So, I was thinking about how life is generally pretty good for me. I mean, sure--I've got challenges and struggles and daily mantras and momentary slips and things I need to do better and stop doing and start doing. But, on balance, I have THE life. You know, the one that Americans are supposed to have. I have a great job and income (because I worked for it), healthy family (because they lucked into some kick-ass genes). Plus, I'm also white, so that helps a lot in America. I now have a great house. And, I love my family, near and far. So, what is the problem?
Well, there are the glass-half-empty people, and the glass-half-full people. And, then there is me: the bring-an-umbrella-so-it-won't-rain person. I'm not exactly a pessimist, I'm just sort of living my very abundant life waiting for the other shoe to drop. I fear that if I just live my life and don't do something or have something to balance out the "good," the universe will balance it out for me. It is like a superstition, but about everything.
For example, being told I was about to receive a bonus and a raise yesterday did not make me excited. Well, it did, but only for a moment. I had to interrupt that moment to then be afraid. Well, I didn't HAVE to, but that's what I do. I stop and freak out that something bad will happen. That it must happen, actually. So, I have developed this little trick, you see, to sort of fool the Universe. I have found a loophole of sorts. What I do is I start to think about the not-perfect things in my life, dwell on those (always fun), and sort of try to make a deal with the Universe (or with the part of me that jinxes things), that the good thing that just happened (in this case, the raise/bonus) is actually itself the necessary course correction for the already-existing not-great stuff. So, as you can see, no need to balance, Mr. Universe. MmmK? You can move on. Ba-bye.
And, then today, I got to thinking. I guess that means I live in fear. I fear good things, and when I get them, I fear the bad that must result. This is probably linked to why I don't like change. The status quo is my friend. No news is good news because it means I'm in balance. But, just barely.
Well, then I started to be really hard on myself for living in fear when so many people have ACTUAL things to be afraid of. As we speak, people are actually DYING from flash flooding just miles from me! I mean, whothehell am I to be living in FEAR. That is BAD. As Yoda explained, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, and suffering leads to the Dark Side. Translation: DO NOT FEAR. Living in fear is just not something on people's to-do lists. In fact, it is right up there on their to-don't lists. So, then I start to fear the fact that I'm fearing. So, I'm all, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." Except, for me it is, "I have nothing to fear but fear itself, and I got a looooot of fear." AAaaaak!
But, hold on there. Let's examine the main premise here. Fear is bad. Right. Duh. But, WHY? Why is it bad that I live in fear? As I mentioned, I'm living the life of Riley over hear. So, yeah--I live in fear. But, I'm pretty content. Not that being content alone makes it GOOD to live in fear. After all, the ends don't justify the means. Which is to say that fear cannot be considered bad solely for what happens after the fear, just like it isn't good just because I am happy. So, fear also cannot be bad just because it eventually leads to the Dark Side, Yoda. Sorry, I believe too strongly that the means cannot be justified by those ends. So, somehow, we have decided fear is inherently bad.
Wait. Whaaaa???? My brain is exploding. Who decided on what basis that fear is inherently "bad"? And, for that matter, who decided ANYTHING is BAD? Maybe it is good. Maybe it just IS. Maybe humans just need to have a challenge and a struggle in life in order to go on; in order to give their lives meaning and purpose. Maybe fear is a necessary part of that.
Am I right? (That's rhetorical. Of course I'm right.) :)
And, now I'm also angry. Because I've bought into the "fear is bad" thing for so long.
So, I guess that Yoda did know what he was talking about. I guess suffering is next. Or, did this take care of that for you?
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
A Love Note to PWTSARIRBA
Dear People Who Think the Second Amendment Recognizes an Individual Right to Bear Arms ("PWTSARIRBA"),
You may be right! I may be crazy. But, it just may be a lunatic you're looking for.
Ooops. Hold on. I got carried away. I do heart Billy Joel so... I meant to stop at "you may be right." And, by that I do not mean that I think you ARE right. I mean, whotheheckknows what the Framers were doing? (BTW, this is the perfect example of the importance of using language responsibly. Dudes could have used TWO freakin' sentences to explain WTF they were talking about. But, instead, they had to be all fancy and VAGUE, which, if you haven't noticed, is kind of a big deal.)
