Clues In America's Clueless Pursuit of Happiness

Struck between the eyes
By the big-time world
Walking uneasy streets
Hiding beneath the sheets
Got to try and fill the void

-- Neil Peart/Rush; Between the Wheels; Grace Under Pressure, 1984

Lately, I've begun to think that we'd have a lot less war if everyone complicit in such would simply find something better to do. I mean, get a life, literally. That's right. I'm unleashing upon the world, the self proclaimed, illustrious, and brilliant, Get A Life theory of the world's problems. (Please. Don't call it a manifesto.) I came up with this, because I've got things I really love to do, and I do them as often as possible, and I almost never think about waging war on another - that is, until some other person - one without hobbies, or anything else better to do I'll bet - brings it up. Then I have to stop everything I'm doing, and focus all of my attention on preventing those with nothing better to do from wrecking havoc - I admit, I don't have to do this often. In fact, it's only just recently come up, but people like me (or shall I presume to say, us), have had to engage in this sort of thing throughout history, and often, sadly, to no avail.

For instance, the couch potato, consumer society we've got going here promotes war - if ever there were people who needed to get a life it's those of us who like nothing better than to watch TV, and spend money. Is it any wonder we don't bat an eye when our government behaves similarly? The government spends, and spends, and spends. When it runs out of money, it borrows from the Federal Reserve, AT INTEREST (of which we've presently so much, we'll never, at present rates be able to pay it back). Eventually the bills get out of hand, and the only thing left to do is to go to war with someone - in effect, the government mortgages the lives of our sons, and daughters, whom they relinquish to the specter of death in war when it comes time to pay the piper. Not to mention, in the mean time, between the borrowing frenzy, and piper payment, we all work harder for money that is worth less, so we can maintain our own personal borrowing and buying frenzies, pay higher taxes - and never-the-less, relinquish our sons and daughters to war - ever heard the one about giving one's first born... That's not funny is it? Kind of pisses me off too.

The point is not that we caused the national debt, but that we were too busy or distracted to notice as our government did - and so continues. We, and the government however, like to engage in the same national pastime it seems. I just can't help but notice a connection. It almost feels like we're in on it together, though this is clearly not so - we're only complicit in the national debt in as much as we let our government spend like a maniac, often for stuff that does us more harm than good, and we don't seem to notice that we are the ones paying for it. I'll bet this spending "connection" is not lost on the government either - the twisted spin some government bureaucrats are capable of is ceaselessly amazing, and oh yes, distracting.

I submit, if more of us would get a life, we'd not be so oblivious to this stuff. Contrary to what one might think, having a life does not distract one from seeing what's staring one planly in one's face. Though not having a life does, because then, one is easily distracted. One can be distracted by just about anything. One is suseptible to a short span of attention. This is because when you have no life, distraction costs you nothing. It's not like you were doing anything anyway. You're always looking for the next distraction. Part of being a good sheep, is not bothering to get a life.

Consider: A human adapts to its environment - the options provided by that environment. We're born into an environment that gives us the option of working, or living on the street (hard to imagine it any other way isn't it?); which lies to believe among those offered by mainstream media; which consumer goods we should crave; which slave master serving lifestyle we should aspire to; and so on. The point, in case you didn't notice, is the choices provided by the abstract, human created environment into which we are born are kind of limited - they're not choices in a broad sense. They are kind of like choosing between the lesser of two evils. For instance, choosing whether to build a log cabin in the woods, or a 30 year mortgage is a choice. In this light, choosing which neighborhood you want to live in while you slave to pay 200,000.00 for the 60,000.00 you'll borrow to live there seems a bit on the limiting side.

When you look at choice in these terms, you start to get a feel for just how heavy the burden of choice can be. The very idea of "freedom" begins to seem frighteningly radical. Consider the implications of real freedom of choice, within the context of our present environment of pseudo choice:

Choices are no longer prepackaged, handily available for your safe, ready "consumption"

Choosing or even considering choices outside mainstream provisions can make you an instant social pariah

Real choice requires one to actually think

Thinking is radical, even subversive

What if they gave a society, and nobody came?

