Barriers to Communication

We live in an era of unprecedented communication capabilities.  The confluence of various technologies, especially cell phones, satellites, and the internet, have given rise to a world where anyone equipped with appropriate technology can instantly communicate with anyone else so-equipped, virtually anywhere on earth, or even in space.  Crucially, this technology is not limited to governments and the elite.  In many regions, MOST people have access to cell phones and the internet (though true satellite phones have yet to become widespread).  Anyone with internet access can "blog" -- moments after a blogger posts their thoughts online, they can be viewed by people all over the world.  Technology has even helped diminish language barriers, with quick electronic translators.

While I do not know whether communication, by itself, can solve the world's problems, I am fairly certain that the world's problems cannot be solved WITHOUT communication.  Unfortunately, as technology makes communication easier and easier, our society insists on raising barriers to effective, clear communication.

These barriers are not easy to put into words.  The clearest example involves racial issues.  The world has complicated racial issues and problems, yet our society has inadvertantly made even the discussion of racial issues a dangerous minefield.  Many people have lost their jobs or at least damaged their careers by making racial statements that were deemed socially unacceptable.  At present, the majority of "white" Americans are uncertain even of "safe" terminology to describe members of other races.  While certain terms are clearly taboo, the definition of "proper" seems to be always changing.  This is awkward even for me to discuss, since I, too, am unaware of the current socially-acceptable terminology.  I honestly do not know whether it is objectionable for me to make reference to "white" Americans or "black" Americans.  Suffice it to say that I am basically afraid to discuss racial issues -- as are millions of Americans.

This brings up another barrier to communication.  In our polarized society, people are constantly searching for "ammunition" to use against their enemies.  When someone makes a statement, it does not matter much whether it is a sincere statement of their belief, or totally taken out of context, or a joke, or perhaps a true slip of the tongue, with NO basis in their belief.  If the statement can be used to damage them by their opponents, it WILL be used to damage them.  This means it is dangerous for our leaders and celebrities to say ANYTHING, and it discourages all but the most superficial, simplistic discussions of our complicated problems.

When John McCain was running for President of the United States, he made a joke about what he believed -- in response to a question during a debate.  As he said it, he laughed, and then, to make sure, said, "I'm joking.  That is NOT what I believe -- though I suspect that by tomorrow, people will be claiming that I actually BELIEVE it."  At the end of the debate, a journalist was asking someone from Barack Obama's campaign about the debate, and the campaign staffer said, "Well, I'm excited that John McCain admitted he believed ..."  The journalist was incredulous, and said, "But that was a JOKE!"  The campaign staffer said, "That doesn't matter.  He SAID it, and we have him on videotape SAYING it.  If he didn't BELIEVE it, he shouldn't have SAID it!  We WILL be using it in our ads."

At the risk of sounding like a politician, and/or a lawyer, the truth is that even a precise recording of someone's WORDS does not necessarily accurately reflect their IDEAS.  A candidate for President of the United States recently said, "I like being able to fire people ..."  Listening to just a few more sentences of the speech reveals that the truth is more complicated.  The candidate does NOT simply "like being able to fire people".  He believes that everyone should have the option of switching providers, if someone provides poor service to them.  You may agree with that idea or disagree with it; either way, if you tell me the candidate "likes to fire people" then I will consider you guilty of deliberately misrepresenting his ideas.  If you tell me, "Well, that's what he SAID!" then I will tell you that I do not CARE what he SAID, I care about his IDEAS.  (Incidentally, the very same candidate said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor ..."  Again, if you actually listen to the IDEAS he expressed, rather than just the words, the fact is that he IS concerned about the very poor -- and, again, I really don't care what he SAID.)

Perhaps the purest, saddest example of a barrier to communication is the fact that we are now legally advised not to say "I am sorry," for fear that the statement can later be used in court as an admission of guilt.  Our society officially discourages people from saying "I'm sorry."  How can we hope to get along with each other if we are prohibited from saying "I'm sorry"?

