Re-birth of Common Sense?

Are we seeing common sense making a comeback? How did we lose it in the first place?

If one needs to look back at how common sense was lost, one must acknowledge its absence, but first one must ask when and how long has it been? Indeed one finds that it started a while back.

"Sensus communis", in Latin, is not to be confused with the five natural senses; "sensus" here refers to perception, sentiments, and understanding shared in the "communis", the community of people who believe or agree with the same.

So, perception, sentiments and understanding are of course expressed and received through language.  That is where we begin to look at why and how it all started. 

Almost innocently enough, and likely driven through academia or through minority progressives and liberal ideologists, words started creeping into conversations and social media discussions where the homeless who started setting up tents along sidewalks are now "unhoused people", illegal aliens coming into the country were "undocumented citizens", ex-convicts as "previously justice-involved", etc.

Where and how did all these words originate? 

Nottingham Trent University in England - home of the highly idealized Queen's English, of Shakespeare and Chaucer and Keats - came up with a long list solely for Recommended Terminology Concerning People with a Criminal Conviction. From all their concerns, I quote just two below a list of words to be avoided; (and note the "English" spelling, like "behaviour")

• Any language that aligns the current identity of a person with their historical actions should also be avoided, such as offender, perpetrator, ex-offender, or ex-prisoner.

• Avoid terms that suggest a homogeneous group that is defined and stigmatised on the basis of criminal behaviour that may have taken place once or infrequently, or many years in the past (e.g., sex offender or murderer).

Not to be outdone, or simply mimicking the English version (above), the State of Illinois came up with its "A Humanizing Terminology Guide".

TERMS AND DEFINITIONS GUIDE

"Incarcerated Person: A person confined to a jail or prison. This term makes no claim about guilt or innocence (contrary to words like “convict”), nor does it attach a permanent identity to an often-temporary status (like “prisoner” etc.)”

Formerly Incarcerated Person: A person who has been in a carceral setting. Examples of carceral settings are prisons, immigration detention centers, local jails, and juvenile detention centers".

Note that single words became phrases, like prison is now a "carceral setting".

We need to look at these because that is where the proverbial slippery slope started.  Remember that today, unlike in the past, where words or terms and opinions took a while to disperse into society, social media  is primarily primed and driven by academia or highly educated opinion makers at the speed of the internet. 

No less than the U.N.'s World Health Organization, 2018, section 6D32P, declared that "..pedophilia is a diagnosis of someone having an enduring sexual attraction to children; this does not however mean they have acted or will act on this unchosen attraction .."

The intent, of course, is that communities may not need to know if someone known to be a pedophile has moved into their city or town. Or that, employers may not need to know of the criminal records of job applicants.

As often the case with so  many of these virtue signaling ideals of the liberal mindset, offenders seem to be better protected than ordinary citizens.

However, there is a glimmer of hope. There was a flurry of media coverage just days ago of the re-awakening of common sense - an apparent about face from those efforts. For example, quotes from several newspapers said: 

A center-left think tank on Friday released a list of 45 words and phrases that Democrats should cut from their vocabulary to stop sounding like “enforcers of wokeness.” 

“Privilege,” “Othering,” “Triggering,” “Safe space” and “Body shaming,” are among the words Third Way lumped into the “therapy-speak” bucket. 

“Birthing person/inseminated person,” “pregnant people,” “chest feeding” and “patriarchy” should also be shunned to avoid “confusing or shaming people who could otherwise be allies,” the think tank urged. 

Democrats are also warned that terms like “justice-involved” and “involuntary confinement” make it seem as if “the criminal is the victim” and “the victim is an afterthought.”

There are reasons to hope; however, there are indications we need to prepare if such optimism might be short-lived.

You see, once after the expansion of pronouns and the discontent with the definition of what it is to be just gay, more letters from the alphabet were employed to come up with LGBTIQA+.  It makes it a lot harder for any effort by the center-left think tank to navigate the rushing waters that prevent common sense from getting through.

Getting rid of certain words from the language might seem like waking up from woke la-la land but adherents to conservatism may have cause to be cautious. (Foreign readers who may not know what "woke" means may want to read up on it).

