hopelesshappiness.com

I understand that a landowner as landlord has more power, and I understand that because everything is processed through the filter that is me it is natural for an individual to think that he or she knows better and is better, but how does this justify the venom quite frequently seen in evictions, lease negotiations, and other subservient bureaucracies within the landlord / leaseholder relationship. Lives are disrupted for the satisfaction and/or convenience of a tyrant. The same can be said for many (perhaps all) other decisive, inarguable power structures but there (from experience) seems to be an amplified, hyperbolized ferocity in a landlord's edicts.

I recently bought a house and though I have frequently railed against “owning the land”, I find myself more comfortable, less anxious, and less afraid not having the specter of a monster - (one able to gobble me up and spit me out elsewhere) - hovering over me. As a leaseholder you expect it as a way of life, but now looking at it from the outside and currently seeing more than one family member being gobbled up and/or snacked upon, I am even more horrified by the inhumanity we allow.

I am in good company. Many famous thinkers including Adam Smith, Robert Green Ingersoll, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Bertrand Russell have questioned the wisdom of property ownership. One of my favorite summations comes from Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1754:

"The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say 'this is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: 'Do not listen to this impostor. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!'"

If I were different my life would be different. I don't know how I am who I am. Nature? Nurture? Does it really matter? Instead of where or how, the more relevant question (I believe) is what. And even that question is only to acknowledge, recognize, temper, and refine. I look back on decisions made decades ago (even in childhood) and it is clear that decisions today are consistent. I can't just turn my back on me. Yes, one day I will have to let go, but until that dying moment, I will remain; still me but perhaps, as I continue to gain wisdom, a better version.

What defines a person?

• Confusion?
• Fear?
• Responsibility?
• Compassion?
• A sense of belonging?
• Justice?
• Wisdom?
• Power?
• Wealth?
• Beauty?
• Hunger?
• Truth?
• Anger?
• Sadness?
• Curiosity?

It is a common question asked even in children's movies.

My life is a moment. Moments die. My current job is a moment. My last job was a moment. My relationships are mere moments. Some moments are destined to last a lifetime. Some moments flare up dramatically then die a quick death. Some moments are slowly suffocated. What defines me determines (sometimes predetermines) each moment's death.

I just removed ‘Love’ from the list above.

If I am unable to turn my back on myself yet I am able and choose to acknowledge, recognize, temper, and refine, I just removed ‘Love’ from the list above because I believe to Love is to more frequently practice, enhance, and strengthen those positive, productive qualities I already possess (Compassion, Responsibility, Justice) and perhaps better manage those qualities that may do harm and/or be misinterpreted (Anger, Power, Sadness).

I just disclosed me. At least my perception of me. And I cannot turn my back on that; not even for a moment.

Dragons and Mincemeat.

Regarding our system of justice in this (our) country, I have…

Three Questions:

1. Are there too many lawbreakers?
2. Are there too many laws?
3. Is there too much room for interpretation?

Regarding lawbreakers:

• Depending on one's place, there is a gamut from those who break the law yet suffer not, to those accused who suffer the harshest of interpretations.
• Many of those who suffer are guilty upon accusation with little to no opportunity to establish innocence. That said, justice must still account for the innocent victim.
• I believe the state is complicit in the flaws in our system, thus not innocent. I believe the same could be said for any organization (large or small) operating wholly or partially for any or all of the purposes of politics (power), profit (capitalism / wealth), or zealotry (extreme devotion to a set of beliefs or a cause).

Regarding laws and their interpretation:

• Yes and Yes. The more laws, the broader the potential interpretation. This bears out in my recent experience as a new paralegal in a law office where I consistently see multiple charges come in from law enforcement, fewer charges being filed by the prosecuting attorney, and then fewer charges yet eventually resulting in a guilty plea. It seems we (when possible) overwhelm the defendant then play good cop by offering to dismiss some of the charges in return for a guilty plea on just one or two of them. In fairness I believe the defendant is most likely guilty of those charges (or something in the neighborhood), but the system (with so many laws and such broad interpretations) is built to essentially make them feel they have no choice. And if they broke a law (especially one with an innocent victim) perhaps the system works; but I also believe it works FOR some and AGAINST others - depending on one’s place. The bureaucracy aids in consistency and a certain amount of fairness within one’s stratum but it remains a system in which the privileged are given benefit of any doubt and the insignificant remain insignificant.

Despite more than six decades of experience and training, I am still not fluent in the political or cultural language of America. I consistently misinterpret and find myself wandering aimlessly between the lines, words, and letters. Perhaps I am a slow learner.