Wampeters

"Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative"
-Kurt Vonnegut

It's a very strange idea, but in today's day and age, it's true. And I don't think Vonnegut is the pure pessimist that most people believe him to be. He's a humanist, after all, and he is severely disappointed in mankind, as are many people (including myself). I must express my trepidation, however, in delving into the subject we are about to encounter together (the I who is writing this now and the Me who will read it alone later and cry) without a palpable sense of self-awareness. No one I have read has accurately approached this subject without coming off in some idiotic fashion or one-sided way. There is something pertinent in what Mr. Vonnegut says, for the most part. It is a simplified version of what many people in America feel today: That there are only two sides to everything.

What a country!

What I find, though, is not that people are too dumb to imagine that another side exists or that two different opinions can be expressed without the collapse of the Union. It's just that one must be right. Each thinks his(or certainly her) team should be allowed to kick the winning field goal as the time runs out. Somehow they are both right in their minds, and I honestly don't think that can be the case in all instances.

But what do I know, huh? I operate on the Internet's dime, doling out opinion for free over this world wide web. If only I had a voluptuous set of breasts and an unquenchable thirst for having objects hastily thrust upon me, perhaps I would have more of a stake in this claim.

Or maybe not.

Either way, social security can be both good and bad for the nation and should be dealt with accordingly. I certainly do not see the program as the elderly cannibalizing the young, but I am also not a bloodthirsty, heartless conservative.

That was a joke.

I see things as clearly as possible. I, for instance, can be shaky on certain issues because I do not believe that everyone has a fair shake at things. Do I believe that the person should die a horrible death because of it? No. I just do not believe the system is set up to help everyone. Unfortunately, some of the people in this country do not get what they want. That is not promised and neither does it have to come to pass. I realize that, but it does not change my position.

I am a Populist in most cases, though it does not seem that way by the put forth in the previous paragraph. I believe simply that the American people should come first in this thing we happen to call a democracy. It is a very pessimistic position to hold, because I fear that most people do not get what they desire - even their necessities! - in this economy. But I also feel there is a sense of entitlement that is faulty as well.

Wait just a minute.

It is not the blacks or the hispanics or even all the types of Indians who have the entitlement fetish in this country. I fully believe that it is the rich who believe that they, not the "little guy", deserve the fair shake at society. They are burdened with having just most of the wealth and not all of it, and that is not fair. They have worked unbelievably hard to carve the country up just the way they like it, but not every volley is in their court.

What a shame!

But that is just my side of the argument. And it is a very small one. Even a cube has more than two sides, does it not? I have my reasons for what I believe, but there are many who do not suscribe to my certain set of social commandments. It's all well and good, but I understand all the sides. It's a lot to think about while putting together an argument for all of them, is it not? Perhaps, then, that is why it comes out so confused when people try to rationalize the argument for a polyphony of views, so to speak.

That is, including myself. The word agenda merely means a set of things to be considered, not a set of things that have to come to pass.