avoiding risk is the biggest risk of all—whatever that means

i don't even know where the super bowl got played this year, but midfield time-warped into mid-'80s first avenue & 7th street, minneapolis as the artist still and forever known as prince—looking exactly the same except maybe a bit taller—staged what may have been the most expensive halftime show in football history.

lighting effects, fireworks, on-stage female dancers, surrounded on-field not only by a choreographed "marching band" doing the kind of dancing the nation saw in purple rain but also by a frenzied gang of arm-waving female "spectators" all bearing little lights that a distant shot made a swarm of fireflies, and no malfunctions anywhere, wardrobe or otherwise—prince left nothing to chance.

if only our policymakers and strategists were so committed to perfection.

in a near-forgotten age, the best and brightest young members of society aspired to careers in the military and civil service. then came what we call "progress," which led to relatively widespread prosperity and increased leisure, which allowed younger generations to follow their bliss, as myth scholar joseph campbell put it. in the 1950s rhythm'n'blues and rock'n'roll inspired a lot of kids to pick up guitars and learn to sing. after the '50s, the trend grew and continued. more seekers of excellence risked the unknown and went into the arts and sciences rather than public service, leaving more room in government and the military for folk who cleave to faith and leave much to chance.

so we get a prince and a bush.

maybe 8 or 10 years ago a guy who might not have been born before 1970 came up to me during an intermission in a poetry read and said "i think i know why the '60s failed." unfortunately i'm very opinionated—as you may have noticed. i came right back with "i don't think the '60s did fail." i must've gotten distracted, because much to my regret i never did hear what he had to say. for all i know he was right.

but whether or not a time period could be said to succeed or fail, it's clear some folk who could've learned the lessons of the '60s just weren't paying attention. many of them still inhabit a comic-book reality where good eternally battles evil, where a supernatural hero will surely save us from devastating natural forces unleashed by human folly, where those who have no such faith or a different worldview are godless liberals or secular humanists or moral relativists in league with the devil.

in my reality civilization is populated not by good and evil beings but by human beings. they experience belief and ignorance, desire and frustration, hope and fear, joy and sadness, love and hate, rage and tenderness, pleasure and pain, strength and weakness, fullness and emptiness. they desire the greatest good for the greatest number, but they make mistakes.

i couldn't possibly name all the sources of human error. they can be physical, mental, or emotional. some would add "spiritual" to the list, tho i think i've already accounted for it with "mental" and "emotional."

but all take risks, whether they know it or not, and errors get made, for they are human, or unintended consequences occur.

among knowing risk-takers, those who seek excellence—including some of the faithful—try to reduce risk of harm to themselves and others by leaving as little as possible to chance. others unknowingly give chance free reign as they await their messiah and/or seek riches and power, so the poor get poorer and the ecosystem deteriorates and international tensions rise and antagonism within nations grows and people suffer and die.

i won't say everything would get better if all leaders played musical instruments—after all, harry truman and richard nixon were amateur musicians who left us the cold war and the energy crisis—but i do think it would help if they and we remembered that the various countries and groups that seem to threaten our existence are not monoliths entirely made up of "commies" or "evildoers" or "extremists" but human beings.