In a perfect world, we would actually listen to each other, and sincerely consider what other people had to say.  IF they said something racially or ethnically insensitive, then we would judge whether they spoke out of malice or simply ignorance.  IF they said something that sounded "wrong" or outrageous, we would work first to clarify our understanding of their true position, BEFORE we seized upon the isolated statement as "evidence" of their inherent "wrongness", or as a "true" statement of their belief.  And, incidentally, after car accidents, EVERYONE would apologize to everyone else, and anyone who claimed that the apology was evidence of "guilt" would be laughed out of court, or perhaps tarred and feathered.

A few weeks ago, I learned of a campaign to do away with the term "illegal aliens".  I think most people in the United States would agree that the country has problems relating to ... well, I'm not sure what I am now supposed to CALL it, but I am fairly certain that making it more difficult to DISCUSS will NOT contribute to resolution of the problems.

Some of these issues are similar to those encountered when attempting to speak another language.  I am not proud of the fact that I am fluent only in English, and do my best to learn words and phrases in other languages.  I HOPE that those I speak with will appreciate the effort, rather than take offense.  Meanwhile, English-speakers such as myself  now run the constant risk of offending various groups for whom specific words and terms have become a battleground -- not only racial and ethnic groups, but groups based citizenship status, sexual orientation, or even those insisting that the English language be made "gender neutral".  This is not to say that these groups do not have valid concerns, but I question whether making people afraid to communicate is the best way to accomplish their goals.  For most of us, the easiest thing, and the safest thing, is to simply quit communicating, or at least avoid many areas of conversation -- but this will not resolve our problems, or help bring the people of the world closer together.

Each of us now has the capability to easily communicate with more people than ever before, but as the QUANTITY of communication increases, our society as a whole seems intent on reducing the QUALITY.  We must fight "political correctness" and "gotcha" moments and instead attempt an honest and open discussion of ideas -- focussing on ideas rather than inadequate and/or possibly offensive words and statements -- and finding both our points of agreement and our true, honest differences.  We will never be able to do that if we are afraid to communicate.

In this case, the truth is pretty straightforward.

Bill Clinton

I have been active in politics for as long as I can remember.  I believe I marched around with a home-made sign proclaiming my choice for President of the United States when I was two or three years old -- my older siblings had cardboard signs attached to yardsticks, while mine was attached to a ruler.  By "active in politics" I mean that I have been interested in politics, and actively campaigned for candidates, and volunteered to work at polling places, and occasionally served as a delegate to party conventions.  I have never run for political office.

One of the lessons emphasized in my high school government class was the need to be a registered member of a political party, and participate in party politics, in order to give yourself a greater voice -- more power in the process.  In America, those who do not participate in politics at the party level are limited to choosing between candidates selected by other people.  This makes sense ... but it does NOT mean that any particular party is always right, or has a lock on the truth.  I have worked for both major parties, and voted for candidates from a variety of parties.

During the height of my association with the Democratic party, I was one of only three people with my own key to the county Democratic headquarters, and I worked tirelessly for Democrat candidates.  It was at that time that Bill Clinton was first nominated for President.  The Democrats I worked alongside were both amused and troubled by my reluctance to do any sort of campaigning for Bill Clinton.

My problem with Bill Clinton is a straightforward one:  Bill Clinton lies.  He lies a lot.  He has lied throughout his public career, and about a wide variety of subjects.  His lies are well-documented.  Those who associate Bill Clinton's lies exclusively with the subject of "Monica Lewisky" or "sex" are either misinformed or deluding themselves.  Keep in mind that at the time he first ran for President -- when I was so concerned about his lying -- he had probably yet to even meet Monica Lewinsky.

I vividly recall a few conversations I had in those days with Clinton supporters, regarding his lies.  One person -- on the staff of one of our senators -- first asked me for some examples of Clinton's lies.  After I reeled off half a dozen examples, the staffer said, "You have to understand.  Bill Clinton could not have made it to where he is today WITHOUT those lies."  THAT was supposed to provide JUSTIFICATION?

