Both are better, neither is needed
View(s):A cousin of a cousin once entered a swanky department store in search of a shirt. (We men do the strangest things.) The man in the mall was accosted by a clerk. What they call a ‘personal purchase advisor’ or ‘gentleman’s gentleman’ or ‘shopping valet’. Their conversation went something like this. I am told…
“Good meu-ning, seur.” (Three syllables in this sir. Shades of Allo! Allo!)
“Ah, hallo hallo.”
“Is there anything I can do?”
“Buzz off?”
(Vain hope, that.)
“Seur is very kind. Maybe seur is getting married, seur?”
“Actually yes, but I’ve lost my shirt.”
(Not metaphorically speaking.)
“Excellent, seur. May one interest one in this range?”
“Ah, ok.”
“This is an exotic mauve, seur. That is, seur, an exquisite vermillion. Those, seur, are electric puce.”
“Ah, purple, are they?”
(Men can, it is said, distinguish about six colours. But don’t hold me to that.)
“Ah, ha, ha, seur is very kind. Would seur want to choose now, perhaps?”
“Ah, right. Which one looks better on me?”
“Seur, BOTH are better.”
(True story, this.)
Both are better? The maxim and motto of bigamists, bipartisan polities, and boastful ballot-hounds! Abroad and at home…
The US has always had its sights set on Syria. The Levant in general and Syro-Palestine in particular had of late been its cynosure. What a surprise, then, that Uncle Sam totally overlooked – or, in some versions, totally oversaw – the emergence of IS in the Levant and Syria. Still, better never than late. Now, this week, naval missiles pounded ISIS targets to pulp with so much as a by-your-leave vis-à-vis the al-Assad dynastic regime.
The US had at least two choices. Ignore IS in Syria and miss the opportunity to send out the strong signal to Syria it had meant to send out but didn’t in the short-lived flourishing of the so-called Arab Spring. Or ignore US foreign policy for the Middle East in general and the Levant in particular and miss an opportunity to slam ISIS and Syria in one fell swoop. Both are better.
The UPFA has always had its sights set on a third term. And a fourth. And a fifth. Successively, ad libitum ad infinitum. Uva had of late been its cynosure. What a surprise, then, that Uncle Mama and un-nephews totally overlooked – or, in some versions, totally oversaw – the mock event, the shock setback, in Uva-Wellassa. Still, better now than next year. Soon (some time, some term soon), the national ballot will supersede the provincial polling.
The UPFA had at least two choices. Funk Uva, and never get to know for sure how it stood poised for a presidential election based on its provincial showing. Or flunk Uva, and get to know for certain that its position and stature and dignity were on the outer and spiraling downward. So go to the polls, or don’t. Win, or lose. Go the country if you win because you could or should. Go to the country if you lose because now you must. Both are better.
The two cases above are, of course, a weak shy at philosophy. One cannot be tender-minded and tough-minded at the same time, or cherish one’s cake and candles and consume the icing at the same time. One must give. Both together aren’t always better. The US must make up its mind whether IS evil, or a necessary evil on the road to US dominion in IS, ISIL, and ISIS-oriented parts of the world; because you can’t cook up a monster and beard your pet dragon in your own den at the same time… let those who have ears, hear! The UPFA must make up its mind whether a snap presidential poll is a necessary evil, or unnecessary on the path to absolute power in the rest of the island at the cost of a province. This is no time or place for duality or double-mindedness.
World politics and warped polities apart, there are personal applications in the ‘both-are-better’ worldview. There is a way which seemeth right to a man. Again the ancient words express it best.
A man had two sons.
“Go and work in the field,” he told one.
“Sir, I go,” he said, but did not.
“Go and work in the field,” he then told the other one.
“No,” he said, but he changed his mind and went and did.
Which of these loved and served his father better?
Both are not better.