Tearing Up?

That title is a little misleading. It can be read in two different ways. At least! The first is probably tearing up as in ripping up or apart, or tearing something down.

Of course, the second is more emotional, tearing up as in tears of weeping, filling the eyes with sadness or joy, or some other emotion that causes such a reaction.

So we have the two reference points: one is anger driven to destroying something; the other is emotional caring that moistens eyes.

I've written a lot of words on both fronts in this blog. I care enough about others and big ideas that demonstrate the caring perspective. I also have the anger and vitriol that demands venting from time to time and so I give energy to a good rant from time to time. It’s good for my soul. Don’t know if it’s good for yours. But hey, who’s writing this blog anyway?

Each time I sit down at the keyboard I wonder if the piece will be a positive item or a negative one. And if negative can I twist the piece to have a soul by the end of it? And vice versa, of course; if I begin on a positive note can the piece also demonstrate why this is more important than the rotten negative stuff others spew all the time?

I hope so. I hope I make points viable enough to serve two purposes.

The bottom line is this: we have breath in our lungs and ideas in our brains so we ought to do something good with both. If what we do is for selfish purposes or harmful to others, we ought not do those things. If both exist we should use the good to battle down the bad.

Too simplistic? Probably so.

Still the decision needs to be made by each of us. Are our lives to be of use to others or only to ourselves? And if the latter, how do we know the others will cooperate with us reliably? How do we know they won’t turn on us and take what’s ours for themselves?

We don’t. There’s no way to know this in advance. If we don’t trust others then we simply assume they will take advantage of us. And live accordingly.

Guess that might be the cause of some ideologies being so negative. Conservatives. They worry that government is the tool of the masses to take property and money away from those who have it. Or that the masses always want something for nothing and…..

If that’s true, then liberals are what? All things belong to the masses and so….No. That’s communism. Or at the very least socialism. Maybe that’s why ‘progressive’ is a term being used lately to replace ‘liberal’? Maybe so. Maybe so. Have to think on that some.

Positive or negative. Plus or minus. Rich or poor. Healthy or sickly. On or off; in our out. Which opposites should be used here. Any of them?

Probably not. I’d rather we focus on useful or not. Are we building something, fixing something, solving a problem, or what? Or are we making a problem?

Somewhere along the line those in government need to decide on this. Which role do the political parties align with? Seems to me the republicans and democrats have some thinking work to do. Which side are you on, folks?

Are you working for the few or for all? Are you defining problems or making them? How about solving some while you are at it?

Just maybe you ought to ask the people what you should do. God knows the elections don’t do that. Too fixed you know? Too much money from too few people buy elections for the special interests. You don’t believe it? Just watch Illinois. The new governor had $20 million of private donations (including $5 million of his own) to buy the election. It will be interesting to see who owns the state in fours years. Will the taxpayers own it? Or will the republican’s wealthy own it?

The perfect incubator for the nation is on view for all to see. Illinois mirrors the congressional mess perfectly. Same dynamics. Same selfishness. Whatever will they do with this?

Should we be worried?

January 13, 2015