Another conversation was more satisfying.  A pleasant, older, philosophical man -- a Democratic activist -- listened calmly to my complaints about Clinton's lies, and then phrased it this way, "I am willing to overlook Bill Clinton's lies and other flaws, because I believe Bill Clinton will advance my agenda, and causes that I believe in.  You are unwilling to overlook those things."  If nothing else, I have to respect that man's honesty, as well as his clarity of thought.

I am still thinking and writing about President Bill Clinton, even as America stumbles toward the 2012 Presidential election.  I am not trying to make any particular point about the present day, though I firmly believe that the past has much to teach us, especially with regard to politics and leadership.  I realize that Bill Clinton was, and remains, very popular, and many people would object to my assessment of him.

I never could bring myself to support Bill Clinton, and I never voted for him.  For me, his lying is a fatal flaw, regardless of his personal appeal, or his positions on the issues -- not that I agreed with him on the issues.  That is actually a key point: Even if I disagree with a politician on the issues, I can support them as long as I consider them to be fundamentally honest.  I can work with honest disagreement.  It is dishonesty that I find to be intolerable.  And, incidentally, I consider dishonesty about one's opponents to be perhaps the most toxic form of dishonesty in a politician.

Truth is complicated, but honesty is honesty, and lies are lies.

The Wayfarer's Dole

Years ago, I read a magazine article that made reference to “The Wayfarer’s Dole”.  My memory is quite hazy, but it had to do with someplace in Britain -- I thought some sort of medieval monastery -- where anyone could stop by and be offered food and drink and perhaps even a place to sleep, AND this had been going on for hundreds of years, and was still going on today.

I recently decided I needed to look all of this up, and the truth is a bit more complicated than my vague memory -- but the fact is that for many years, THIS is what I vaguely remembered … and this is one of those cases in which this vague memory of the truth is in some ways more important than the actual truth.

The reason the inaccurate vague memory is more important than the truth is that for several years now, I have tried to re-create this concept of a medieval monastery, but for critters -- mostly cats, though I have yet to turn any critter away.  Basically, my rule is that any critter -- again, mostly any cat -- who shows up at my place gets a meal, water, and a place to sleep that is hopefully safe and warm and dry.  If they will let me handle them, they get medical care, if they seem to need it, and if they choose to stay for a prolonged period, they get “fixed” and medical care, including vaccinations,  whether or not they appear to need it, and whether or not they will let me handle them (I possess and am capable of using a trap, nets, and special protective gloves).

The area where I live has cold, snowy winters, so the winters are the most difficult time.  I make various shelters, including insulated houses that I build from scratch, and do my best to supply unfrozen water.  At the coldest times, everyone is urged to come inside, though some steadfastly refuse.  I have one cat who I consider totally “mine”, who eats all his meals on my front porch, lives in a custom-built cat house, and gets regular veterinary care, but even on the coldest nights dislikes staying indoors for more than perhaps an hour.

This does involve lots of effort and expense, and hundreds of cans of food, and hundreds of pounds of dry food.  I am well-known at my local veterinarians’ office, and they have a special program just for neutering “my” cats.

I would like to think that everyone would have access to a wholesome meal and clean water and a safe, warm, dry place to sleep, but I know that is not the case.  Here in our little corner of the world, we do what we can.

(By the way, the classic “Wayfarer’s Dole” is dispensed at “The Hospital of St Cross and Almshouse of Noble Poverty” in Winchester, England, founded in the 1130’s, and consists of bread and ale.  Though 25 men currently live there full-time, I do not believe most travelers are offered a place to sleep.)

Personal access

I can be hard to get a hold of.

Though you probably aren’t thinking about it, there are actually multiple ways to interpret that sentence.  The most common interpretation probably has to do with a tendency -- as in “I am sometimes hard to get a hold of.”  There are also other ways to use the word “can” -- indicating an ability, such as “I can play the piano” or “I can recite quotations from Shakespeare.”  Finally, there is “I can do it if I want to do it, and you will not be able to stop me,” such as “I can stay up late and watch television.”

