– From “Personal Privilege”, by Todd Essary –
What about the “big” “moral” questions? And, at this point in time, even before we can ask those questions, can we even agree or decide what qualifies as big, or moral? I don’t believe “we” can, because we are too confused and angry and disillusioned to agree on any such matters.
And despite (or in addition to) all of that, we’re too caught-up in finger-pointing mode to be able to look beyond problem or blame-oriented thinking. And, further beyond (and/or beneath) that problem/blame-orientation, we’re collectively in denial. Consider the United States of America as one entity. If we were one “person”, how would you honestly assess our mental health? How “stable” would you (honestly) say this person called “USA” is?
Personally, details don’t mean much to me. Details are day-to-day things. I’ll leave the details to the pundits and the speculators. Details sell advertising for the 24-hour news cycles, and give the talking heads something to talk about. Personally, I prefer a combination of big picture perspective mixed-in with fundamental truths. That’s my personal recipe, in two equal parts: 1.) all-encompassing point-of-view; plus 2. ) unbiased realism. Cooking directions: stir together, while simmering thoughtfully, into one big pot of “progress-oriented stew”.
So I’m going to just go ahead and “suggest” what the big, moral questions are. But, the truth of the matter is that I’m being delicate to say I’m suggesting anything about such questions. You can take them as suggestions, though, if it makes them more palatable to you. After all, anything anyone says is ultimately an “opinion”, isn’t it? Especially in the United States of America.
My college football coach had a saying about opinions: [entire post]