Words are not enough if the same liberal idealists insist that biological male athletes are allowed to play in women's sports and that they are allowed to use girls/women locker rooms or bathrooms.  Words do not repair psychological harm to young girls subjected to sex re-assignment counselling by school administrators without their parents' knowledge or consent. One state mandated that female sanitary products are available in boys' bathrooms in high school.

One protester's held-up poster says, "Trans can't use girl's bathrooms is like blacks can't drink from white's water fountain" - a clear reference to racism in the U.S. during the era of segregation; which rankles the fabric of common sense.

Of course, it is politics that is driving the Democrat Party's new imperative to stay away from the 45 or so words that they deem to alienate voters.  But why or how did such words sneak into their vocabulary?  As far as we can tell, such re-defining of simple words could only come from academia. 

Only college professors or academics can come up with words like micro-aggression or environmental violence or inseminated person/birthing person just to avoid referencing the use of woman or female terminology by using chest feeding as opposed to breastfeeding. We saw liberal extremism when a Supreme Court nominee defied answering how she defined what a woman is.  She replied that she can't because she is not a biologist.  That was clearly a blunt expression against common sense. She was confirmed anyway. 

Can we still continue to expect for the rebirth of common sense, anyway? Yes, because that is the only way we can continue with our lives.  To lose hope completely is to lose faith in the human experience.  It means that despite all the craziness that had occurred throughout human history, civilization continued to raise the level of the human spirit and awareness of the presence of something supernatural and the acknowledgement that perhaps a Supreme Being's intervention is what will straighten everything that had gone crooked with humanity. That, or else common sense may once again take another leave of absence.

Hyena: "I Have A Few More Questions to Ask Charles Darwin"

It had been weeks since the hyena and the lone male lion spoke.  The lion is still by himself after the banishment from his pride.  The hyena, though a member of a cackle of about a dozen others of his ilk, would take time to be away, partly in search of food and looking to see if he could run into the proud lion once more.  The hyena was actually intrigued by their last conversation and his curiosity made him ask for more enlightenment from the lion whom he now respected more than he was prepared to admit.

Again, the male lion was startled as the hyena, whom he didn't readily recognize, approached from the front in a clear line of his sight - an indication of harmless respect  from the opportunist predator and top scavenger of the savannah. The lion did his obligatory growl that he expected to discourage most creatures he encountered; instead, it was met with a respectful and deferential response from the hyena.

Hyena:  It's me, from a few weeks ago, remember?

Lion: Oh no, not you again! Why can't you just leave me alone?

Hyena: Nice to see you too. I'm glad you're still by your lonesome. Can't find a mate, can you?  Not brave or strong enough to dislodge a leader of another pride?

Lion: What? No! I'm just not that interested in taking over any responsibility at the moment.  I'm young and I  still have plenty of time ahead of me. Not interested whatsoever, not really in any kind of leadership position right now.

Hyena: I see. Well, that's good because the two of us are alike in a way.  I too don't want any leadership role at the moment either.

Lion:  Oh, give me a break. As if I don't know that in your group, what do you call it?

Hyena: A cackle.  We call our group of wonderful hyenas a cackle.

Lion: Your cackle - I hate that description of yourselves - is headed by a female.  You have no chance in purgatory of ever leading other hyenas in a matriarchal organization.  A cackle, yes, that's a great name for one dominant female-led group. Although it's better than a "murder of crows" or "kettle of vultures", your favorite. A cackle, ha!

Hyena: Maybe, I'll be the first male to lead a cackle of my own.  Yes, if I want, I too can be a leader.

Lion: All right, have at it. We'll see if you survive when you try.  Anyway, good to see you again, but perhaps this is the last time if you stay on that ambitious path. Goodbye and good luck.

Hyena: Wait, wait. Since our last meeting, a few more questions to ask Charles Darwin came popping into my head.  I'd like to run them by you.

Lion: Oh, no.  Please, I was on my way to some leftover zebra I hid in the bushes two days ago.

