This morning, I put a political observation on Facebook. It's not wildly political -- I just wondered if any of the hotheads who scream about change have actual ideas about how they'd fix things; no use of 'then a miracle occurred' solutions, like saying 'well, we ought to cut all taxes, because everyone knows that works...', because everyone doesn't know, and some, perhaps many, vehemently oppose the concept -- but it's something I don't tend to do. I was prompted to do it when Facebook gave me a 'friend suggestion', which I accepted, which turned out to be not the same as a 'friend request', but rather Facebook thinking that I ought to send a friend request to this person. I'm not terribly sorry that I did, but I was a little dismayed when I realized that the person whom I requested the link to, someone I used to work with, is one of the people who believes that we ought to take back our country, or at least this state. Say what you will about letting people feel as they do, I think that that sort of talk has gone way too far, and -- as before -- I don't see any countervailing groups with slogans such as 'No, Actually, We Should Keep Our Mitts Off Things We Don't Understand'. I like to say that there are good ideas on both sides, and I do think that. I don't mention when I say that that I'm more liberal than conservative, so the likelihood is that I think the bulk of the good ideas are on this side of the aisle, because I really do think that the people on the other side have decent ideas, too. I am usually reluctant to give them much credit only because the hotheads on that side scare me; they strike me as people who can't be talked to, let alone reasoned with. I think that such a discussion, if it ever started, would degenerate very quickly into shouting, with chants of 'why do you hate America' and things like that. I don't want to get involve with bigots and maniacs. On the other hand, the distilled version of some of what they say actually sounds good to me -- ideas such as why does government have to be so big; it costs way too much and tends to be way too intrusive sound right, even when they trigger thoughts of 'well, yeah, but only big government can do some things that need to be done ...'. So when people like that talk, I at least try to hear what they're saying, try to extract the parts that are on the periphery of what I think -- the things that, left to myself, wouldn't occur to me. I think this is a liberal failing -- I doubt that people who are as conservative as I am liberal tend to spend much time thinking well, you know, that Rachel Maddow, she's a crackpot but she does make a good point.
Of course, underlying all of that is my assumption that political conundrums can be rationally resolved. That's likely not true.
The priest this morning talked about a kid who had killed himself, which is a shocking image to me. He said that most people have no idea what is in the heart of other people; what pains they live with, what they fear, what they want most. I believe that to be true. I've occasionally done things or thought things and had the sense of man, I hope nobody ever finds out about that. (I wonder sometimes about those motivations -- why do we do things that we're ashamed of? I suppose it could be said that the act itself isn't bad, its the shame. Sometimes, I think thats true. But sometimes, perhaps most times, its not. Most times, it's the thing itself. ) Thinking about hidden thoughts and motivations, I remembered a woman I had known for quite some time, the one I've mentioned who died of cancer several years ago. Her death didn't devastate me, but I was very unhappy about it -- in fact, on the last day I saw her, I left the hospital, went out to the rental car, and just cried for a while. I think it was because there was something about her that had touched me, something I liked a lot, and I was desolate at the thought of losing that. There were times when she was alive when I'd muse: if the chance arose to have sex with her, would I do it? My conclusion (after some amount of juicy imagining; amazing how suave and seductive my subconcious can be) was that no, I wouldn't. It wouldn't have been because I didn't want to, because I did want to. It would have been, instead, because if someone found out -- in particular, my wife -- it'd have done serious damage to our marriage, and that was something that I could not live with. The marriage was and is supremely important to me, so even something as delightful -- at least, in my imagining -- as sex with that woman just wouldn't have been worth the risk. But what if I knew absolutely that no one would have found out? Would I have done it? Probably good that I didn't ever have the opportunity to find out.
2 comments:
The reason you do not betray your marriage vows is because you are the one who knows and you will know forever even if no one else ever finds out.
I was betrayed and I forgave once I got on the other side of the incident...which it was...but now decades later I still know.
We all want smaller government and better spending on taxes, and lower taxes. But I am waiting for someone to come forward on what we should cut...totally. Nickel and diming the govt. will not make a difference and when we cut Fed programs, those that are essential get dumped on the state budgets. We haven't really cut anything.
Well, yes, I'd have known. There are times when I think that people who can just shrug stuff off have an advantage over the rest of us.
Take a look at Stag's response to Plagiarism. I was quite taken by it.
The vast bulk of governmental spending is entitlement programs, I hear. So all we have to do is give that up. How hard could that be?
Yes, I'm joking. But in a way, I'm not. And THAT answer -- what could we reasonably give up -- is what I would like to hear from the other side.
Of course, what I think we could give up is essential to them, and the reverse.
Post a Comment