Skip to main content

Parallels

I hear from people to my left, 'We just need to be stronger in our values, and push harder (perhaps violently) for economic justice and progressive values. You are ignoring us, and that is why we are not Democrats. You were too friendly with businesses and the establishment. You make too many compromises. You didn't fight for the working class. That is why you lost in 2016. You will continue to lose until you listen."

But I vote for people who want to regulate Wall Street, curb polution, and raise standards of living. I want to do this without running into the problems they have today in France or Venezuela. We can strengthen our safety nets without sawing away at the tightropes we walk upon.

I hear from people to my right, "We just need to be stronger in our values, and push harder (perhaps violently) for economic justice and traditionalist values. You are ignoring us, and that is why we are not Democrats. You were too friendly with people who aren't white, straight, cis-gendered Christians. You didn't fight for the working class. You compromise too much. That is why you lost in 2016. You will continue to lose until you listen."

But I vote for people who stand up for everyone's rights and well being, and who believe we can expand opportunity without denying it to others. I want to do this without entering a new era of Jim Crow. Looking out for yourself is fine, but only if you do so without pushing others down.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Political Notes

-Rick Santorum seems a somewhat likeable guy who believes several crazy, distasteful things. It may not be helpful to say his ideas are nuts, but it still is less useful to fashion him an evil man because his discriminatory views don't jive with the left, centre, or centre-right in America.

-Calling a person a 'front runner' before votes are counted is just plain wrong.  Calling one a front-runner after some votes are counted is slightly misleading.  The race isn't about who the media thinks is ahead, and it is only indirectly about who gets the most votes.  What really matters is accruing the most delegates.  In the race for a major party's nomination for POTUS, the guy with the most delegates-who-will-actually-vote-for-him-at-their-national-convention is ahead. If no delegates have been awarded, there isn't really a front-runner, no matter what polls might say.

-I doubt the primary process will hurt the eventual Republican nominee for POTUS all that much.…

Pointless Ruminations on the Absurd

The world around us is in no way required to conform to our expectations, beliefs, or desires. Rather, it is all but guaranteed to disappoint us, at least once or twice a lifetime. The loftier (or more deeply felt) our ideals, the more this may be true.

When we accept this incongruity and are keenly aware of it, but cannot change our thinking, absurdity steps in. The world no longer quite makes sense. It is untethered from rational or moral concerns, adrift in a bizarre joke told by no one.
Desire for normative order is often irrational and misplaced. Placing ethical constraints on amoral matters makes no sense. Yet these appear (sometimes, seemingly) inescapable conclusions. Hence the sensation of absurdity.

We can apply these incongruous demands to anything and anyone. But this is not a universal philosophy. It is a philosophy of the self, a diagnosis.

Well now.

I think I'm going to try to revive my online writing habits, outside of Facebook.

And what have I been thinking or feeling in the interim, across the last couple years or so? Well, I'm glad you asked.

In part, this.