Abe
In that Dear Abe speaks as George Zidbeck's alter ego, know that both share the same background. For those interested, H. (Honorable) Abe refers you to earlier issues wherein Mr. Zidbeck wrote monthly under the pen name of Country Squire from Feb. 2010 thru April 2013. (See Archives)
|
|
|
The Squire and Abe Shoulder to Shoulder
by George Zidbeck
A Foreword: A few months back I mentioned an intent to start writing a novel come fall. To that end, I announced the end of my subaltern Country Squire, and inserted an alter ego identified as Dear Abe, an advice columnist. The new format came close, but fell short. The questions thrown at Abe and the answers given did not match the timbre and urgency of societies fracturing worldwide. I have thus decided to allow both the Squire and Abe to hobnob in response to major current events – allowing them to respectively analyze and interpret such events individually. You are invited to eavesdrop on their exchanges wherein each speaks from differing orientations.
 |
SQ: Listen, Abe. I'm interested in your response to what's going wrong in this world of ours. This nation — and also much of the world here and there, now and then — experiences tragic confrontations. Politically, religiously, geologically — you name it. To a large measure, you and I might agree on some solutions, but differ on the steps necessary to effect them. For example, there's an old saying, the poor are always amongst us.
Abe: Well, that sort of sounds like we'll both be Dear Abes, but advising on a grander scale.
SQ: I guess I didn't put that forward too well. Try this notion. I'd like us to function as pundits where at times we might react upon each other as separate devils' advocates. For instance, Ramadan just concluded for Muslims worldwide. I suspect you and I likely would have varied perspectives on that religious proscription. I can see myself giving objective anthropological judgments where you might deliver subjective and mundane viewpoints.
Abe: Oh, that's cute. You take the objective role while I am locked into the subjective, thus biased, position. Thank you Mr. Nice and Fair Squire!
SQ: You're being difficult and premature, Abe. The only point I'm trying to make is that you and I combined will hopefully give the readers points to ponder, and also provide some sentiments not crossing the minds of the public at large. Neither you nor I have an absolute lock on the truth, but combined we might just help blocs of citizens to better think through some problems that vex the U.S.A and other nations.
Equally important dear Abe, we just might learn to more comfortably abide one another and even improve our efforts to laugh more at ourselves and humanity at large.
Abe: Well, I'm for that. Assuming that the Slo Coast Journal editor, Judy Sullivan, allows us both to jump into the ring and verbally prance about, what do you suggest for our first topic?
SQ: I'll give you first crack. Whatever you decide. Even if Ms. Sullivan vetoes the notion for the e-journal, I like the notion of our working together and I'm proposing we meet regularly from hereon and kind of work our way through the world's ills and see whether we have some palliatives to offer here and there. And it's nice talking to you, Abe. I think we're gonna get along simply swell even if it's just you and I and nobody else.
Abe: Hear-hear! Okay, how about going with the theme you mentioned earlier about the poor always being among us. I suggest greed as the first subject. You start, Squire, unload your wisdom on such an important matter.
SQ: Although the poor are always amongst us, conversely it can be said for many societies that the rich are ever present. The question then requires us to focus on the definition of rich and poor and the nature of the society wherein such populations dwell. I ask for such focus because I prefer we not complicate this analysis of greed by bringing in the modern phenomena of a middle class. Moreover, I do believe we can discuss greed and poverty on many levels and many dimensions – agricultural, industrial, political, economical, and----
Abe: Whoa, hold up Squire. Seems like you're going multi-dimensional on me and the readers. Keep it simple. You anthro majors can go on endlessly on cultural variations and differentials.
SQ: You're right. I can get carried away. But sometimes simplicity inhibits a resolution. But all right, let's talk about greed in the context of the vast accumulation of corporate wealth held by what many claim to be 1% of the U.S. population. I hold such wealth in the hands of so few exemplifies greed. This greed, per se, creates influence that perpetuates and magnifies that greed. As that wealth in the hands of so few expands, so does the influence. And with each degree of expansion, we see a reducto ad absurdum in the wealth and influence of the 99 %. Even a mathematical dunce can see where that leads.
Abe: Help me out, Squire. Where does that lead?
SQ: The current 99% becomes 99.9% with no influence or political pull. The United States eventually becomes the land of the impoverished and enslaved.
Abe: That's a dark picture and a most frightening one. And on paper likely one to happen within the next decade. Except for an element that I believe will flow from our national character.
SQ: National character? Explain.
Abe: Glad to. And, I'm also glad I refrained from cutting in here and there – giving you, my dear Squire, a chance to refine your thought processes. The character trait that I have in mind is the one that triggered our revolution. When the truly greedy rich carry to excess their estates and their influence, we the people -- the 99% if you will – will then determine that we once more have taxation without representation, and literally take to the streets.
SQ: You make it sound like a script from the movie, Streets of New York.
Abe: Precisely.
SQ: Do you really believe that?
Abe: Most certainly.
SQ: I don't know, I just don't know….
Abe: What's your problem Sir Knows It All?
SQ: You address the issue with too much certainty. I don't doubt that mobs have and can take to the streets. But, I do not see the majority of those 99.9% dispossessed Americans jumping into anarchy.
Abe: Frankly, neither do I, but think about your statement, think hard. Given near total dispossession, will it be the populace that creates anarchy or will that condition flow from the 1% super oligarchy that totally controls all three parties of government?
I'm not sure any current body politic can answer that question. You and I both will have to wait and see what happens in the next two or three elections. I hope you're wrong. So, I'm back where I was earlier: I just don't know….
Write to Dear Abe or the Country Squire
|