Hyena: Yeah, it was still there this morning.  I had a good fill, really.  But, I don't know.  There were a group of wild dogs - your favorite, I remember - scouting for a free meal just a few miles away.  If they get to it, it will all be gone.  The good news is that you and I can hunt together for another zebra or some other prey.

Lion:  There is no way you and I will hunt together, okay? Aside from that being a huge blot on my reputation, such an event will forever destroy the well ordered system that governs this universe.  It could destroy the entire space-time continuum of creation. No, no, perish that thought, okay?

Hyena: Okay, okay.  But enough with the heavy words. I didn't understand any of what you just said. We're just having a conversation as we walk together.

Lion: We can walk silently, you know.

(Ignoring what the lion just said but still walking along side-by-side, the hyena continued on..) 

Hyena: The one that puzzles me are woodpeckers.  These birds must have the strongest beak in the entire bird kingdom, why do they insist on banging it  against a tree to get to a worm? Why can't they just swoop over a scorpion, a centipede or caterpillar that are out in the open, like most self-respecting birds do.  At the rate they are doing it, don't they get a splitting headache and blurred vision from all the hammering?  Bird brain has not approached quite the level of natural silliness that these woodpeckers have sunk to. 

Lion: Why don't you leave the birds alone.  Last time, you talked about vultures.  Don't you remember what I said? All creatures have a purpose.  They do what they do because that's what they were created to be.

Hyena: There you go again with your creation theory and creator thing.

Lion: As to be expected, you are just one incorrigibly slow learner; perhaps one that will never ever learn, at all!  Like I said, every creature was created with a purpose.  Each created to be good at what it does.  For example, worms that bury themselves into a tree could be harmful to the tree or they use it to hide as they develop to become mature insects that will be even more harmful to other trees or insects.  The woodpecker is the one to get to them by using their beaks to strike against  the tree trunks at twenty times per second. Their entire anatomy - you do know what anatomy means, right?

Hyena: There you go with your condescension again. Yes, I know anatomy, and physiology even.  So, please go on.

Lion: Don't be so sensitive. Okay, I just wanted to make sure I am connecting, okay?  Where was I? Okay, the woodpecker's anatomy is such that their brain is encased by a spongy bone structure that  also acts as a shock absorber and strong neck muscles to provide striking power to their beaks and at the same time acting like a restraining elastic belt on each rebound from the strike.  This all happens at breakneck speed, so to speak.  It is one of the marvels of creation, paved by the wonders of successive improvements that took thousands, even millions of years to achieve.  But in the Creator's eyes, time was merely a blink.  And you know what, woodpeckers have no competition from other birds that can't get to the worms behind the tree bark. You too is a product of those many improvements.  You have one if not the strongest bite in the animal kingdom.  You scare me actually.

Hyena: So, okay I got that. Now, why is it that your creator did not make me more pleasant to look at - your own words by the way?  You're a predator, but why are you pleasing to look at? Muscular and an attractively domineering look, a well proportioned physique and a mane of beauty.  While, in my case, my front legs are longer than my hind legs, which makes me look like a pygmy giraffe from the shoulder down, but with a short neck and one twentieth the height.  Why?

Lion: I see.  Your sensitive nature again. Well, your menacingly unpleasant look only a hyena mother can love has a purpose. 

Hyena: Yeah?

Lion: Look, you are for the most part a scavenger that is very good at it, and not quite the hunter you think you are. Will the other predators be scared away from the prey they fought so hard to catch  when you and your cackle approach if you have the look of a gentle fawn or innocent face of a rabbit?  One quick look at you, with a face like that, and more often than not they are likely to give up rather than defend their dinner, right?  You were the one who described the vulture to have such an ugly head. Well, there you have it. Even us lions are known to give up when ten, twenty of you show up to crash our dinner.

Hyena: Maybe that's true. I defer to your wisdom but is that fair?

Lion: Look, surviving, especially here on the savannah, is not about fairness.  It is all about the last meal.  Who ate yesterday, last night or this morning gets to do it again later and will continue to do so as long as they can, until it is no longer so. Fairness does not have a role in the equation of life where the answer is always zero. Think about that.

