Some things just don't necessarily follow

-A A +A
By Mary Schmuck

 As I listen to various people and ponder statements made, it seems to me that some things just don't necessarily follow from initial statements.

Take for an example: to help you remember, set up some “memory pegs” or associated ideas. But how in the world will doubling what I am trying to remember going to help me - when remembering is my basic challenge?

Another goofy (to me) proposal:  if it is on the Internet it much be true, accurate, real. Says who else?  Who is the monitor for accuracy?

“But this product is so much cheaper....”  But what is the full cost of it?  Longer term endurance, unaccounted-for travel costs, safe disposability,  healthful to use? So - is it really cheaper then beyond my very few minutes at the checkout counter?

Or another: is it necessarily the case that what is good for me or a few others will be good for many, let alone all? If I am part of all, how then is it really good for me?

How about: 'he has done nothing right (about this or that issue)'?  Really? How can so much effort over time on complex issues yield such total error?

It seems to me that negotiating trade agreements often carry a similar line of thought. Our side negotiates hard for terms that benefit us (and we often have powerful clout in such deliberations), but is the outcome good for others too? What are the consequences longer term – even for us. I keep thinking of our North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA], especially as we negotiate and sign on to other Free Trade Agreements around the world. In NAFTA we held out for good farm subsides for our farmers (how many were big corporate agribusinesses?); this resulted in our farm products sold in Mexico undercutting Mexico's agricultural sector, their younger people needing jobs and moving north to look for them. What then are the full costs of trade agreements?

Or an increasingly hard question: does working hard in the US economy (no longer just ours to shape) guarantee “making it”? Or do matters like tax policy, or where one is born/lives even in this country have finger-on-the-scale influences, making success from hard work less assured? Does such focus on personal responsibility as the sole determiner of success misguided (if not cruel at some point)? Granted we all could benefit from being more personally responsible; what about our responsibility to one another and the system we together build and maintain that has all kinds of consequences for each and all?  

Or another question: if a matter is not investigated, it is not a problem? Does it even exist? Constitute a problem? What about the responsibility to wisely investigate?

How is this idea: if areas of our global community get warmer, all consequences will be beneficial? Is anything in life like that?

Or, 'big money in election campaigns won't necessarily corrupt the process.'   If money talks, is that the only way to get heard? Does it matter that it be public knowledge – before an election – who all are contributing the big money? And after an election, what difference do those mega contributions make in the work of our designated decision-makers?

Yet another: the only value needing consideration is reducing our debt. Was Mr. Lenin correct: only financial matters really count?

How about: I pay careful attention to daily weather reports (Need an umbrella? What to wear? Transportation timing and mode considerations?) Granted weather people predictions sometimes turn out differently, they know what they are doing after all. But the range of scientists, very highly trained, are just a bunch or charlatans when it comes to analysis of weather patterns and all indicators of important changes?

Is anyone professing that consistency is our most renowned human quality?