged Driving Fallacy

An immediate and enthusiastic cry from the anti-marijuana camp when states began to legalize recreational weed was that we would be waylaid with scores of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) arrests and/or accidents. People correlated the availability of legal weed with an expected uptick in DUIDs, and that's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. However, much of our legislation is based upon what we think will occur rather than actual history. Legislators, from any perspective, are struggling to keep up with, and define, the problem of the DUID.

CNN has published another riveting article on the evolution of marijuana culture in the United States, this time citing a published study that examines the relationship between fatal accidents and drug intoxication. So here are the brass tax, as it were.

Page 7 of the report (press release) has an infographic that breaks things down rather succinctly:

• 57% of fatally injured drivers were tested for drugs
• 34.3% of those tested were positive for drugs listed in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), which includes marijuana
• 35.6% of those who tested positive for FARS listed drugs were positive for marijuana
• Reporting is based on the results of blood tests taken after fatalities occurred

It's worth it to do a little math with those numbers. Lets suppose that 57% testing is a good cross section of fatalities to examine. 12.2% of the population who were involved in a fatal car accident were positive for marijuana use. This is also consistent with the report's findings with respect to positive drug tests conducted because of sobriety check points. Were any of the drivers high at the time, though? Actually... impossible to tell.

This is the problem the states have with defining DUID. Testing positive for THC (psychoactive chemical in weed) only speaks to the presence of the drug. It is not conclusive of intoxication, proximity of use to the time of the accident, or causative relationship. The study is conspicuously silent on the issue of alcohol intoxication coexisting with suspected drug intoxication. Because the half life of THC in the blood stream is between four and twelve hours, there is an exceptional window in which to label a person as "impaired" when they may in fact have been well beyond any intoxicating effects.

Alcohol, on the other hand, metabolizes at a predictable rate with predictable effects on driving abilities. Any given person at a given Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) will have predictable symptoms. It can also be calculated how quickly a person will be over those symptoms, so even if a blood test occurs well after an event, determining BAC at the time is simple middle-school math.

The NHTSA, who performed this study, has a remarkable amount to say which was not included in the linked press release. Consider the following:

• 23,000 vehicle fatalities in 2015
• 17,000 involved the death of the driver
• 6,400 drivers had a BAC over .08%

If you whipped out the calculator, you will see that 36% of drivers killed in car accidents were drunk at the time. That number could easily encompass the 12.2% of drivers who tested positive for marijuana, but for whom alcohol involvement is not identified. Considering a Gallup poll that identifies 13% of the population to be current pot users, that number is statistically below mean. Not worth noting.

The NHTSA study quite clearly quantifies the risk of cannabis-only related crashes as "slight." Complimenting that is a 2012 study by Rune Elvik, Risk of Road Accident Associated With the Use of Drugs. Elvik found that the ratio of fatal accidents occurring among cannabis users was 1.31:1. That's practically an even chance. Alcohol, by comparison, is at least a 3:1 ratio in the best performing demographics (age 35 and above), and as high as 14:1 among teens.

The repeated conclusion is that marijuana intoxication does not present a significant risk to driver safety. It's groundless to claim otherwise. The scientific data just doesn't support the assertion that stoned drivers are dying in any significant numbers. That warning cry mentioned at the outset is just without foundation. Was it a good idea to be cautious? Certainly! But it just didn't manifest the way the nay-sayers feared. Advocacy groups, however, rarely have the humility to label themselves as alarmists, let alone wrong.

We are all familiar with the effects of drunk driving. That has been very well studied for decades. The experience we rely on in determining the threat presented to the public happens to be the only tool in the toolbox, unfortunately. And to police who only have a hammer, every driver looks like they need to be nailed.

Of course we all know that it's unwise to operate a car when our senses are affected. We learn to drive with unaltered sensory perceptions. It is only reasonable to conclude that any change to that presents a different risk. However, there are chemical and non-chemical distractions in this world that far eclipse the risks associated with marijuana intoxication.

The risks associated with drunk driving, texting and driving, and teen driving don't prompt us to outlaw booze, cell phones, or young people. Compounding the problem defining intoxication is that the interim demands some kind of stop-gap measure. Driving impaired is negligent to the safety of others, which is deserving of adjudication. But the determination of negligence can only be made by law enforcement who have only the most arbitrary of guidelines. I would personally like to think that if I were subject to legal penalty, my infractions would be very well defined.