Hyena:  Again, that's much too deep for me.  How about snakes?  How do you defend what they do?

Lion: Is that another Darwin question of yours?

Hyena: Snakes have been bugging me too.  They used to have four legs, I'm told. Then they lost them and what's with the long body that slithers.  They are clearly not fast movers.  No arms to hold down their prey, they don't chew, they swallow whole whatever creature they catch. How do they enjoy the eating experience?  They're not likeable.  Not with the flicking fork-tongue.  And what's with the hiss?  Oh, and what's with the rattle on some of them.  It's a puzzle that they still exist at all.  What say you?

Lion: You know ignorance is forgivable, it can be tolerated even.  But questions like that and why snakes exist at all are mightily beyond the pale. And, of course, I forgive you.

Hyena:  The insults again. And why do I ever want to continue to talk with you? I was looking for you for weeks because somehow you seem to know a lot and you have all the right answers for everything and I respect you.  This is what I get.

(That's the hyena's trump card - flattery, and the lion is always softened by it.)

Lion: You knew that I didn't mean to be insulting all the time but here you are.  Well, I apologize.  Okay?

Hyena: I accept.  But you can make the apology more sincere by just answering my question.  You know I can't get Darwin to answer. Be the bigger lion, okay.

(Another hyena trick that works)

Lion: Okay, we can talk about snakes but before I get to that, don't say that you are puzzled that snakes continue to exist at all.  I will have you know that they are one of the most successful species that ever lived, specially for one that you pointed out to not have any hands or feet. Have you heard of a place called Florida?

Hyena: No, but I'm sure you do and you will tell me right about now.

Lion: Burmese pythons, a species of big snakes, not native to Florida, are now the dominant predator in the area. It is threatening to kill off many native species there in such a short time from when it got there.  And it is even threatening the very existence of what used to be the dominant predator there - the alligator.

Hyena: How did the python get there?

Lion: Probably a few humans who had their pet snakes  got too big to keep, and they released them into the Florida swamps or some other wild areas around. The python adapted well, reproduced and preyed on the local wildlife that were defenseless to the invader.  Before people realized it, the snakes had become the top predator.

Hyena: That was irresponsible for humans to do, right?

Lion: Often, it is that.  You see, they are equipped with bigger brains by the Creator to have dominion over everything on this earth.

Hyena: Please, let us not get into that again.  Must everything go back to your creation thing.

Lion: Look.  You and I do not harbor malice towards each other, or towards all others. Humans .. why don't we go back to your question about snakes. 

Hyena:  Forget the snakes.  Keep talking about humans.

Lion: What? You had these questions in your head and now you want to know about humans?

Hyena: Why did your creator make humans?  You were the one who said we, all animals, do not hold malice against one another.  Each one doing what it is meant to do.  But humans that you said have dominion over us get to do something like releasing snakes into their land? 

Lion: Look.  Humans have done a lot of good, okay.  Do you know that humans created this area that they call a nature preserve so as to protect us from the abuses of other humans? This huge area is protected to preserve everything to its natural order.  They did that.  Every now and then, like those few humans in Florida, some of them abandon the use of their brains and common sense to do something like they did with the python. Now, they're doing everything they can to correct the mistake by going after the invading creatures.  But it is a losing battle.  I think.

Hyena: Now, you just made me think of another question to ask Darwin. Actually, a question to ask your creator too, you'll have to agree.

Lion: Look, we're here.  The zebra, or parts of it, is still here.  I'm starving from all the talking.  Let's eat before the scavengers show up. Oh,  one of them is here already.

Hyena: Who?  Where?

Lion: I meant you. You are here, aren't you?

Hyena:  I'm still full from this morning. Wait, you just insulted me again, didn't you? Notice how much of the zebra's good nutritious parts are gone? I've been digesting them for sometime now.  But go ahead, please.

Lion: No more questions, okay?

Hyena: We can talk about  humans.

Lion:  That will be for another time.  Why don't you go and let me eat in peace?  Goodbye.

Hyena:  Promise? 

Lion: Promise what?

