'I went out to a hazel wood

Because a fire was in my head.'

Too much writing elsewhere (including inside my head, where those page-long sentences sometimes remain until I can manage to parse them out at least somewhat before wrestling them into print) to get stuff down here in the past few days.

But the problem is, when I do this I get lost on here, and by the time I come back I've had nine gorgeous conversations, sixteen confusing ones, finished reading two books, and written a few novel-length journal entries. Then I come back here and wonder, What was I saying? Not to mention, Did I figure out what my blog 'persona' (which seems at times a necessary contrivance in order just to get the thing done!) is going to be yet? And, do I have to?

Anyway, I went to a lecture by Fr. Michael Fones, of the Catherine of Siena Insitute, the Dominicans, and Catholicism in general, about prudential judgment, which is, I think, an overall good thing to practice, whatever your religious or irreligious stripe. It was an engaging and useful talk, and it was directed primarily toward how the use of prudential judgment might inform our political decisions. I am as frustrated as anyone else about the state of governance and politics, and I have no intention of going into depth about my abundant grievances here (which would also result in destroying the coyly vague, nonsectarian portion of my blog persona - the only part of that persona that remains consistent!) - without which it would be difficult to justify lambasting the reprehensible actions of politicos of every stripe when I see fit. Nor am I going to give the outline of what he said; maybe he will put the slides or a print version online - because it was a very useful presentation - and then I will put in a link.

That being said, one great point he made is that if we are to be wise citizens we cannot afford to be one-issue voters. I think that seems obvious at first hearing, yet on reflection I would argue many, many people are at least nearly that: one concern is so close to their hearts that it overrides their reason on other issues. In the United States this becomes a thorny problem due to the persistence and rigidity of the two-party system wherein a huge portion of voters will never find a candidate with whom they can fully agree. For a candidate to shirk part of a party's platform means no party money, which means in practice unelectability for the daring renegade. So candidates must swallow those aspects they don't entirely agree with -- and then voters must, as well, when they get to the booth to choose the lesser of two evils.