I find it profound that in this particular case, all three interpretations apply.  I have a tendency to be difficult to get a hold of, AND I have an ability to be difficult to get a hold of, AND I want to be difficult to get a hold of, and you will not be able to stop me.

In this “connected” era, where people have not only cell phones but “smart phones” and do all manner of not only e-mailing but “instant messaging” (perhaps out of vogue now) and “texting”, I am increasingly out of step with those around me, and more than one person has actually become angry about how difficult it is to reach me.  Notably, the people who have been angriest have been people who I barely consider acquaintances -- certainly not friends.  I must admit, though, that many friends and family have also offered at least some criticism about the fact that they are unable to contact me at the moment they desire to contact me.

People seem not to understand that the issue is at least as important to ME as it is to THEM.  I feel very strongly that NO ONE “deserves” or “has a right to” instant access to ANYONE.  In fact, I would argue that this is one of the few things that separates us from prisoners.  Prisoners often have at least SOME freedom of movement, and perhaps the ability to decide whether or not to eat and drink, and precisely what to eat and drink, and how to occupy their time -- but if their captor WANTS to have access to them, their captor HAS access to them.  The prisoner does NOT get to decide who reaches them, or when.

This is one of those areas in which people will argue about motivation -- “WHY shouldn’t people be able to instantly reach you?” or “WHY is it important to you?” -- but I will respond that motivation is irrelevant.  It is my desire, and my right.  People will also come up with all sorts of “reasons” why they NEED instant access -- mostly having to do with the possibility of “emergencies”, but also for a variety of more individual needs.  I am hard-pressed to think of any “emergency” situations in which quickly reaching me will have an impact on the outcome of the situation, though I am willing to acknowledge that the possibility exists.  In those theoretical cases, I am willing to suffer the consequences of being hard to reach.  On a practical level, the fact is that I am not UNIVERSALLY difficult to reach -- there are one or two or three people who I allow the ability to contact me most of the time.  That is MY choice.  The “problem” (not for ME) is that MOST people will have difficulty quickly contacting me.

In the back of my mind, there is always the fear that as the future unfolds, everyone will have instant access to everyone.  I would not want to live in such a world.

Sometimes, the truth is straightforward.

Personal trust

Once, while I was in High School, I attended an overnight camp-out with our church youth group.  Specifically, we spent the night in a lodge at a nearby camp, with a lake, a beach, and trails through the surrounding woods.  I was only minimally active in the church youth group, and only casually acquainted with the other members.  One of the evening's activities involved separating into pairs, and then taking turns being blindfolded while your partner led you around the camp.  Later, we gathered to discuss the experience.  Most of the people described being fearful and apprehensive during the time that they were blindfolded.  I was the only one to express a sense of relaxation and peace.  The period of time that I was blindfolded was the ONLY time during the evening that I had no worries at all about bumping into things or tripping, and had no decisions to make about where to go or what to do.  My partner was carrying all those concerns for me.  While my PARTNER was blindfolded, now THAT was a different story.  THEN, I had to worry constantly about all the misfortunes that might befall my partner if I was careless or inattentive.

As children, my friends and I would often shout out urgent commands to each other, such as "Duck!" or "Look out!" or even "Hide!".  Sometimes the commands might be more specific, like "Kick your right foot!" or "Pedal your bicycle faster!"  In the swimming pool, someone might tell you, "Go underwater!"  I cannot recall a single instance in which there was not a very real reason, or at least a perceived reason, for such a command.  They were NEVER pranks.  Obviously, if you were told to "Duck!" you were in danger of being hit in the head with something.  If you were advised to submerge in the swimming pool, there was probably some sort of stinging/biting insect, either already ON you, or about to land on you.  In every case, failure to heed the command carried some sort of imminent risk, and the response "Why?" was always innappropriate and risky.