Anywho, what I mean to say, my dearest PWTSARIRBA, is that I appreciate your view and love that you are strong in a very noble position. And, I get that a lot of the images and statements posted on Facebook by you and others are obviously ridiculously funny caricatures of the very complex debate. But, I just want to point out that there is an equally valid viewpoint to yours, which does not actually assert that the individual right provided for in the 2nd Amendment should be ignored, as your Obama cartoon suggests. Rather, it asserts that no such right exists; that the words simply do not say this. Your view is in the school of thought known as the “individual rights” theory ("IRT"), whereas the other view, which has to do with the power of the language, “A well-regulated Militia…,” is referred to with love as the “collective rights” theory ("CRT"). The IRT was pretty much the standard interpretation in the beginning of this amazing country of ours, while the need to protect against tyranny was a very real concern (haha--no, really--stop it--no jokes about Guantanamo, please). By around 1939ish, the culture had changed, and CRT was considered by the court of the land to be the correct interpretation. This was the case for many decades, until very recently (let's say 2008...hmmm...what else happened THEN??). One can surmise this is evidence of a culture/perspective shift in our society. But, that is for another ONE. Not I.
WHY, then, am I talking about HISTORY? Well, I'm pretty sure the idea here is to learn from our mistakes and to get this thing right. And, it also is fair to point out that, just like a lot of other parts of the Constitution (e.g., references to slaves being less than an entire human being), interpretation of the 2nd Amendment changes with the course of time. Not for you or for me, but for us as a society. It just does.
The only point I'm really trying to make is that you're being a tad ignorant and unnecessarily harsh. It seems so obvious to you that your interpretation is correct. This is the same position of the opposing viewpoint. You know what this reminds me of? This is totally like one of those optical illusion images where you can see either a young man or an old man, depending on how you look at the picture (see below). It is the same with language: it depends on where you put the emphasis. It is a valid and very important debate, to be sure. Of course there are crazies on both sides who misconstrue everything and perhaps have other agendas. But, my point is that reasonable people just as dedicated to preserving, honoring, and following the Constitution as you are, have a different interpretation. And, we may be right...
You may be right! I may be crazy. But, it just may be a lunatic you're looking for.
Ooops. Hold on. I got carried away. I do heart Billy Joel so... I meant to stop at "you may be right." And, by that I do not mean that I think you ARE right. I mean, whotheheckknows what the Framers were doing? (BTW, this is the perfect example of the importance of using language responsibly. Dudes could have used TWO freakin' sentences to explain WTF they were talking about. But, instead, they had to be all fancy and VAGUE, which, if you haven't noticed, is kind of a big deal.)
Anywho, what I mean to say, my dearest PWTSARIRBA, is that I appreciate your view and love that you are strong in a very noble position. And, I get that a lot of the images and statements posted on Facebook by you and others are obviously ridiculously funny caricatures of the very complex debate. But, I just want to point out that there is an equally valid viewpoint to yours, which does not actually assert that the individual right provided for in the 2nd Amendment should be ignored, as your Obama cartoon suggests. Rather, it asserts that no such right exists; that the words simply do not say this. Your view is in the school of thought known as the “individual rights” theory ("IRT"), whereas the other view, which has to do with the power of the language, “A well-regulated Militia…,” is referred to with love as the “collective rights” theory ("CRT"). The IRT was pretty much the standard interpretation in the beginning of this amazing country of ours, while the need to protect against tyranny was a very real concern (haha--no, really--stop it--no jokes about Guantanamo, please). By around 1939ish, the culture had changed, and CRT was considered by the court of the land to be the correct interpretation. This was the case for many decades, until very recently (let's say 2008...hmmm...what else happened THEN??). One can surmise this is evidence of a culture/perspective shift in our society. But, that is for another ONE. Not I.
WHY, then, am I talking about HISTORY? Well, I'm pretty sure the idea here is to learn from our mistakes and to get this thing right. And, it also is fair to point out that, just like a lot of other parts of the Constitution (e.g., references to slaves being less than an entire human being), interpretation of the 2nd Amendment changes with the course of time. Not for you or for me, but for us as a society. It just does.
The only point I'm really trying to make is that you're being a tad ignorant and unnecessarily harsh. It seems so obvious to you that your interpretation is correct. This is the same position of the opposing viewpoint. You know what this reminds me of? This is totally like one of those optical illusion images where you can see either a young man or an old man, depending on how you look at the picture (see below). It is the same with language: it depends on where you put the emphasis. It is a valid and very important debate, to be sure. Of course there are crazies on both sides who misconstrue everything and perhaps have other agendas. But, my point is that reasonable people just as dedicated to preserving, honoring, and following the Constitution as you are, have a different interpretation. And, we may be right...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)