More Can Be Less

progress doesn't always make cents
value isn't always on paper

and true valor isn't just bluster

sometimes, 

when the right thing rarely is popular

the ego is better refused

and great power lives greater unused

as sometimes,

it all really is as dumb as it seems

and we're not quite sure at all what that means

just that sometimes,

less power is all that you need

Reviews

[heith.ash]

"Value isn't always on paper"- just loved these lines. Such a beautiful poem.
And indeed less power is all we need.
You've just portrayed the condition of today's world where everyone is hungry to gain power.that hunger has lead to million of other things.
Every word is true and Powerful.

[Davidgeo]

Thank you. To be honest I don't think there should be a single leader for such a large country, it doesn't make sense logistically or culturally. The whole concept of the presidency was designed during the 1700's for a country that had around or less than a million total people. Everything wasn't just different back then, it was drastically different back then; political ideology, economics, culture, law, leisure time (if you had any), family, logistics, education, technology, etc., etc.. Nothing then was like it is today, why we continue to dismiss even the idea of changing some of the fundamentals of our constitution to more effectively line up with modern day life and it's challenges is something I don't fully understand. It's going to be what destabilizes the US if we don't adapt to reality and just fervently stick to tradition.

[Andrew Nelson Stewart]

Moments when its no longer clutched between reality and illusions battling for what has been philosophized and dragged meanings of power can go infinite directions for gain most importantly changing your faith into their religion and then you have generations under control.. I love the simplicity and the illumination of your powerful emotions taking you on unique ride through things crucial to discuss. Love the line "great power lives greater unused as sometimes." Which is trying to find release from what we want to be true like holding up a flower and remaining silent when law and order is necessary of changing times. Marcus Aurelius said once " Not to be driven this way and that, but always to behave with justice and see things as they are." Sincerely your friend in poetry and life

[Pragati Chaudhary]

You write so well.
Thankyou so much for this Piece!

[Davidgeo]

I wrote this a long time ago. Usually it's best to stay away from these kind's of topics. But it's hard these days.

Thanks for your review. It's never not nice to get nice comments from time to time.

[Pragati Chaudhary]

It's always nice to get nice comments

[K]

I can't say it any better than your reviewers. Fantastic poem.

[TPK Stories]

Does money and power really make us happy? Love the way you portrayed these values. Excellent write.

[JM VanZuiden]

This poem needs re-read at least a second time to grasp the depth employed by David in such a small space. Well done.

[Anne’sRants]

I like this take on the pursuit of happiness. It's true value is attributed to a higher income or status in life. I think that barely scratches the surface of what holds value or what value we can find in each other.

[Chris Shaw]

Some excellent lines here. Politics at the fore in this one for me. Over there where you are and over here too. Too much power corrupts.


Chris

[Davidgeo]

Usually I try and avoid directly writing about this guy but I just couldn't help myself this time. It's very frustrating having a semi-literate impulsive child run your country. But, I'm pretty sure he'll be gone sooner than later... what you have to deal with on the other side of the pond is probably just getting started and way more complex than simply having a stupid person in charge. Oh well, we'll all be dead before it really matters anyway (hopefully).

[Chris Shaw]

Now that's cheerful :))

[R.E. Ray]

All accelerator and no brake in the Oval House! The poem and the pic, well paired.

[Davidgeo]

Thanks for your comment Ray. Myself, I would call it all ego and no reality.

[Lyanth]

Too much of anything can be detrimental, but too little of the right things can also be. Our faults are far too many for us to handle great power without causing mayhem. I suppose that is why we all must fall as surely as we rise.

I liked this..

[Davidgeo]

Intelligent people are expected to be more objective when balancing "too much" with "too little" in their general decision making; when your average citizen displays more self control, basic intelligence, common sense and is generally more articulate than the president there's a problem. Anyway, I think seeing failure as "falling" and seeing success as "rising" isn't the best way to look at those things. I like to see failure is just finding out what doesn't work and I like to see succeeding as taking what you learned from those failures and finding a better solution from them (or least not repeating them). Admittedly, as a human species we have more power than we are ready for at the moment... but that doesn't mean it will lead to more mayhem inevitably, if we continue our upward trajectory in terms of widespread intellectual enlightenment and relative peacefulness I don't see any reason why we won't also learn to control our power in a more humane way so we can become more efficient and enlightened overall as a species.

[Lyanth]

We have a 'King of the hill' way of measuring our compared statuses if you will. Number one this, top that, Most this and that. We are always rising to the top of our standards and then declining again. Our nation's are no different. One advances over most other and becomes powerful, but never stays at its peak for long before it crumbles either by cause of war or natural/economical disaster. So it has been through history. This is the rising and falling I refer to in the way of power. No one stays on top for long. Failures are simply methods of doing things that do not yield the desired result in my opinion. We test and try many methods until we get it right or we get sloppy in following the recipe of a set method and come up with a variation of our own that still yields undesired results thus donning it in our opinion the title of Failure.
We may try to control our power better, but in the end we will always struggle with our faulty aspects. Greed, selfishness, list and the likes. Not saying we can't change, just that it won't be as easy.

[Davidgeo]

Yeah, I think you're right; we will always struggle with something in one way or another. It's part of the human experience. None the less, I do expect large groups of population to act impulsively and without a whole lot of objective logic, but I don't expect our institutions to. One of the main reasons behind forming long standing institutions is to get around the base subjective impulses every human has. A person is usually rational and won't make too many superficially thought out decisions when it really matters... but a group of people are usually impulsive, idiotic and usually just follow the crowd while basing almost all of their decisions on the superficial and immediate with almost zero forethought and even less foresight. This is why it's so important not to have an objectively stupid person as president (or in any large scale leadership position) and why I think it would be wise to mitigate the possibility of a dumb a*s leading other dumb asses to further dumb assery altogether by eliminating the office of the president... you wouldn't really even have to change how the rest of government works to do this. I also think attributing s****y decision making and idiotic operation on basic human flaws is not a valid excuse (though I still do it myself constantly), it's a cop out and will only lead to normalizing a downward overall trajectory for the whole of society. Unfortunately, we don't have a whole lot of universally applicable reasons... people do stupid s**t for too many different and diverse reasons and even sometimes act in purposefully irrational ways to always have a good reason. Human behavior is a major conundrum, I prefer math - it's harder, but at least it's usually solvable.

[Lyanth]

Agreeable, but would it be absurd to argue that all these different reasons we have for doing dumb things can be rooted back to our basic flaws? This still gives no excuse why we should not try to improve. After all, many people hold to the idea of Evolution, which is constant and ever changing adaptation and change in the way of advancement.
I think...we will always need some sort of government as long as we live in groups.
However, too much government is the problem because we are making the mistake of giving great power to people who have not learned to handle it yet.
We seem to have quite a few dimwitted running the show lately, but I wouldn't blame just the government for the government is made up of individuals We the people elect.

[Davidgeo]

Government we need, an office with concentrated power that affects 350+ million people we do not. There is no world that exists where 350 million people spread out over a huge land mass and multiple gigantic sub-economies have enough in common to justify that. And it only takes one mentally unstable president to start a nuclear war in our current setup, that's a danger most people don't even think about, but it's there and it is very real. The office of the president should have a narrower scope and be occupied by multiple elected people (more than 3 less than 9) who vote amongst themselves; kinda the supreme court but without the lifetime appointments.

I do kinda blame the voters less, the electoral college's 'winner take all' setup is total bullshit. We don't actually live in a straight democracy, we live in a representative democracy. The popular vote is not at all what determines who wins the presidency. Don't forget, Trump lost the popular vote by 2 million. He does not represent the majority of voters, he never did.

[Lyanth]

We don't live in a straight democracy, they keep trying to push that on us, but we were never a democracy or communist society. I think, many people just chose the lesser of the two poor choices when it came to elections. Could be wrong but in my opinion Hillary was not the better choice and from the people I've spoken to, many agreed. I feel like the news is a bit biased. Not that many people liked Hillary as they made it seem. Again, I could be wrong, but people do tend to finesse and tweak the facts.

[Davidgeo]

I didn't vote for her, she's disingenuous and not exactly free of her own controversy regarding corruption but she would of been better than what we ended up with. We are starting to see the effects of a poorly executed trade war and it's not good.... recessions are not a good thing. The way this recession is taking hold is a sign that it may lead to a legitimate depression. Since all the tariffs started to escalate, American business has not just lost large market customers temporarily. It took years for those supply chains to settle and had been established in good standing for decades... now they are gone and all those customers have since found new suppliers. It takes a lot of time and resources to restart a complicated supply/demand chain, so those customers are never coming back unless something extreme and never before seen happens, that business is permanently lost to the competition. Another problem is diminished credibility, the US is no longer taken seriously on the global stage since our leader just can't stop lying about his accomplishments and tweeting s**t talk like a dumb teenager. Hillary would've been status quo, boring and come through on none of her campaign promises but things would've remained stable enough to maintain an upward trajectory. We are not on an upward trajectory at the moment and a capitalist economy that relies on credit cannot deviate from an upward trajectory for long or it will collapse on itself (2008 style).

[Lyanth]

I suppose he's made his fair share of slip ups, however, do you really believe the economy would've remained stable and untouched if Hillary were in office? I think she would have affected it, maybe not the same way as our current president but I feel more comfortable having someone who has experience handling and dealing in money, business and economics - and is good enough at it to be where he is. Versus someone who is rich because of her husband and deals in child trafficking to make money. However, it's been a couple years and I don't see much beneficial difference, but we are all still standing and I suppose at this point with the choices we had that's all we can hope for. We'll see how this upcoming election goes.

[Davidgeo]

Yes. Things would have, at worst, stayed the same. There has been no breakthrough or major setback, the reason our economy is trending downward is clear now, it's this mismanaged trade war that wasn't even necessary to begin with. She would not have imposed tariffs in this manner and it has become objectively clear that the tariffs are killing the stock market while China is perfectly happy just waiting until either a new president gets elected or our economy sinks from recession to depression in which they'd just become the new global super power by default. Either way they've already won and a lot of that win has to do with our president's erratic tweeting and erroneous public claims. There is a reason he declared bankruptcy 5 different times and is the only person to actually lose money in the casino business. He's not an intelligent person, he could of just put his inheritance into an index fund and he'd have made a lot more money. If you think Hillary was overpromoted with respect to reality, ha... what we have now is the epitome of bullshit promotion.

[Davidgeo]

… I agree with you on the Hillary thing, just in case it seems like I supported her - I don't/didn't. But she is at the very least an adult.

[Lyanth]

I can't argue with proof, still, I'd rather an immature running us than a child trafficker. Maybe you disagree, but I guess that's why opinions are subjective.
You make a decent point though.

[Davidgeo]

Child trafficker? Um... you lost me with that one.

[Lyanth]

It's been going around for a while. Hillary and her husband were in with Jeffrey Epstein. Child trafficker who was recently arrested. Think he even owned a private island he had kids shipped to . Apparently Bill Clinton visited his "Island" a few times and the couple helped traffic and whatnot. You should look into it yourself. Lotta nuts we got running the nut house.

[Davidgeo]

I'm by no means a Clinton family fan. But all that is hearsay and rumor. Simply being friends with another powerful person who happened to be a terrible person doesn't mean they were involved with child trafficking and child molestation. What you are going off of is called the "association fallacy" and if it were taken seriously literally anyone could be put in prison at any time without any evidence (six degrees of seperation --- you and I would be "guilty" as well using that logic). Stop spreading s**t that has no evidence behind it and is clearly from a "rumor" mill meant to slander political opponents. Notice that when I talk about politics it's grounded in reality, rational and fact based. When you make accusations that are deviant in the extreme and back it up with words like "apparently" and "its been going around for a while" you lose all credibility on the subject.

[Lyanth]

It's been circulating on the news my friend. I use uncertain terms because I don't trust everything being given to the public as fact especially from news, but I am not taking what I hear from gossip and rumor and stamping fact on it. I looked into it. Either way it doesn't matter because personally I can't prove it so whether you choose to validity the claims to yourself or not is up to you.

[Davidgeo]

I know, I'm not oblivious to what's circulating in the news. When I said "you lost me" earlier I didn't mean you were discussing things I'm not aware of, just things that have no credibility behind them. It's unfortunate to see you have such a strong "guilty until proven innocent" mindset. I can't stand the Clintons but I don't let that change the fact that we are all of us innocent until proven guilty. That you would casually throw around such awful accusations about anyone without any evidence is just poor form.

Are you aware that you directly contradicted yourself in your first two sentences? "it's been circulating in the news - I don't trust the news...". And I'm sorry, but, "you looked into it" doesn't hold much water. Are you a detective? Do you have some kind of access to information the rest of us don't have access to? Are you by any chance just looking things up on the internet?

I think you should try and be more objective about how seriously you take things that are just "circulating in the news", especially these days... bias and "overly sensationalized reporting" occurs on every network for and against every political party. They are running a business and controversy sells, this has become a very serious conflict of interest if you are looking for fair and honest reporting.

[Lyanth]

Yes I see that, I visit several different news outta and hear alot of things. I personally don't trust many, but that isn't to say they aren't true. I've seen two sides of this, one saying they are great people the other saying they aren't. One saying they're connected another saying they had no idea. I do not have the idea in my head that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I have the idea that no one can be enacted upon until proven guilty. I am not saying we should bomb the Clintons. For all we really know it's all a big lie. However, of the two reports and based on both what our society is really like , past cases and my own tendencies to be cynical I don't lean to the side of innocence. This is not to say you don't have a point and it's good that you have a fair mindset, but we solve cases by taking what we have and making educated guesses which we then later search for evidence to prove. Meaning you can accurately make deductions about a situation with little or no proof. There are two sides to every argument I'm sure you'll find something, but that's my opinion. I don't know everything and you are a great deal older so perhaps you've acquired a more knowledgeable mindset. I like how you think.