Hyena: That we'll talk again. Oh, and I need to know why dragonflies have such a weird lifestyle.

Lion:  Yes, be careful out there.  See you later.

P.S.: Again, I only ask for the reader to extract nothing more than their sense of humor when reading this musing. On the other hand, one may want to read between the lines from the perspective and viewpoints based on one's own philosophical experiences and ideals. Of course, we don't know if animals talk; but then again we don't know that they don't ether.  You see, information is a huge part of any creature's life, including our own.  In fact, the very existence of all creatures depend on how they process and use information.  Who are we to disregard what and how information is exchanged within species or between different species? 

We can ask too how many of you out there - dog and cat owners - who do talk to your pets and claim that your cat or dog actually understands what you're saying? Just something to ponder when "you have a moment or two to spare".

Of Mice and Men & The 1971 "Universe 25" Experiment

My apologies to George Steinbeck who wrote the novella, "Of Mice and Men", in 1937 about two American migrant workers during the depression. Then there was that 1971 bold experiment that involved mice, but except for that, the similarities end abruptly between the storyline of that novella and the famous (or infamous) 1971 laboratory observations.  However, both spoke profoundly to the conditions that did and could describe the trajectory of the human experience on one hand and the fate of civilization on the other.

Bold indeed, but I leave it to the reader's interpretation or criticism. However, one may either agree or disagree with what I write here because the reader will have to admit that there is little room for neutrality on the results of the experiment.

Pictured below (lower left) is a photo of John B. Calhoun who conducted the experiment.  His first experiments were with rats in the 40s and 50s; two decades later he used mice, using the same parameters, more or less.

John Calhoun created a rodent utopia, a perfect environment where the inhabitants were provided everything - plenty and never ending supply of food and water, temperature controlled living conditions that can only be described as heaven in a laboratory.

"Calhoun designed "Universe 25" as the ultimate rodent Eden. It was a 9ft x 4.5ft box, divided into compartments with ramps and tunnels leading to food, water, and nesting areas. Importantly, there was no shortage of resources—plenty of food and water, no predators, no disease. The only real limitation was space and social interaction".

He started with eight carefully selected healthy mice - four males and four females. 

"The mice population doubled approximately every 55 days. They thrived, reproduced rapidly, and for a while, everything looked like a furry utopian dream". 

Then by the 315th day the population reached 620. That was when things started to go wrong.

Everything went wrong indeed but even when viewed independently or applied generally, the conclusions were either indicatively comparable to the human conditions or not at all.  That was and still is the point of debate.

You see, "Despite ample food and water, the sheer density of mice led to a breakdown in social structures. The dominant males became increasingly aggressive, attacking subordinates and failing to protect their territories.

Some male mice, instead of fighting for dominance or territory, withdrew completely. They stopped interacting with others, grooming themselves obsessively, refusing to mate, and basically living the rodent equivalent of a hermit influencer life". 

However, beyond the physical boundaries there was something that caused the mice's behavior to devolve spectacularly downwards.  "Eventually, the entire population died out—not from starvation, not from predators, but from complete social dysfunction".

We can see why critics of the experiment simply attributed the problems to overpopulation.  Among humans, urbanization or increase of population densities, whether it is Rio de Janeiro, Calcutta, Manila, or New York city are analogous to the experiment, in that the 40 square feet of area that limited the movement of the mice population is similar to urban centers being restricted to the finite geographic definitions of the cities; however, it is not just attributed to the natural perimeters but are due to the fact that centers of employment or availability of work was the main cause of the concentration of people.

The entire mice population in the experiment perished not from disease or external causes but from their inability to reproduce due to what the researchers identified as maternal breakdown or infant neglect by females "overwhelmed by the constant presence of other mice, abandoned their young. Some became aggressive, even killing their own offspring. Birth rates plummeted, and nurturing behavior broke down completely".

Just recently Elon Musk  said that "overpopulation is the most nihilistic lie ever told", falling birth rate could end civilization. On Oct 3, 2024 according to his earlier concern he declared on social media that declining global fertility rates "will lead to mass extinction of entire nations."

