This noodling came to mind this morning when I realized that quietly and mostly in secrecy there was a wussy-pussy presumption in my bedrock: If I were willing to listen to and consider the dearly-held beliefs I considered stupid, wouldn't it be fair if those holding stupid beliefs were likewise willing to listen to and consider the beliefs I considered more sensible? And of course "fair" has nothing to do with it: Stupidity brooks little or no reflection or reconsideration, so I can take my notions of fairness and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.
And this inegalitarian approach can make me crabby: If you won't listen to me a bit, why should I listen to you? It's pretty arrogant, and it's pretty hard to get over.
I guess I was thinking about the 2016 presidential news this morning when the phrase leaped up in my mind:
AN ASCENDANCY OF LOUTSI'm not entirely sure what's what or who's who in this phraseology, but it seemed to express the crabbiness that rears its head when one candidate steps outside the ring of human decency and lowers the insult boom on his or her opponent. Donald Trump gets most of the credit in this arena, but I see him as indicative of a time when everyone's feelings are hurt and emotional outrage takes center stage. "We're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take this anymore" was once a clarion call of the 1976 movie "Network." Enough with decency and modulated discourse! We tried that and the gamers nailed us to the wall. Everyone wants to be heard ... which probably means that nobody is listening. Let's gore some oxen ... but not mine, s'il vous plaît.
Couldn't we wall off, say, Wyoming, and move the Republicans there?
But are the Democrats much better? Maybe they could have New Mexico.
Grey skies this morning ... with an arrogant cherry on top.