Such as it is, the law and good citizenship demands that we do something, even if it's incorrectly scaled.

Chronic[les]: But Not for the Gander

It seems that with each iteration of this series, I become a little more incredulous of America drug policy. Today, I'm struggling with the discovery of unlabeled and unbottled Oxycontin in an abandoned rental property being a possible felony. Within the last few weeks, the tenant of the rental died of [gasp] a drug overdose. During the eviction of his remaining earthly possessions, these pills were discovered and identified. Oxy, being a Schedule 1 drug, is illegal to even touch if they are not prescribed to you.

There's an old adage that "possession is nine-tenths of the law". This could be an exaggeration, but it's quite clear that much of our legal code revolves around who is currently in control of objects or real and intrinsic value, to what degree that control is lawful, and what rights and authorities that control grants the person in possession. Obviously, since is is legal to prescribe Oxycontin in all fifty states, it is Federally legal to have Oxy on your person. If that prescription doesn't apply to you, you are susceptible to all kinds of legal troubles.

As you know, my worldly and savvy reader, Oxy is an opioid. Rush Limbaugh made it famous during his on-air admission to being addicted to it. It's become a pop buzz-word and so notorious that it even has comedic legs. You may not know that this semi-synthetic chemical dates back to 1917 and shares a long and sordid history with opiates of all shades. At this point, it's not really necessary to enumerate all of the bad things we know about opiates, but be aware that it falls within that scope of highly addictive substances.

I did become familiar with something new in researching the legalities of Oxy possession; opioid-induced hyperalgesia. This is a condition that arises through prolonged use of opiates and is characterized by hypersensitivity to pain stimulus. This "paradoxical" syndrome is poorly understood, but well documented. Unfortunately, it is difficult to distinguish from simple dose-tolerance, which can lead to heavier prescriptions and more certainty of addiction.

Seriously, I'm kinda sitting here at a loss for why this drug is even on the market. Yes, the government has a long and tumultuous romance with opiates. They aren't going to give up on that anytime soon. They have long preferred the company of the devil they know. But I think it illustrates the imbalance in drug policy when something so acutely addictive and laden with intolerable side effects is as available as the nearest scrip pad, yet marijuana carries a wholesale ban without any of these detrimental characteristics.

I have tried to imagine this in terms politicians would understand. No, wait... not politicians. I prefer framers of the Constitution. Those people were at least idealistic. But it occurs to me that the dichotomy between the legality of Oxy and illegality of weed is comparable to creative rephrasing of the 2nd Amendment. Imagine, please, that the government had a long history of allowing private citizens to own cannons, but strictly regulated butter knives. Both are classified as weapons; the potential for misuse of the former being a) orders-of-magnitude more likely, and b) infinitely more catastrophic. Inexplicably, however, the government stubbornly refuses to give up on cannons while all but eradicating butter knives.

Is this a logical policy?

I certainly don't think so, but perhaps I'm exaggerating. Previously, I've discussed the medical facts of marijuana use. You may have read about the extremely low rate of dependence, the absolute absence of dangerous withdrawal symptoms, or the demonstrated inability to induce overdose.  The more I learn about opiates, the more astounded I am at our elected leaders for continuing this relationship with opium.

CNN published an article on March 20, 2017 that equates length of prescription duration to likelihood of addiction. If you'd like to skip this paragraph, let me sum up: The longer one is prescribed opioid pain treatment, the more likely they are to become addicted. If you guffawed and said, "duh...", then we're on the same page. The rest of what follows will not be enlightening. Even with only a single day of use, there is a 6% chance that the patient would have found a way to be using a year later. After 31 days of prescribed use, that number jumped to 30%. Extended release opioids mitigate that some degree, but the rate of addiction remains high.

The end result is that 20% of people who start out on an opioid regimen will still be using opioids three years later. That brings one pertinent fact to the forefront... opioids are for short-term pain management. Extended exposure, as evidenced by the information above, leads to more addiction, more illicit drug use, and more negative health impacts.

I genuinely wish this was as simple as it sounds. Sadly, it is easier to develop and approve formulas that include opium than it is to establish medical validity of a product that requires no tampering. Medical marijuana, however, is now evaluated through the lens of knowledge acquired by our mismanagement of opium.