"The Rise and Fall of the Mouse Empire", the experimenters said, has a parallel equivalent in the history of humanity.

Four years ago I wrote, "All The World's A Stage (Apr. 7, 2012) and I quote, "and all the empires of men merely players; they have their exits and their entrances .. referring to the emergence and collapse of empires at various places around the globe in just the last four thousand or so years".

It was a quick look at history where, "the world's a stage for human conquest after conquest, followed by collapse after collapse - disintegrating into ashes in one place, followed by birth and emergence in another".

I quote once more from that musing, "About 2,300 years before Christ's birth was when the first "formally" recognized empire began. The Akkadian Empire arose from the region we know today as Iraq. As trajectories of empires go, that empire collapsed to be followed by others but always from another region.  The Hittite empire came into being in what is now Turkey, in 1600 B.C. The Assyrians from northern Iraq took it all back about three centuries later. Around that time, or maybe two generations later Rome was founded in 750 B.C."

Persia, what is now Iran, had its turn but not for very long, when Alexander The Great put an end to it but the lull lasted only for so long. You see the pattern. "For it was the glory that was Greece, and the grandeur that was Rome" that summarizes the fate of all that followed.  The sun did finally set on the British empire, Spain had a good run and then here we are today - America. So far, it had far exceeded the average shelf life of all prior empires.  So far, but can it hold on?

Looking back again, we found that every empire that emerged and collapsed not once did one ever came back to regain its power and status.

I am writing this as a cautionary tale, not in any way a dreadful wish or condemnation but a plea for a re-examination of how and where this country used to be and perchance a fervent and hopeful prayer for the restoration of the values that made it great - a serious look at how  to break the curse of the 250-year average shelf life of all preceding empires. 

The good life as we typically define it is always relative to how others measure up. We've come up with the term, "standard of living" as a gauge upon which we measure what  a good life is and what is not but it begs the  question,  "compared to what or with whom?"

A lower middle class life in this country is easily far above the average upper class in many regions of the world where car ownership, a home with indoor plumbing and reliable utilities such as water and electricity are examples of privileges denied the general population. That is the reason that families and individuals are willing to leave their homeland to come here even if it means starting over mid-way through middle age or even older. Indeed, viewed from the lenses of the third world perspective, America is comparably utopian.  

America, not unlike those that preceded it, emerged from the strong values of generations of men and women who strove to free itself as a  colony, to create a nation, and achieved economic and military dominance that twice saved Europe from two world wars, and much of Asia during the Pacific war that ran concurrently with WWII. It was quite a feat.

But today, it faces a challenge not coming from the outside but from within itself. And like all empires that preceded it, it is approaching the "Universe 25" phenomenon that plagued the Roman and Greek empires if we must pick examples.  Italy and Greece used to be the seat of those empires.  We see only traces of their past grandeur in much of the world today but what is left of the original homeland are facsimiles of their power and influence.

Politically, America is now a divided nation.  Socially, it is being challenged from conserving its original ideals by new liberal ideologues who want to fundamentally change the capitalist-based system to a socio-economic equity focused system. It is so perplexing that the new breed of liberal politicians want to change something that had worked for over two centuries into something that is almost anathema to everything that made this country into a benevolent superpower (remember the two world wars it ended).

Empires always failed from within as soon as their population reached the zenith of affluence, overabundance of leisure from the privileges of the haves, followed by a precipitous breakdown in social ethics and behavior. 

What John Calhoun wanted to convey from his experiment was that human societies behaved not far too differently from mice that were provided everything as to have found little else to do with their time that used to be spent foraging for food, building their nests, protecting their territory, raising their young, etc. Socialism as proposed by a few politicians will only exacerbate it.

Calhoun concluded from his observations that mice, as with humans, when the sense of purpose, the activities to attain a goal is lost to the ease with which the basic needs are fulfilled, the mind is left to wander aimlessly.  He used terms to describe mice to have suffered from maternal breakdown, loss of nurturing behavior that led to complete social dysfunction, which seems to describe purely human flaws.