I do not know whether my childhood experience might have been unique.  I doubt it.  I do not know whether children growing up in my neighborhood today share the same sort of interactions.  I DO know that if I shout "Duck!" today, at even my closest friends and family members, it is highly unlikely that any of them will respond, other than to ask, "Why?"  Examined objectively and logically, this is absurd.  IF someone you trust feels the need to shout "Duck!" at you, then clearly there is no time for you to ask, "Why?" and for the person to respond, "Because there is a baseball/brick/satellite about to hit you on the back of the head!"

So far, everything I have stated is just undebateable observed phenomena.  I have yet to state any opinion.  My OPINION is that the change is unfortunate; that we would all be better off if grownups could still yell, "Duck!" and have people "duck" without first asking "Why?"

Assuming that I am correct in my observations, and that we are unlikely to immediately "duck" when a trusted friend or family members tells us to, the question is, appropriately, WHY?  This brings up an entire range of other questions.  Is the change simply part of the growth process -- the change from childhood to adulthood?  Or has there been a fundamental change in our society?  Perhaps people are simply less trusting today.  Perhaps we, and especially our children, are simply less active.  In my childhood, most of our activities involved actually moving around.  We had no video games or even videos, and most activities that involved sitting in one spot for more than a few minutes were considered boring.  Today, children are less likely to be in a situation in which they are about to be hit by a baseball, or stung by a bee.  Hit by a video baseball or stung by a video bee really does not carry the same urgency as something that will truly raise a welt.

Perhaps it all relates to issues of independence and control, and our reluctance to subjugate our own wills to that of anyone else.  In my childhood, we were more likely to do things simply because we were told to do them.  We did not ask for reasons -- perhaps AFTER we did what we were told, but certainly not before.

Or perhaps the change comes from the other direction.  Perhaps those who GIVE the urgent commands are less sincere, and more likely to be pulling some sort of prank on us, or making a joke, and we are wisely adapting to this new reality.  If so, this is very sad, and raises a "chicken or egg" question.  If there is a significant chance that, by ducking, we place ourselves at more risk than by not ducking, then it is only logical NOT to duck -- but it is also quite tragic, and means that we are all collectively contributing to this lack of trust -- similar to the idea that by insisting that doors be locked, we are condoning theft of items from unlocked vehicles and homes.

As I continue my speculation, I fear that there are larger issues involved.  IF we lack even this modicum of trust in our most trusted associates -- if we must always ask "Why?" even of them, then what hope is there for situations that require cooperation with those for whom we hold less trust, or even fear.  We do not trust politicians from "the other side" and we do not even trust the politicians that we ourselves vote for.  We know that our politicians must work together to accomplish anything, yet we endorse the fact that politicians from opposing sides refuse to trust each other.

By advocating and embracing the idea that we must maintain our own personal control and independence, and offer unquestioning trust to no one, we isolate ourselves and weaken our society.  You will NEVER have all the information or skills to be totally self-sufficient.  To a certain extent, you will always be stumbling along in the dark, with unseen others offering assistance.  We will all be better off if you can find it in yourself to take that assistance, at least occasionally.

Locked Doors

I was probably in fourth or fifth grade when our class was shown a film about eskimos.  (I'm pretty sure that the people in the film were referred to as "eskimos", although I realize that that term may now be considered out-of-date or even offensive.  I apologize if my use of the term is inappropriate or offensive.)

One particular scene has stuck with me.  A man was walking along a trail, bound for another village, looking toward the shore of a body of water, when he saw a particular piece of driftwood -- a fairly large log -- that he thought would be nice to have.  He left the trail, walked to the shoreline, picked up the driftwood, brought it back to the trail, and set it beside the trail where everyone walking along the trail would probably notice it, in a position that made it obvious that SOMEONE had placed it there.  The narrator stated that the man did not want to bother lugging it all the way to the next village and back, and would leave it there to pick up on his way back home.  Since it would be obvious to everyone that someone had already claimed that particular piece of driftwood, no one else would take it.

