Food, table settings and decorations

I received a private message from a woman trying to save me from myself. Thank you, O Anonymous Sage.

She wrote to straighten me out following my post regarding pictures of food, table settings and decorations. She admitted she could not account for the pictures of food. But she knew things about the table settings and decorations I had never imagined.

To wit: people (principally women) who create table settings and decorations pour themselves into them. They deeply care about them. These creative efforts express important things about themselves. Cindy Grace posted a comment that aptly sums this up: when you spend 36 hours preparing you've earned the right to post a picture of it.

I agree. I apologize. I honestly never thought of that.  I never knew. This probably illustrates one of the differences between (most) women and (most) men. I still won't care to look at the pictures but at least I understand the urge to post them. Go for it, Facebook friends.

Now about the food. Often, people (men and women) post pictures of something they are about to eat. Quite often they did not prepare it. They're sitting at Applebees and believe with all their hearts that the world will not have a complete day until it has seen their picture of a honey mustard salad dressing.

I can honestly say that seeing pictures of food does not materially affect my day. I barely glance at the food I shovel down my own gullet. If you choose to continue posting pictures of what you shovel down yours, I will continue not to pay attention.  Bon appetit.

IMPORTANT NOTE: this is not the same question my Significant Other often poses: “You mean to tell me you REALLY didn't see the one item I hoped you would magically understand I wanted you to eat for lunch, thereby sparing me the agony of serving it to you as a leftover for supper?”

That question would require an entirely separate post.

Collective or Individual: Where's the Love?

I just watched the final episode of Crash Course, a set of world history videos posted online. John Green, Kenyon College grad and acclaimed author of young adult fiction, produced them. They are informative and genuinely entertaining. I learned a lot watching them. I absolutely recommend them.

But one of Green's themes in the last episode disturbs me. He calls individualism a “new idea” and makes it clear he thinks there's too much of it going around. As we start to live into whatever reality the Affordable Care Act brings, I think this attitude matters. To the contrary, I submit there is not enough individualism going around these days.  I believe individualism can be a loving manner of living.

But I mean something very particular about individualism. It has nothing to do with cowboys in pickup ads; certainly not with survivalist conspiracy thinkers stocking their bunkers. No, true individualism means taking responsibility for your own life. It means accepting the consequences for our mistakes and saying Sorry when we should. It means living with the outcomes of our decisions without complaint. It even means helping others in need. It especially means helping the needy—but on our own initiative and if possible, in person.

As always, John Green gave various opinions a fair airing. But in the end he came down on the side of collective political policy. (Note that I did not accuse him of advocating collectivism, one of the nastier side-effects of communism.) He rightly stated that Americans born in the first half of the 20^th century experienced serious limits on personal freedom. He uncritically claimed that the New Deal shortened the Great Depression. In fact, it probably deepened the Depression and economic recovery did not really get going until we began supplying war materiel to the Brits in the very late 30's. He spoke of the draft (“limiting your freedom not to have to go fight in a war”). I have no argument with this point.

But Green gave another example that applies directly to Obamacare. He spoke of the creation of Social Security as a limit on personal freedom, saying, “You know, as in your freedom not to have to pay to take care of old people.” That is factually incorrect and it may reveal a bad attitude. Social Security is supposed to be a federal program that compels us to save for our own retirement. The truth, of course, is that it has become the biggest Ponzi Scheme in history. And that attitude gets to me. It assumes that any person who does not share one's own biases is selfish.

To be fair, Green openly admits that he has biases. And I genuinely like his work. But as we rush blind and afraid into yet another collective federal program I wish I could somehow put up a giant stop sign. I think it will hurt, not help, people. And I am beyond tired of having people who disagree with me think I am selfish. I am trying my best to do the loving thing for people. And I honestly feel that individualism creates the best conditions to grow that plant.

Individualism has deep and ancient roots. The Old Testament Hebrews believed in an individual God, and while Yahweh certainly held them accountable for their collective behaviors, he also treated them as individuals. This strain runs through Greek Classical philosophy, the New Testament, and thinkers as varied as Aquinas and de Tocqueville. Ironically, liberalism arose from individualism.

When done right individualism creates human safety and happiness. When we take responsibility—for ourselves and others—when we sacrifice, save, keep our noses clean, and all the rest of it, life gets better for almost everybody. I honestly believe history teaches this. I wish history teachers taught it, too.