Critics, of course, will be quick to point out that such conclusions are a stretch.  Perhaps.  But we will have to ask, for example, why the rise in teenage hooliganism, blatant crowd-shoplifting only occurs in densely populated major cities like San Francisco, LA, and Washington D.C. but not in urban towns and farm land areas? Clearly these phenomenon do not happen in third world countries where excessive leisure time is absent.

What Calhoun pointed out further was that when overpopulation is not saddled by lack of the basic necessities (as with the mice experiment), coupled with family breakdowns, erosion of moral foundations, societal permissiveness, social media immersion, human behavior will sink to its lowest level.

Again, there is plenty to argue about or debate over.

Well, staying with goal as outlined at the top of every musing I write, I leave a lot of space "between the lines" for the reader, so you can take the time to ponder with me some of the un-ponderable and the whimsical and lightly thought provoking issues you did not have the time to consider but now you may want to look into because you have a moment or two to spare ..

"..It Can Repair Just About Anything".

1. Apology - "An apology is the superglue of life. It can repair just about anything". 

Lynn Johnston is a Canadian cartoonist, born on May 28, 1947, in Collingwood, Ontario. That makes her one of the earliest baby boomers, born right after WWII, just like many of the readers of this blog, not based on actual statistics but based on the readership of the subject matters of my musing that are popularly read;  I will have to assume.  So, she is a smart 78 year-old lady, seasoned with wisdom and real life's experiences.

Lynn Johnston is best known for her cartoon series, "For Better or For Worse".

The quote says a lot, perhaps, even says it all. 

The only thing I can add to it is what I wrote on March 28, 2019, "WE Should Know Better - Marriage Primer No. 1" - one advice I highlighted was about pre-emptying any apology before the need for it happens, I quote below what I wrote then:

Anticipation is better than preparation. Preparing for a defensive position after you did something wrong is exactly that - you are being defensive. But anticipating that you will somehow do something wrong and you are found out (and you will be) is being proactive. The best ever strategy ever put out by one honorable man is that of a husband who each morning  before ever doing anything is to look into his wife's beautiful eyes, long before make up and blush-on were applied, and say, "I'm sorry". At the first instance he did that his wife naturally asked, "What for?" And his answer, "For everything I will do wrong today". Since then the ritual worked like clockwork. It was better than clock work. It worked like a charm.

And perhaps, going along with Ms. Johnston's metaphor, like glue, we need to use it while it is still fresh before it begins to dry up. Unapplied glue left to dry loses its utility and so a delayed apology loses its depth and meaning, perhaps even its sincerity.  However, it is still better than none at all.  

2. Opportunity - "If Your Ship Doesn't Come in, Swim Out To It"   

The quote is attributed to comedian Jonathan Winters.  

There is not much we can add to that as an inspiration towards going after a dream that seems out of reach but that when opportunity is within sight, it urges us to swim out to it.  If I may, I would like to add to it this: But first, make sure you know how to swim.

Indeed, one does not go to engineering school without a good grasp of math and physics; or to medical school without a chemistry and biology background and an aptitude towards the nature of physiology; or, aim to become a teacher without love and patience towards children and young people, but you get the picture. That could explain too why sometimes, one may not get to the ship.

That ship represents just about any dream conceivable to man and woman; the water in-between is every conceivable hindrance and roadblock that  is shallow enough for one to wade through, but be mindful that when it gets deeper, one must be prepared to swim.  In school, we recall that among our classmates a handful seemed to have waded through easily or swam capably even as the waters got deep but there are those among us who had to try a lot harder to get through algebra or geometry or history.

I would like to make Jonathan Winters inspiration to say:

"If your ship doesn't come in, swim out to it; just make sure first that you know how to swim".

3. One Wish

One day along the seashore, a young man, named Charlie, found a lamp.  As he cleaned it of the mud and sand with his hands, a blue smoke came out and a genie appeared. He thanked Charlie for freeing him out of the eight-hundred-year old cocoon that was the lamp and offered to grant him one wish (as every genie story goes).

Genie: Well, young man make your wish please. But first, unlike most genie stories you've heard, I am restricted in my ability to grant a wish and it must adhere to the principle of "Zero-sum-game."