On the other hand, in the absence of the modern day concept of choice, e.g., pseudo choice, though freedom still comes with a heavy burden, and responsibility, its benefits are embodied in such ideas as the joyousness of endless possibility, the twinkling eyes of one engaged in the elements of a destiny over which they exert control without the burden of conscience for having infringed on another's pursuit of happiness.

Even now, as we struggle to hold back the tide,  as we struggle to prevent a war that will very likely set a precedent in terms of freedom for coming generations, even at this relatively early stage, pre-dating what could be the beginning of the end of freedom, already too many of us don't know, or have forgotten what freedom is.  We must move quick to remember.  We must move quick to teach those who don't know.  We must move quick to stop this before it begins.

We being easily distracted as we are would not be nearly the problem it is if not for another group of people - our so called leaders. I say "so called" because real leaders actually lead, as opposed to using their position as means to other ends. Though we all like to control others to some degree, some people make careers - literally, and figuratively - out of it. These types seem to simply not be able to stand not forcing their will on someone else. I think they convince themselves that they are doing what they do for some greater good, but this only serves to greater bolster their ever expanding egos. This is a group of people that simply have not learned that there are other, less intrusive means to ego expansiveness - means that don't infringe on others' rights, and such. Some say it's about money. Well sure, but you could give these types all the money in the world, and it would not be enough. In short, these folks are another example of people who need to get a life.

All this sounds like, the blind leading the blind. Leaders need followers to lead, and followers need leaders to follow. And I certainly don't think anyone could ever accuse we the people of not being good followers. Our "leaders" are not leading us because they've turned the job into an end unto itself - if they actually lead us somewhere, they'd have nothing to do. This would not be a problem if they would instead, get a life. Then they would focus on getting their leading done quickly, and efficiently, so they could get back to living.

This 'get a life' theory of the world's problems sounds altogether simplistic. But that's the beauty of appeals to common sense.

That is, try a thought experiment. Think along the lines of being able to do anything you wanted to do - say there were no personal obligations like going to work, paying the bills, chores, anti-war protesting, etcetera. What comes to mind? Some will have constructive answers, and many (too many) will not. You can apply this thought experiment to others as well - that is, think of people you know, and try to imagine how they would answer the thought experiment question. How many people's answer do you imagine reflects the truth of the theory that the world would be a lot better off if we'd stop screwing around, and get a life? As soon as one finds something constructive to do - or for that matter, perhaps anything as long as it's not destructive - one becomes interested in things only in as much as they are a means to that constructive somthing to do - and I dare say, warring with others would not generally be construed as an efficient means to this end. No, such constructive minded people would go to great lengths to avoid such, and ensure the peaceful pursuit of enjoyable constructive behavior.

This is as opposed to means becoming ends in and of themselves. That is, one who likes to control things, doesn't like to control things as a means to some other objective, so they perpetually control things - this is simply a confounded way to go about living. Similarly, many of us consume things for want of something better to do. These are examples of a failure to answer fundamental life questions, the answers to which might, though not neccessarily, lead us to someting more interesting, or maybe just to the conclusion that we prefer staring blankly at a wall to TV.

People who have a life don't have time to be distracted. They don't have time to listen to rubish, so they learn to recognize it quickly, and ignore it, or demand better. Getting a life means finding something really enjoyable, seeking out, like a squirrel trying to get a nut, that one thing that makes life worth living.

I wonder how Bush, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al, in a rare honest moment, would answer the get a life question, or for that matter, Hitler, in his bunker, dark and stifling, with his cyanide, and his pistol, and his wife, and his dog, Berlin crumbling above? I can see their pleading, bewildered, confounded, exasperated expressions: 'But, but.. I..' Now that's funny. That is, it would be funny, if they didn't mean to take us all down with them.

Get a life.

Bryan McGregor Hoover
bhoover@wecs.com