Where we go from here

In discussion and debate it is important to find a common ground from which all persons can begin. This, to me, is that:

We are all alive and interested in a better future.

From discussions with my grandmother, business research, discussions with my wife, the study of religion and spiritualism, and all the positive relationships with friends, what we all share in common, whether Republican, black, young or Buddhist, is the thirst for a good life.

I make no claim to knowing exactly what is going on these days but have had the advantage of growing up with a father that believes in speaking the truth (as often as possible). Whenever I had a question, and even when I didn't, the reality was before my eyes laid out like an animal killed on the road. Too much information and awareness, and too many end-of-the-world environmental and social issues made me feel at one point that going through life with a multiple personality disorder might not only be safer but maybe a little more interesting. Then again no. Center, breath, relax, focus.

So I'm happy to say that I've pulled myself together and I am still looking intently on what has happened and where we go from here. But, in a way I was assimilated, maybe.

The many smoky monologue moments I have valued have mixed with the debatable debates I've had with persons. [It takes a lot of energy to explain something that is not understood to the other. But that is what parents and dear friends do.] Maybe it's not worth trying to explain it, just living it and doing it.

I am now, once again, interested: Has the pendulum swung from the effects of the ideas behind civil and human rights and "WAR IS OVER" in the sixties? And where it is swinging back to now. Part of balancing the equation is the question of what makes one extreme see the need for restoration of control and order and the opposite viewpoint believe there is a need for anarchy and complete personal freedom. It may be that we need both the "law from above" (whether it be religion, culture, conscience, or repercussions federally punishable by up to 8 years in prison) as well as the freedom that we all have innately from within?

The sixties I see and hear about appear to be a special time where the younger generation's rebellion against the status quo allowed for special moments and space for a social and economic idealism to make a return. Like all things, bittersweet since its ultimate result was dazed and confused from the use of drugs and realization that living in a capitalistic society, one needs more than love to survive.

Quinn's proverbial dissecting blade from Ishmael, a book in which the world's population was divided into two categories, takers and leavers, led by Abraham's sons, Ishmael and Isaac, is a very defined line, even between people today. If you feel the Earth is ours to use until our children inherit it, you are a leaver. If you believe you really own the land and it is yours and only yours, you are a taker. But this is equivalent to "taking" the two major political groups, Democrat and Republican, and say that the future depends on who comes up with the best solution to today's issues.

My interest is in seeing that this is a dividing debate and as soon as we have two "takers" who want to hash it out, we will end up with high blood pressure and more problems.

It is not always this way I am happy to say: I have just had another political and economic discussion with my grandmother which sifted out to unveil that we were both in agreement. We also agree that we both worry about our future. (She will say that her time is over and she has nothing to worry about but I see that she thinks about such things.)

So here's to good debates, not abusing, but using, discuss and disgust, all the while keeping your head up and enjoying the ride.