Charlie: What?

Genie: I'll explain as we go along. And you notice too that I don't go by the usual three wishes.  Just one, please.

Charlie: Okay, I wish for one trillion dollars.

Genie: Okay, but before you make it your final wish, "Zero-sum-game." means that the one trillion dollars will be taken away from, say, for example, one company that employs a thousand workers. It will go bankrupt in an instant. Families could suffer.  Or, that trillion may come from several big non-profit organizations combined, from whom disaster stricken areas or orphanages for children will lose their funding.  Instantly, as well. Now you know what "Zero-sum-game." means, right?

Charlie: What kind of genie are you?

Genie: You picked my lamp. So, live with it.  And by the way, I have no way of knowing ahead which or what is affected by your wish. 

Charlie: Well, at least give me some parameters, okay?

Genie: That is about as simple as I can make it. You're not showing some kind of compassion, are you?  You want a trillion dollars?  Go ahead and make it your final wish.

Charlie: Okay, I wish for ten more wishes and that is final!

Poof, the genie was sucked back into the lamp which instantly disappeared.  In its place was one page of parchment the size of an ordinary bond paper but made of a leather-like material.

Charlie read the writings:

"Your one wish for ten wishes was granted and they are listed below, arranged alphabetically. Be aware that the list covers your one and only one wish.  Contrary to what you might have thought, it will not cover for the ten wishes to be fulfilled".

Charlie: Wha-a-a-at?

At that point an old man came by.  He said, "What's wrong young man"?

Charlie responded, "I feel cheated.  Look", he showed the parchment to the old man.

Old Man:  Ah, you too got caught in a technicality.

Charlie: "What do you mean?"

Old Man: You see, and I found this out later, the genie can only be freed completely if your wish had abided by the "Zero-sum-game". You see, if you wished for something that was good for you and there was a corresponding bad thing happening somewhere else, the genie will be free.  Your wish to have ten wishes did not call for "Zero-sum-game" to be enforced and that it had no corresponding bad to anyone or anything. Then you made it final.  So the genie went back in.  He has to wait for who knows when. 

Charlie: I don't get it.

Old Man:  Trust me.  I encountered the same genie a long time ago.  Like you, I wanted a wish that had no ill effects on anyone or anything.  I wished to live forever because I did not want anything bad to happen to anyone or anything. As soon as I made it final, the genie went back into the lamp.  Until you found the lamp again.

Charlie: How long ago was that?

Old Man: This month is my eight hundredth anniversary of living. I watched thirty two generations of people come and go - born and died.  So, you see, I should have opted for the "Zero-sum-game" policy. But, like you, I too had a conscience and a dose of compassion.  So, I will live forever.  I will probably see the genie go through it again but happily he failed to be free because of all who'd rather be compassionate.  But you know, I am always rooting for the decent person who finds the lamp so the genie goes back one more time into it.  You are a good man Charlie.

Charlie: Yeah, I guess so.

Old Man:  And don't forget.  You have ten wishes to work on your own, so you have your whole life ahead of you. I know you can do it because you are a decent man. Goodluck and goodbye.  

The old man turned away and walked along the water's edge as the sun was setting over the horizon right about over his right shoulder.  Charlie smiled.  He knew he did the right thing.

P.S.  Many scientists and philosophers will have us believe that we inhabit a "Zero-sum " universe.  Energy to matter, matter to energy, back to energy to matter, light versus darkness, good versus evil in zero sum equivalence on either side of the equation, if, say, light - darkness = 0, energy - matter= 0, etc., because matter can be converted 100% to energy, therefore, when one is subtracted from the other, the answer is zero. Likewise, since total darkness is the absence of light, the equation is the same.

Should we then forget or ignore that a Supreme Being can modify the equation lopsidedly, because where God is the source of infinite goodness, the equation becomes, good - evil = ∞, where good (∞) minus evil (any number, no matter how large) will always be equal to ∞. You see, in math, infinity minus any number (no matter how large you will imagine it to be), the answer is still an infinite number.  We see it around us - there is so much more goodness than bad in human behavior.  That is because God must have willed it to be so.