Recently, while a friend of mine's front door was left unlocked, someone came into her house and took several valuable objects -- mostly electronics.  Technically, they did not "break in", since my friend's daughter had left the door unlocked while she went for a walk.  Still, to even SEE the objects they had to first enter my friend's house, AND it seems highly likely that they realized the valuable objects had already been "claimed" by someone.  It's not as if they noticed naturally-occuring objects lying on the seashore.

People commonly leave valuable objects in their cars, visible to passers-by -- IF the passers-by happen to glance INSIDE the car.  IF someone leaves a valuable object in their car, and later finds it missing, then friends, acquaintances, and even the police are likely to ask them whether or not their car door had been locked prior to the disappearance of the object.  If their response is that they had left their car door unlocked, then people are likely to be critical of THEM, rather that the thief who removed the object.  What did they EXPECT, leaving their door unlocked, with a valuable item visible to passers-by?

Words cannot appropriately express my feelings on this subject.  An unlocked door is NOT an invitation to steal, and anyone who states that such behaviour is predictable is, in a way, encouraging it.  As long as it remains clear that our valuable possessions are indeed OUR valuable possessions, then we should be able to leave them unprotected, and anyone who robs us should not only be prosecuted, but shunned by the rest of society as an evil-doer.

In fact, there is a part of me that believes NONE of us should EVER lock our doors, and that by locking doors at all we are promoting the idea that robbery is acceptable behaviour.  Anytime I know that something is yours and not mine, then it is wrong for me to take possession of it, even if it is POSSIBLE for me to take possession of it.

(At this moment in the discussion, some readers might begin to think in less concrete terms.  What if someone takes credit for something YOU actually accomplished, or somehow "takes" your job, or your significant other?  The truth is complicated, and these are questions for another discussion, and totally beyond what I am writing about here.  I am writing only about actual physical objects that might be carried off or destroyed by someone else gaining access to them.)

There is also the issue of locking doors of public buildings for security.  I would prefer that church doors always remain unlocked,and SOME still do!  I also take issue with the recent increases in school security.  As I was growing up, school doors always remained unlocked during the school day, and were actually propped OPEN during warm weather.  Now we lock our school doors, and require visitors to "check in" or otherwise obtain some sort of permission for being there.  While I understand that our need for "safety" and "security" necessitated these changes, I cannot escape the belief that by resorting to these measures -- by locking the doors -- we are condoning and possibly even encouraging the negative behavior we are attempting the thwart.

I must confess that I DO lock my doors, and I avoid leaving valuable items visible in my car, even with the doors locked, since I have little faith in passers-by, and I do not wish to lose my possessions.  Still, on a philosophical level, I believe our world would be better if we all left our doors unlocked and united against anyone who would even CONSIDER removing that which did not belong to them, or anyone who would menace our schools, or violate the sanctity of our houses of worship.

In practical terms, our modern world offers the related issue of things that seem to be "lost".  If I am walking through a parking lot, and see a penny on the ground, I am aware that the penny did not appear there naturally -- at some point, someone else possessed the penny.  At the same time, it is unlikely that they deliberately left the penny in that spot, intending to return for it.  I will probably pick the penny up and assume possession of it, and I will not feel guilty or morally ambiguous.

To a certain extent, the question of "lost" items revolves around their value.  Years ago, I found a bag containing an expensive camera, along with several other items, lying in the middle of a busy street.  I knew that the bag did not belong to me.  I doubted that anyone had placed it there deliberately.  I suspected that if I left it there, eventually all of the contents of the bag would be destroyed by passing cars.  I was faced with various options.  Keeping the items for myself seemed wrong.  I COULD have taken the bag, and placed an ad in the "lost and found" section of our local newspaper.  That might have been best.  Instead, I turned the bag in at our local police station, explaining where I had found it.  I hope perhaps it was eventually reunited with its proper owner.