I have nothing to equate this with except ignorance. Coming back to how I lead off this entry, it is ludicrous that drugs like Oxy are handed out as easily as they are, the pitfalls being well known and documented, yet there is no accepted medical use for marijuana...

The fuck...?

It's Not What You Think

Back in my days working for St. Louis University, I got to roam the campus as part of my job. I've been to the Dean's office, cleaned up porn spam for Jesuits, and accidentally walked into an autopsy lab. You just see shit. A lot of it is accidental.

Following freshman-week, the quad was packed with young coeds heading to the pool. My work partner and I overheard a heated conversation between two students, in which one of them was obviously accused of cheating. We chuckled knowingly about it. I mean, who among us hasn't been on the wrong end of anything from a lingering glance to a greater indiscretion?

My partner, Justin, related a story in which he had gone to a party and managed to hook up with a girl that he didn't otherwise know. Most stories end right there, but it turns out she had a boyfriend who came looking for Justin after finding out. There was bluster and demands for blood, to which Justin simply shrugged and said, "I'm not the one who cheated on you..."

The boyfriend, silenced by the retort, could only leave in embarrassment. Justin was one hundred percent correct. Whatever quarrel the boyfriend had, it was with his girl. She wasn't magically seduced, left senseless and unable to resist. She just made a bad call. Going after the person she made the bad call with was a misdirection of anger, and Justin rightly called it out.

Having seen the recent Facebook comment that "I don't mess with girls who are taken", I got to thinking about this issue again. Cheating is not what you think it is. Cheating is what your significant other thinks it is.

Everyone has a different definition of cheating. They also have a line they don't cross, and a line they expect others not to cross. Generally those are one in the same. But since you are not the one ultimately hurt by your cheating, it falls to the definition owned by the person who is hurt. Your boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse...

That also brings into question the concept of fidelity and its foundation. The Facebook comment I mentioned incorporates the word "taken". I find that significant because it implies ownership. Perhaps not in the legal sense, but we all know what it means. Someone, somewhere, is expecting exclusivity with the person that the Facebook poster mentioned above wont mess with.

Let's get one thing clear right now. If a person is in a relationship, an implicitly or explicitly exclusive relationship, and are still willing to cheat, then they aren't "taken". The person on the other end of that relationship may not know this. It could even be a soul-crushing surprise. In any case, at least one person in the relationship has the wrong idea, possibly even involving deceit.

Where does that leave someone like Justin? Firstly, he had no duty to the boyfriend. He's owed nothing. He gets nothing. Justin only had one question to answer, and that was "do I want to do the sex with this girl?" Clearly he did. He has no vested interest in the other questions that may exist. Secondly, the girl he slept with bears the responsibility of acting outside of the understanding her boyfriend had about their relationship. Thirdly, the boyfriend went after the obvious, however incorrect, person to exact his pound of flesh.

It's a learned behavior to go after the person your guy or girl fooled around with. Why exactly that is, I don't know. We've come to the mistaken impression that consensual sex is the fault of the third party. Except in extreme and criminal acts, that's just not the case. People fuck up all the time. They act selfishly, either by jumping in the sack or not being honest that they are prepared to jump in the sack. In either case, the fault is with the person who keeps someone else in the dark.

Justin didn't lie to anyone. He didn't coerce, manipulate, or bribe this girl into sex. To be mad at him is kinda like being mad at the person in front of you in line for buying the last Big Mac. So if you fuck around on your boo (and about half of you will), remember that there is no responsibility that you can push off onto anyone else. It's your decision; your decision to test their definition.

If you think it's anything other than that, you're mistaken.

Chronic[les]: Gateway-Phobia

Author Texas Bix Bender has published a number of books filled with cowboy wisdom. He's said things like, "don't squat with your spurs on", or "there's more ways to skin a can than sticking its head in a boot jack and jerking its tail." One of my favorite little bits of brilliance has stuck with me since I first picked up one of his books over twenty years ago. "Don't be mad a someone who knows more than you. It ain't their fault."

Not to put too fine a point on it, the Trump administration has been mad at a lot of people lately...

Rather recently, Sean Spicer spoke on the issue of marijuana and enforcement of Federal laws in a somewhat sidelong manner. "I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people," Spicer said. "There is still a federal law that we need to abide by."

