The other night I was called out for coming to supper in my pajamas—let me stress that for me, pajamas are only the bottom and I wear a T-shirt on top. In my further defense, I have to say I helped cook supper, and it was in my cottage. But those aren’t really good excuses. During pandemic I spent the day in whatever I slept in but found it important to clean up and dress for supper—for my own sake as well as the rest of my local family. Lately I’ve occasionally slipped, and Jordan was letting me know about it. She didn’t say “absolutely no pajamas,” but I heard it in her tone. And it got me to thinking about absolutism.
In
today’s world, absolutism—the rigid acceptance of rules or philosophy or
theology—really bothers me. I find myself looking for people who have a little
give and take in them, who can look at each situation individually rather than
blindly applying a set rule to it. A prime example is all the posts you see that
say if people would just obey the police and not resist, there would be no
police brutality. They even apply it to the George Floyd murder. Really? He was
way beyond resisting while Chauvin still had his knee on his neck. And we hear
of victims, especially black men and boys, shot in the back. Sure, they’re
fleeing out of fright. Does that mean you have to kill them? What about the
73-year-old lady with dementia—was it in Colorado?—who was brutally mishandled,
her arm broken and shoulder dislocated. And the officer who did it later
bragged about it, about hearing the shoulder pop. Sure, she resisted—she didn’t
understand. Could the officers not have defused the situation without brutality?
Police, like anyone else, need empathy, not absolutism. Fortunately, many of
them have it.
I spar
on Facebook—no other word for it—with an old family friend, the son of friends.
I remember him as a youngster. Today we have totally different approaches to
life, and, to me, his is absolutism. He sees everything in black and white.
Recently in a response to a post that denied the idea that colleges teach
liberalism and pointed out instead that colleges and universities teach
critical thinking—if that makes folks lean left, so be it. He replied that he
had gone to college, was educated, and he doesn’t lean left (how well I know that).
But then he said, “There is absolutely no doubt that colleges teach liberalism.”
I cautioned him against the word absolutely, but I know it fell on deaf ears.
Today
it was that people who would rather collect unemployment than work are the
major problem in this country. Uh, no. People collecting unemployment have to
show proof of an active job search and unemployment is not forever. Most people
collecting it would much rather be gainfully employed. It’s a hard market,
though it’s getting better.
I am
delighted that the almost-fifteen grandson I live with wants to discuss these
issues, wants to see both sides. Sometimes I think he leans a bit right, but
that’s okay as long as he doesn’t topple over into extremism. I pray that I too
may always look at both sides of an event, incident, whatever. I remember a
saying my mom was particularly fond of: Before you judge another person, walk a
mile in their moccasins.
From
the deeply philosophical to the mundane: it’s another gloomy, damp day, but my
mood has been better (as if you needed to know that). Or was, until I tried to
write 300 words of a new book. They are dreck and will probably be deleted. But
I remind myself that those first words are the hardest. I will sleep on it and try
again tomorrow. Meantime, out of the blue I had an idea for another mystery in
the Kelly O’Connell series. I’m playing with it in my mind.
Jordan
is gone tonight, helping a friend move (and that’s another story about a
landlord with no empathy), and I am fixing supper for the boys. Stuffed chicken
thighs that are so easy that I’m embarrassed to talk about it. Maybe in next week’s
“Gourmet on a Hot Plate” blog. And I am almost finished with one of the best mysteries
I’ve read in a while. A pleasant evening.
Tomorrow?
Sunshine is predicted!