HALF-FULL OR HALF-EMPTY, IT'S STILL THE SAME LEVEL

I used to use the glass half-full/half-empty illustration to show optimism versus pessimism. But a more nuanced understanding has to include the fact that it changes according to what we want it to be or  really believe it to be or what better suits our purposes.

In some situations, it would be better to say that the glass is totally empty or completely full as that is real perspective that is being communicated. But for argument sake, let's just say that most of the time the liquid is at mid level. The emptiness or fullness depends on who's in charge. And the perspective potentially changes when someone else is in charge even though in reality not much is different. Unless of course, there are two different glasses. Funny how size and amount can affect your optimism.

Another perspective looks at it as being full; it's just not full of the same thing. To me, this doesn't denote optimism or pessimism but rather a statement of what's there or that fullness is not determined by one thing. My Dad used to get so upset when a waitress didn't fill his second or third cup of coffee to the rim. To him, the concept of free refills meant refilled to the original level. My pointing out that they were nonetheless free made no difference. At the time, I didn't realize the philosophical, sociological, theological and political ramifications that were involved.

The overlooked aspect is what kind of liquid is in the glass. For some things, half of glass is quite enough, like poison. You might be glad that you didn't drink a full glass. Or not, if it didn't give you the desired affect. In AA they say one glass is too many and a hundred are not enough. I'm not sure if that applies to half-full and half-empty glasses, but I suspect that it does. To a kidney patient, a half glass of water might be overdoing but yet, the desire is quite likely for a full one. In some situations it's hard to say what's better but in others, it's pretty clear.

In the end, even with all the other considerations, it often comes down to how you are feeling at the moment or what you are like most of the time. Hypercritical people are likely going to see the negatives. On a good day, they are at best teachers who are assigning grade values based on their own criteria's. Noncritical people might not even notice. I suspect  that something in between is more practical, but I'd rather err on the side of possibility, acceptance and gratitude when I can. There's just too much that otherwise is missed.

CONVENIENT DISSONANCE

After taking much of the summer off, it's hard to get back to thinking that anyone would want to hear what I have to say. I like to think I'm providing some push back more than clever insight. Hopefully it's more about possibilities than absolutes. Besides, I might change my mind. But I won't try to convince anyone that I never held a contrary opinion. 

The only things I can say for sure is that I don't want to see someone named Clinton or Bush in the White House in the next election or any election after that. I personally would go for someone named Gonzales or Nguyen. And I don't want to see our troops bogged down in politically run wars, especially where others are sitting back and watching. 

There's more than enough going on in the world right now to talk about; Isis, Ebola, Hillary, Gaza, Liberia, minimum wage, Somalia, Scotland, Putin, rain, sports, lack of rain, black man in the White House, inversions, national debt, immigration, maintaining the oligarchy, and of course the upcoming elections. For a time in which reliable facts are hard to come by, one can always know there'll be at least two dominant and divergent views.

You probably know the labels quite well; left or right, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, traditionalist or progressive, religious right or nonreligious left and etc. Much is said about the eroding middle and how more extreme positions are now the norm. This dance of limited choices and manipulated outcomes stifles any enthusiasm for believing that the system works. It's more and more apparent how much of governance runs on money and lies. Instead of a participatory democracy, we have special favor for sale with the suppression of anything and anyone who would do otherwise.

A popular belief is that if you can get voters enraged and obsessed about particular issues, they won't see what is really going on. Another one is that people will be swayed by cheesy and/or slanderous commercials. Some can be led by the nose to vote solidly one way or the other. But most know it’s usually a matter of convincing the undecided's and independents that makes the difference. I don't think this is ever done that well, as something in between the two extremes isn't offered. Many have to hold their own nose when voting because both choices stink.

It's not any surprise that the two party system works so poorly when there's no middle left. But they do agree on making it difficult or almost impossible for a third party to emerge. Kudos to the Tea Party for knowing that it is easier to just take over a dominant player. But are they trustworthy? Will they do what is best for the country? In the end, they might not be anything more than the Moral Majority with assault rifles.

I reluctantly predict that this convenient dissonance will continue to claim valiant causes without accomplishing anything of note. And all the while, the country will drift even further toward the edge of the earth. But not to worry, there still will be time to play golf.