Overprep

We each have at one time or another encountered the phenomenon known as beginner’s luck. A naive person tries something for the first time and succeeds beyond the dreams of the more experienced. And then, the luck mysteriously goes away .

On the other side of the curve, suave experts can suddenly lose their magic. A baseball pitcher can’t find the strike zone. A musician can’t craft a salable tune. Usually, such events are short-lived, but unnerving .

Ours is a culture of perfectability, where everyone likes to believe that with hard work they can do anything. For that reason overpreparation is almost a disease. If a certain behavior is good, more training should make it better .

Except – often it doesn’t. There is a golden patch for anyone doing anything, beyond which extra exertion yields actively declining results. The mood can quickly turn to frustration and anger (and in these times, blame) .

I’ve often tried to invoke the counter-mantra of “just good enough”. That used to suit American pioneers. Not more and more perfect, but adequate to accomplish the task. Anything beyond, however elegant or pretty, would be superfluous waste of time and energy. It fit nicely with my other belief that “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” .

Nice to call it a philosophy. Honestly, more likely just innate laziness 

Babies and Bathwater

Common law often contains more justice than formal law. Common sense offers more wisdom than that of many experts. Drilling down into one aspect of an issue can blind us to other important considerations. In the old days, this was known as “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” .

With so many experts, so much insecurity, such heavily polarized social viewpoints, bathwater seems to be all around us. Murky, dirty, time to clean it up. Whoops – there goes another infant into the hedge !

The problem really is that in a complicated world, the “new” water is never clean. Ending one kind of discrimination usually just replaces one Injustice with another. Eliminating one type of energy simply reveals flaws in alternatives. Forbidding sexual “harassment” at work can result in no normal romances at all for employees. The list goes on, quagmires of unintended consequences, multiplying endlessly, worse by the day as overreaction sets in .

Right now might be the worst, as an overly interconnected global village reacts to every piece of gossip as if it were holy writ, and in which power only arrives for the most extreme positions. Society has not yet had time to adjust common law and common sense to the new chaos .

Perhaps it never will .

Oh dear, another screaming baby !

Short Tempers

Since at least the Revolution of 1776, Americans have been known for their rudeness, volatility, haste, and short tempers. Once encapsulated in the concept of the “New York minute” with angry drivers honking a second after (or before) a light turned green .

In spite of various calming fads like meditation, that hasn’t changed much. People still get angry at traffic – and so much more. Anything that isn’t exactly as smooth as expected, or delayed, can cause a flash of temper. We are far from becoming a “kinder and gentler” society .

The saving grace has always been that since we get so angry at so much so easily, we rarely have time to hold a grudge. Old injuries are quickly forgotten, we need to reserve our temper for the next problem. The Hatfields and McCoys were an outlier .

These days, the real issue is that our immediate means of expression has escalated and become lethal. The worst is “road rage” where instead of honking or yelling, one driver will ram or shoot another. Almost as bad is lashing out into viral space on the internet, which can ruin lives .

I like to say I’ve mellowed as I got older. Unfortunately, I find my patience just as short, my expression just as loud, my short temper just is stupidly prevalent. Minor disagreements can become either sullen withdrawal or loud argument. 

Sure, I forget by next morning, or even within a few minutes. 

But I remain fully traditional American .

Executive Orders

“Rule of law” is invoked as an ideal by almost everyone these days. The simplest definition would be rules that are unchanging, well-known by everyone, and enforced equally on all .

Obviously, that ideal is impossible. Laws must change to fit social conditions. They become increasingly complex – murder is different than killing in self-defense – so everyone cannot know them and lawyers are required. “Applied equally” is just as hard – from days of simple weregild to current fines – the rich and powerful suffer far less .

But, even with all those exceptions, the concept is nice. In a democracy, we further have the ideals that laws are formulated and changed only with the consent of the populace. Complicated by social rights that no populace can infringe on. Tangled, but still relatively clear, and has seemed to work decently for hundreds of years .

We oppose that ideal to such things as revolutionary councils, absolute monarchs, and dictators. These have the ability to change laws at whim, decide to whom they apply, make transgressions retroactive, and define terms arbitrarily as they see fit – treason, for example.

And so we come to the title. Rule of law does NOT mean blindly following ANY law. Monarchs can declare any whim as legality. Rule of law implies a certain stable process and application. “Executive orders” from the US president shatter rule of law _ once again, legality is simply power, capriciously and unequally applied .

Sure, rulers will always say it is necessary in “emergencies”. But for them the emergency will never end 

Social Dinner

People can adjust almost infinitely to social expectations. On the other hand, I tend to cling to activities that please me, especially in daily life. This leads to minor conflicts with my wife – she enjoys social dinners, I hate them .

Oh, she has good reasons. It expands our horizons, makes times special. Gets us out of our shells, cements friendships. Interesting relevant conversations. And, of course, a feeling of doing something rewarding .

Me – I’m a curmudgeon. The food is not good, the costs are high, I can’t hear well. What we discuss is dull and repetitious. I don’t like being served. I’d much rather be reading or taking a walk .

We manage to get along. Go out less than she would prefer, more than I would. I can’t honestly say I “hate” the experience anymore than she “hates” staying home .

No doubt, most of our outlook in things like this is driven by how we were raised and how we lived our lives. Neither of our childhoods – although wonderful – were particularly affluent. Especially in “eating out” at upscale places. Nor did we have much money to waste during most of our lives. We enjoyed fast food with our kids when (once upon a time) it was inexpensive .

Now, I suppose, we could afford better. 

As in many other areas of life, we muddle along in compromise, happy and grumpy, it is, after all, quite meaningless .

Paving the Road to Evil .

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Although the concept of hell has become somewhat obscured in these enlightened times, we all agree that there is such a thing as evil. Creators of horror media feast on it. Nobody denies that evil exists in the world, but an awful lot of it seems a result of somebody’s good intentions .

For example, we all might easily agree that a psychopath kidnapping a 4-year-old and torturing her to death is an act of pure evil. Yet the same outcome, on a massive scale, might happen as “collateral damage” in what many regard as a just war. In such cases, I suppose, we could say that the event was evil, but the people who caused it were acting with justifiable intentions in a good cause .

It is all very well to dilute the idea of evil to the “intent of those causing it”. That goes right back to the old monotheistic question of why an omnipotent God allows evil to happen. And it helps us build a bearable framework around an unbearable tragedy .

The problem with that – and it always has been – is that we degrade our moral sense and treat evil in a rather cavalier attitude. Fortified by a contradictory certainty that we can clearly determine intent, and can easily assign relative weight (“how evil”) to what should be a uniquely absolute moral judgment .

Anyway, I surely see a lot of earnest paving going on all around me these days .