He's right on the count of the opioid crisis. He's also right about there being Federal laws in place, though he stops short of saying that there will be more Federal resources used to enforce them in states that have legalized it for recreational use. Why he hits the brakes before making a sweeping statement like that, I don't know. Hasn't stopped anyone else in Washington lately.

Dr. Andrew Kolodny, co-director of Opioid Policy Research at Brandeis University's Heller School for Social Policy and Management, has said "We know why there's an opioid addiction epidemic. ... I don't think there is really debate. It's because we have overexposed the population to prescription opioids. The driver behind that increase in opioid addiction has been an overprescribing of pain medicine, overexposing the population to a highly addictive drug."

The assertion that marijuana is a gateway drug is a relic from the days of D.A.R.E. We were told that we'd be surrounded by people pushing drugs at us. The practical manifestation of that claim resides in those who ended up in a doctor's office with some variety of persistent pain. A flowery way of saying that your local smack pusher was most likely your doctor.

In fact, no causative relationship can be found between marijuana use and subsequent opiate abuse. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study that correlates state passage of medical marijana laws with a 24.8% reduction in opioid related overdose deaths between 1999 and 2010. Considering an average of 33,000 opioid overdose deaths in the United States each year, that is not an insignificant number. It's roughly the number of firearm related deaths, and suggesting a therapy that would reduce that number by 24.8% would certainly garner legislative support. That is a quantum leap in mortality prevention, no matter what your stance is.

The JAMA study also points out that 60% of all opioid overdoses, whether intentional (suicide) or not, occur among patients legitimately prescribed opioid pain management therapies. It is a naked fact that overdoses among purely illicit drug users are in the minority. To Dr. Kolodny's point above, this is a crisis resulting from unchecked medical professionals.

Biological causality is really a better indicator of potential opioid abuse. People who have demonstrated use and abuse of things like alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana are likelier to become addicted to opiates. However, no causal link to marijuana can be established.

In previous articles, I have pointed out the complete vacuum of empirical evidence that ties marijuana to heroin. It is mildly addictive, at best, and functionally impossible to overdose. Some mental impairments have been associated with use in people who used at a young age. However, significant pathologies of any other type are completely absent, save for bronchial irritation (smokers cough).

Evidence doesn't just not support the idea of weed as a gateway drug, but it debunks it with every study published. Science, as Neal DeGrasse Tyson stated in a segment of Cosmos, follows evidence "wherever it leads." Right now, it's not leading to any gateways. So maybe we should quit repeating that disproved rhetoric...

Maybe we should focus on education for a bit instead of indoctrination. We'll have fewer people to be mad at because they know more than us.

Where Credit is Due: Part 1

Forgive me, please. I must be raw for a moment. I must extend some very intense emotions to those who were on the outside looking in.

As you know, I am now divorced. While that can never be expected to be an easy transition, I am happier, healthier, and more positive. As my friends, I have shared good times with you. Whether to my detriment or credit, I have deliberately not shared this time with you. Not for a lack of trust in your support, mind you, but for an abundance of respect; from which came my resolve to not expose you to my baser inclinations.

In a divorce, there is always the temptation to strike out at your former spouse. I have found this to be repugnant, and my only safeguard is in keeping the more disgusting details to myself. I could not stoop to the level I feared if I did not first have the audience I needed. However you interpret my withdrawal and silence, know that it was to protect our friendship and my integrity.

As the divorce draws to a close, I must thank those who did not repeat the awful things said about me. I know that such things were said because they've been conveyed to me in the most hateful and vitriolic way I can imagine... repeated as gospel by people I once considered my closest friends.

To those who did repeat these awful things, and to whatever extent they were broadcast... fuck you.

My attempts to remain above board with my former spouse have been ignored, glossed over, or downright buried in a dung heap of biased contempt. To even call my behavior "above board" is something of a misnomer since I did not return the treatment I received in-kind. However, I was painted as everything from a cheater to an abuser. I can't even begin to illustrate how untrue that is. But the pure malice that came from the people who believed these things about me was astonishing and pervasive. To this day, I maintain blocks so that certain individuals cannot contact me directly. The same people I dearly loved before all of this began.