[Davidgeo]

"we solve cases by taking what we have and making educated guesses which we then later search for evidence to prove." WE don't solve cases, we are not lawyers we are not law enforcement we are not judges we are not on a jury with access to all the facts of the matter. WE don't solve anything when it comes to things like this. " Meaning you can accurately make deductions about a situation with little or no proof" - That's just an absurd statement.

This has nothing to do with how old I am (how old am I?)… you have a guilty until proven innocent mindset and you are comfortable relying on the court of public opinion as opposed to the court of law when you judge someone's guilt or innocence. These are not good things.

[Lyanth]

We meaning people. Human beings. No idea how old you are and it really doesn't matter at this Point it can on forever.
My mindset is not one that all are innocent I find that naive in itself. We must act as if all are innocent until proven guilty for the sake of fairness, in case we are wrong.
Proof, solid evidence. People don't always have it. People are capable of coming to conclusions without it . Sometimes right sometimes wrong. They then search for evidence to support it. That does not mean there are no contextual clues for them to work with, but these alone are no solid evidence.
The court of law is made up of public individuals who come to a conclusion based off a set of rules and and investigations. Courts still make mistakes all the time. People go to jail for years only to be let out later upon discovery that they were in fact innocent. There is room for error in everything.
We don't have to see eye to eye. Maybe I have some wrong concepts. Agree to disagree.

[Lyanth]

And I doubt you had the same opinions when you were younger. With age comes experience through time and our experiences are what forms our opinions so I honestly don't see how age has nothing to do with your views, however that's not to say it's an excuse for any misconceptions I may have in case that's what you think I'm trying to say.

[Davidgeo]

"And I doubt you had the same opinions when you were younger." That's not an argument, that's an excuse. You literally say it isn't at the end of your response but it really, really is. Just because you may be younger (how old am I?) than someone doesn't mean you have to use faulty logic and most importantly, doesn't mean you have to continue using faulty logic. Do you see me saying crap like "I'm older so I must have more experience and therefore be right"... no, because it's a cop out and extremely lazy while being an intellectually weak argument. You're using the exact same logic just with different terms.

Your broken logic is starting to become an absurd situation at this point... -- from the second to last response of yours "No idea how old you are and it really doesn't matter at this Point"

---- from the very next response of yours "so I honestly don't see how age has nothing to do with your views"

This type of direct contradiction is something you do often. You might want to pay attention to that fact in the future.

[Lyanth]

You're reading really far into this. How your age affects your views has to do with experience. You cannot experience everything in one day. Takes time. I didn't say you were right, I said maybe you have different or "better" crafted opinions based on your level of experience. Now, that is not an "Argument" it is a point, therefore at the moment, your age doesn't hold relevance to me, it holds relevance to the Point. I have explained why I have a differing view. However, we seem to no longer be discussing the original topic and have moved on to you nitpicking every sentence I write, this was all quite interesting but It's starting to get tiring.
Thank you though, this has been quite a discussion.

[Davidgeo]

An argument is a debate... it doesn't have to have negative connotations.

My problem with how you debate is that you directly contradict yourself frequently, sometimes within the span of two sentences. It wouldn't be productive to keep pointing out something so obvious and absurd over and over again. I don't respect people who constantly commit the same error in logic over and over again even after it's been pointed out over and over again. Sorry, nothing personal, it just is what it is.

[Lyanth]

I didn't say it had anything negative attached to it and don't apologize. Everyone needs their thinking checked at some point. I probably do contradict myself and I can see where that might be confusing now. I'll try to look out for that In the future.

[Davidgeo]

You completely missed the point of my last response.

Your constant contradictions make your logic faulty which makes you a waste of time debating, sometimes. It's not that confusing, as much as it's just annoying. By the way, you made another major logical fallacy in your second to last response that I forget to mention. It's called improper transposition ("your age doesn't hold relevance to me, it holds relevance to the point." Since you are arguing that point it naturally means it has relevance to you... why else would you be arguing said point? You just aren't making sense in this thread. It's annoying.)

[Davidgeo]

....by the way, if you think calling out your blatant logical fallacies is "nitpicking" you have no value as a debate partner to me or really anyone. You can't say s**t that doesn't make sense and expect people not to call you out for not making sense... especially if you keep doing it.

[Lyanth]

And you missed my point as well. Several of them. I'll keep these in mind as well though.

[Davidgeo]

Sounds good to me.

[Zoya]

I needed this today. Thank you.

[Davidgeo]

You're welcomes.