The question of lost items can be difficult and complicated.  IF the camera was never reunited with its proper owner, then I suppose I had more claim to it that anyone else did.  If it was eventually claimed by one of the police officers, or auctioned off to earn money for the city, then this, too, seems unjust.  Then again, if I had taken out a "lost and found" ad, then ANYONE could have contacted me, claiming that the camera was theirs, and I might not have been able to determine whether they were telling the truth.  Truth is complicated.

Still, someone who enters my home or my vehicle, whether or not the doors are locked, cannot reasonably and sanely claim that they thought MY camera was "lost" and therefore available for the taking -- even if my camera was left out on the table on my front porch.  In these cases, theft remains theft, and it really should not make any difference to ANYONE whether the doors were locked or unlocked.  This is one of those cases in which the truth is NOT complicated.

This is also one of those cases in which I can clearly identify a problem, but cannot identify a solution.  We SHOULD not steal from each other, and we SHOULD not need to lock our doors, but I do not know how to change the world to accomplish this.

Talking Politics

I have profoundly mixed feelings about talking or writing about politics.

On the one hand, politics can be an extremely important issue, strongly influencing our lives and our "pursuit of happiness".  On the other hand, politics has become SO polarized, and so mired in slogans and over-simplifications, that expressing disagreement with someone's political views can cause them to automatically discount everything else you have to say, and in fact change your personal relationship with them forever.

I have stated elsewhere in this blog that there is one and ONLY one central political "issue" -- the question of the proper role of government in our lives.  I have also stated that this question rarely gets asked, because people tend to believe that the answer is obvious.

A recurring theme of this blog is the idea that communication can help us resolve our differences and solve our problems.  Unfortunately, what passes for political "discussion" these days is often mostly both sides reciting well-rehearsed distortions and over-simplifications of each others' positions, while refusing to agree on ANYTHING and insisting that the truth is far from complicated.

In fact, we, as a nation, now accept an alternative view of reality -- the view put forth by politicians.  If we want to know whether a certain asteroid will strike the earth, we listen not to astronomers and astrophysicists, but to Congressmen and Senators.  If we want to know the best way to win a war, we listen not to soldiers and generals, but to our politicians.  And if we want to analyze our economy, and the problems and solutions facing our economy, we listen not to economists and those who have spent a lifetime studying economics, but instead to our political leaders.

Personally, I find this all to be quite exasperating.  I freely admit that I do not have the answers, but I also recognize when OTHER people do not have the answers.  Sadly, we seem to be living in an age of increased personal certainty, when people are more and more convinced that THEY are RIGHT.  (Hmmm ... sounds like a topic for a future blog-post.)

My frustration with political discussion leads me to want to talk about it and write about it ... but then I fear that I will end up shutting down communication, rather than assisting or enabling it.  And if I shut down communication, then I am part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

The problem is amplified somewhat by my strong belief that the truth tends to be complicated.  Many of the most difficult issues facing us today are deeply complicated, and I will oppose anyone who argues that the answers are clear-cut, even if I personally agree with their "side" of the issue.  That's a complicated idea.  To re-state, even if I AGREE with your position on gun control, or abortion, or Israel, or same-sex marriage, I will DISAGREE with you if you claim that the issue is not complicated.

The result of all this is that I end up with strong feelings about politics, and I enjoy actually communicating about politics (though I hate "spin" and distortion and over-simplification), and I end up wanting to WRITE about politics ... but then I end up being reluctant to post political writings in a blog.

This is compounded by the fact that I am painfully aware that words are inherently unclear, and anything ANYONE writes can probably be twisted to the point that it bears no resemblance to their true belief -- so if you WANT to twist my words, and claim that I believe something I do NOT believe, you will probably be successful.  But that is always the case with words, and not limited to politics.

So, as America hurtles once more toward a possibly world-changing election, I once again resolve to try to be bolder about writing about politics.  I suppose we should ALL try harder to actually COMMUNICATE about politics -- that is, actually trying to UNDERSTAND each other rather than demonize each other, and actually trying to figure stuff out rather than simply insisting that WE are RIGHT.

Truth is complicated.