In late August of 2016, we had the opportunity to refinance our marital house. Even though divorce had become a certainty, refinancing would still have saved my ex some money on the monthly note, and I was still intent on making her life without me as easy as possible. While she had become impatient about transferring assets out of my name, she also became insistent that we attend the refinance closing separately. The reason why did not become apparent until the day of closing. The title company had requested that we do the paperwork in one sitting so as not to unnecessarily occupy their agent. I arrived at the appointed time and noticed that her vehicle wasn't there. There was one which was a model year newer, but I dismissed it until I saw the license plate...

She had traded in our marital vehicle without my authorization, or the court's, in direct violation of preliminary injunctions. Now I understood why she didn't want us to be there at the same time. I also found that she had started the signing earlier than appointed, which I interpret to mean she hoped to be gone by the time I arrived.

Let me make something abundantly clear. From the day I moved out in March of 2016 through July of that same year, I was supplying my ex with $650 a week in support. That had been my customary contribution to household funds, and before divorce had become certain, I felt it necessary to continue that. Even after it became certain, I continued this support throughout mediation. I was financially unable to have a home of my own because of the overwhelming majority of my check going to a home I could not sleep in.

To the outside world, it simply looked like I was comfortable couch surfing; a professional and irreverent house guest who simply wouldn't leave. Regardless of how upset my hosts may have become, it was never expressed to me directly. All I ever heard was the second-hand lamentations laid upon me by my ex.

Imagine how uncomfortable that would have been, magnify it by infinity and compound it in eternity. That's how uncomfortable that was. And then to find out that she had already taken it upon herself to remove my name from property that wasn't yet hers by the estimation of the court. I requested a renegotiation of the support that we had begun in court. I was at least determined not to pay for her new car while I slept on a couch and drove a borrowed vehicle. How selfish of me...

On August 28th, she angrily interrupted parenting time that I had with my child. She came to the home of my friends to harass and intimidate me into compliance. I had the foresight to take video (youtube link) of the entire exchange. During the conversation (if it can be called that), she threatened to call the police and report my child kidnapped if I didn't return him. When I refused to let her in the house, she frantically rang the doorbell until my friend answered and instructed her to leave. Even so, she forced her way inside and managed to convince my child to leave with her. At the end of our conversation, she struck me, knocking the camera from my hands and ending the recording.
Everything described above is also in violation of preliminary injunctions issued by the court.

The next day, I was served with a restraining order at work. Yes, a restraining order. In it, I was accused of sending harassing text messages, making aggressive or threatening motions toward her (even though you can clearly see in the video me retreating from her advances toward the door), and physically assaulting her at Christmas.

Shortly thereafter, she retained an attorney. I, being unable to afford one of my own (for the reasons detailed above), requested many times that the restraining order be voluntarily dropped. Every request was denied because she felt "unsafe". I presented the attorney, in good faith, the video recording and a complete transcript of text messages extracted from my phone. The response from the attorney was that they were "self-serving and possibly edited". I couldn't even get vindication from hard physical evidence. I continued to implore that the order be rescinded as my name and character were being assassinated. I continued to be denied.

After moving into my own apartment at the beginning of September 2016, I finally got to have regular time and sleepovers with my child. I was finally getting to be a parent again! After a few weeks of this arrangement, I received an email telling me that I was not providing a proper home for my child and that I would be limited to seeing him for eight hours every other weekend. In case you're wondering, no, an officer of the court or representatives from family services never came to my home to investigate. My apartment was not unfit, just under-furnished. But that was reason enough for my ex to interrupt my time with my child yet again. Being under a restraining order, I could not contact her directly about it, and her attorney would not address the issue.

Court would follow a few months later and after our preliminary hearing, I visited the Protective Orders office at the courthouse and set a date for a hearing before the commissioner. Then, and only then, did she drop the order. I had been denied the opportunity to exonerate myself in front of the court. She had even found a way to take that from me.

She lied about me, robbed me of my rights as a spouse, as a parent... and even then, I sacrificed certain rights. At court, I surrendered my claim to equity in our house, her retirement, and her business interests, all of which the law would have given to me without a fight. All I wanted in negotiations with her attorney was equal parenting time with my child. Instead, I was lawyered out of that.

She took everything she could get from me, and even after all I gave up, she took more. These are the things I kept to myself. These are the things that I endured quietly while some of you were fed stories to the contrary. For those who have the stomach, read the messages above and see the horrible names she called me. Watch the video and tell me that I threatened her in any way. Having been denied everything that was rightfully mine, I wish to claim this one last thing. A balanced view.

