Saturday, September 2, 2006


Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, only backwards and on high heels. William Shakespeare wrote the greatest plays ever penned, with a feather, and without a dictionary. Pharaoh, for all his feasts of hummingbird tongues, would have given half his kingdom for electric lights.

I spoke with a socialist the other day. A socialist. Let’s see: ludites, Sadducees, bluestockings, caprophages, anarcho-syndicalists, Druids, opium eaters, Copperheads ... socialists. Yes, I think the list is representative. Bizarre beliefs and practices that have no correlation with reality, character, common sense or good hygiene. And this socialist was talking about how the Bush Administration had children locked up in secret prisons. “Oh, you just don’t listen to the right media,” he nodded. And Katrina, well that proved it.

They -- they, mind you -- didn’t want the coloreds to live in New Orleans, so they weren't rebuilding it. A red state/blue state thing, and never mind the Chocolate City. (One would think his term wouldn’t be coloreds, but coloblues, eh?) I'd been biting my tongue -- almost clean through by this time -- but I managed to maneuver it enough to formulate the words, “The problem with your logic is that ‘they’ would want ‘them’ in one place. If they (them) leave, they might turn a red state bluer. They (they) don’t want that, do they? It’s a gerrymander thing.” But logic is such an imponderable. Or so it appears.

All this was at a locale where I avoid politics. A few people there have asked what the name of my blog is, and I tell it, but I always feel a powerful reluctance. Hope it doesn’t show. I do, you might have noticed, have strong opinions on certain matters, but don’t feel the need to share them always and instantly. That’s what this is for. Let the void of cyberspace absorb my radiations. Upshot is, I managed to find an excuse to wander away from the, uh, conversation.

But why the emotion, or its potential? Why not have intense political discussions indiscriminately? Politics, religion, sex: topics formerly not discussed in polite and mixed company. But why? Well, I can’t think of a way to not be obvious. Beliefs are integral to self-image. We align ourselves with what we think, or feel, is virtuous. To disagree with truth is at best misguided, and at worst to favor evil. Disagreement can feel like an attack. We all know this.

Well, the point is perspective. My perspective is that 1906 San Francisco was rebuilt in months, without government funds. Government is bureaucracy, which is incompetence. The private sector is greed, which is efficient. My socialist compeer must have some other outlook. Because New Orleans is not rebuilt to his standard on his time frame, he supposes Bush and America and capitalism are bad. Opinions I do not mind. But the disloyalty. Brrr. My perspective is that human character is flawed, and rather poisonous. But given that, and given that such fatally flawed character is behind all government bureaucracies, then why for crying out loud do the socialists et al. always attack America specifically? This fellow was lauding Chavez in Venezuela, for cripe’s sake. To me, it’s the stab-in-the-back reflex they have. Eating their young … and their parents. Brrr.

That’s my perspective, though. They see it as something else, I’m sure. Somehow. Could be they're right. Could be there is no truth or objectivity or absolutes. Could be that logic has no ultimate validity. Could be that Shakespeare had a word processor. Could be that Ginger Rogers was a space alien with backwards knees and an organ to generate sonar waves. Maybe a father's corpse is exceptionally nutritious -- like opium. Perhaps being a Copperhead is honorable.

Well, children, what's the lesson for the day? Perspective is a wonderful thing.


No comments: