"We're in a world

where good's not good enough." Ah, Shirley Manson... you phrase things so eloquently. I went to the diner with Jackson last night after I got out of work. (Poor guy didn't realize he had to work in the morning until it was 1:00AM and we were paying the check.) Anyway, we talked about a great many things from immigration to war to homelessness, etc. And in many cases we agreed: people have no clue what they're talking about when they talk about such things, and the points of view that they do express are most often centered around themselves and what's best for them.

But he was saying that a friend of his was anti-capitalistic. (The same friend who, apparently, just got promoted at work, now makes $15/hour and bought a new car; sounds like capitalism is doing him okay, right?) But the friends idealistic line of thinking was that in capitalism, people put too much value on menial things. And I personally also think that people do. But that's not capitalism's fault; it's commercialism's fault. It's people's fault. Captitalism is wonderful; it lets us own houses (not myself just yet, but I'm getting there), own cars, work where we choose (so long as it chooses us), have money to do things we like. As much as I tend to distrust government-types, I have to say that as far as an economy is concerned, capitalism is pretty much the way I'd want things to go. The problem is that people use and abuse it. Unfortunately, that's the problem with just about any theory of economics or politics. Take communism for example. Communism, at it's core, is a great idea. Everyone does equal amounts of work, and everyone receives (recieves?... damn "i before e except after c except in some cases" rule...) the same amount in return. But people corrupt the system, just like we do everything else. The same is true of capitalism; capitalism is fine, but people get greedy and "good" becomes "not good enough" and we strive to get more and more and more; more than our neighbors, more than our friends, more than what we used to have. We strive to get "what we deserve," what we've "earned." Pish-posh! I'm gradually learning to be happy not even with "good," but with "enough." And my life is truly happier for it.

Whilst we were talking about the various societal ails, and our respective desires to help, Jackson point out that it wasn't the less fortunate he wanted to help, but rather those who were all-too-fortunate and didn't realize it 'cause their heads were so far up their own asses. (My words, not his.) And that's a very noble goal of his, but I'm not sure if it's a realistic one. I, of course, pledged my support if he comes up with an idea. But seriously, how does one make someone who drops 30Gs a year for a country club membership feel pity for a homeless person? You can't. ... my mind is coming up empty in my search for which philosopher said this, but basically, in an ethical hierarchy, you can't convince someone lower on the rungs to move higher up. (I think his ordering was: driven by money, by aesthetics, and finally by ethics.) But someone who appreciates art and beauty has no more chance of talking a money-loving person into loving art than a minister could convince a poet that love of one isn't as great as the love of all. There is no rational reason someone on a higher rung can give to someone on a lower rung to make them realize they need to move up a rung; it has to be self-motivated, self-realized. And, unfortunately, most people are motivated, but only about themselves.