And there you have it. My side. Only what I can prove. If I'm the awful person she claimed I was, then maybe we shouldn't be friends after all.

To Impugn with Impunity

I find myself angry about a great many things these days. At first, I thought that I was just being cranky and cantankerous as I approach middle-age. I've contended with bitterness, malcontent, and shades of anxiety and depression. Every time I look into the world around me, I'm awash with frustration and defeat. How could things have gone this wrong?

The answer is gradually.

It didn't all go to shit over night. No, we've been on this path for a long time. Little by little, we've come to accept that mediocrity is exceptional, and the minimal efforts of society at large somehow constitute cooperation and peace.

I do not vote for any particular party, so I have no political agenda with respect to either of the main parties. The last several weeks have made a mockery of democratic elections, constitutional reverence, and liberty. We are presently in the path of the loosest cannon that has ever been unleashed on the American People, and he is armed with a hair [piece] trigger.

Today, Elizabeth Warren was shushed in the Senate for impugning a fellow Senator. I have read the letter from Coretta Scott King and found no injury so severe that her voice as Representative of her constituents needed to be silenced. The audacity that has bled from the GOP following Trump's election reeks of cigars, shitty brandy, old leather chairs, and even older money. Yes, I'm talking about the Old Boys Club.

Your Government doesn't belong to you anymore. It hasn't for decades. Career politicians that will retire wealthy while having done a half-assed job are the ones we keep putting in office. Why? Because they are the only ones with money to run for office? This is absurd! We vote for the douche or the turd sandwich because we believe that the third candidate can't win, and as long as we believe that, we're right! We can only accomplish that in which we believe.

Mr. Trump won by appealing to the lowest common denominators - ignorance and fear. The latter being the offspring of the former, America voted with its uncertainty. We have been sandbagging against our deepest concerns and placing into positions of leadership persons who have the uncanny ability to appear useful by looking busy. If there was half as much effort put into cooperation as there was making sure the other side of the aisle didn't get theirs, then this country could be in a very different position.

We live in a connected world now. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence, some public speaking ability, and decent sense could make a run for office. However, we still see the same formula playing out in every election. Wealthy people with super-PACs who have not lived in the midst of working-class America since before college go on television and tell you how connected they are to the plight of the middle-class. No they aren't... and it's an insult to suggest that the public should buy into it.

What do we look like? Oh... yeah... votes. I forgot.

You're being sold promises in exchange for your future. That's a bit of a high cost for representation that is as familiar with your lot in life as you are with theirs. Though we've been making strides with respect to equality, having more female and minority House members with each passing election, they are still stymied by the collective non-cooperation of Washington. The largest issue that government has suffered from is the inability to drag themselves from the mire of committee upon sub-committee that do little more than achieve impasse.

In my profession, I have had the opportunity to engage the government in its decision making process. This has taught me one unfortunate truth. The bureaucracy is so stratified and convoluted that no single position can affect change. That's not a terrible thing, since things like executive orders are subject to judicial review. The real hurdle is that no group of people can affect change either. They are so compartmentalized in their authorities that no other group (who may have the duty to implement changes dictated by the first group) have the duty to listen to the ones making the decision.

This is magnified by the fact that important data needed by those trying to affect change is under the control of a second governmental entity, who cannot be approached through direct channels, and who otherwise have no procedural accountability to those attempting to affect change.

To be quite blunt, Right Hand needs Left Hand to reach for the soap. Left Hand doesn't know Right Hand is dirty and there is no channel through which to communicate that need. To really put the icing on this bukakke, in which the tax-payer is the catcher, Right Hand is obligated to leave the soap alone... I truly wish I was kidding.

Mr. Trump is used to being a CEO. They tend to wield a lot of unmitigated authority, and my fear is that he's carried that forward into his Presidency. Much of this administration is going to be marked by overturning executive actions that are unconstitutional because our Republic is inherently structured to prevent the bull from running loose in the China shop. This bull may not yet get that message.

In the meantime, however, there are a lot of Senators and Congress[men] who will have their antics go unnoticed because of the shit-storm coming out of the Oval Office. The amount of damage that will be done in the next few years may take decades more to correct. Meanwhile, we have elected officials spending more time quibbling over hurt feelings and procedure than they are on issues of substance. 

This will be a long and bumpy ride...