You’d think a guy my age would get used to it, but I’m still amazed every time I see a new example of how two people can have completely different views on the same topic. If there are more than two people, it’s like the old story of the four blind men describing an elephant after one touches the trunk and the others a leg, the side, or the tail.

This is obviously important to a writer. I try to anticipate possible objections to everything I say. Sometimes this helps clarify my thinking. It can make me change my mind by seeing another angle before engraving my own idea in stone. Or setting it down on paper. Or just sending it out on the ether.

Sometimes it prepares me for negative feedback. In that case I can try to fill in the gaps in my argument or presentation, to head ‘em off at the pass.

(Alas, this can be futile. In The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Self-Sufficient Living I knew very well some readers would say I didn’t explain enough about how to live self-sufficiently. So I stated quite explicitly, and several times, that there are dozens of entire books devoted exclusively to raising goats… as well as others on chickens, food preservation, wood heat, alternative energy, and of course gardening, along with every other topic pertaining to self-sufficiency. There is no way on Earth anyone could cover any one of those in a single chapter or less. Still, several readers have complained that the book doesn’t tell them everything they want to know about self-sufficient living.)

Even when it’s futile, I can take refuge in knowing that I did my best… and I don’t have to change my thinking. And yet, even after cross-examining myself to the best of my ability, I can still be caught by surprise.

Such was the case when I picked up the Saturday-Sunday Wall Street Journal last weekend. I had just posted my Friday blog based on an article by Joe Queenan in the previous weekend’s paper. I obviously thought it was a great piece, so I wasn’t prepared for the reader reaction. “Mr. Queenan’s rant…” “Mr. Queenan’s snide comment…” “Mr. Queenan’s passionately cynical lament…”

Wow! And that was on nothing more consequential than the prospects of the class of 2010! I shudder to think what they would have said about something more earth-shaking, or even just my embellishments to his essay!

Disagreements are all around us, every day. The Wisconsin legislature recently okayed the sale of raw milk, after a lengthy and sometimes bitter debate. But then, last week, the governor vetoed it. A few weeks ago Eau Claire decided not to allow chickens in the city, so this week a nearby village decided to follow their lead. Let’s not even get into what’s going on in Washington, the oil spill, the two Koreas, or the divorce courts.

I’m not sure what all this means. There are diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks, to be sure, but so many of our disagreements go far beyond mere diversity. And if we humans find it impossible to agree even on petty matters, what hope is there for the big and important things, which usually encompass many, many petty matters?

There is compromise, of course, the usual tool of democracy and civilized peoples. But any decent craftsman knows that a multi-purpose tool seldom works as well as a specialized one, designed and fabricated for a specific purpose. Too often, compromise ends up being the worst of both worlds.

We don’t like to even acknowledge the use of force to settle disagreements, but its presence is obvious. Today, force is usually in the form of money, in one way or another. Call it greasing the skids if you will, and yes, it does make life easier and less contentious for many, but is it the best way to solve problems or to advance civilization?

Power? Political power, which more often boils down to class and position rather than formal legislation, can also be based on money.

It’s rare when the power of an idea takes hold to such a degree that it sways opinions and outcomes. But when it does, it’s a beautiful example of what it means to be human.

As the most interesting argument-settler, I nominate Fate. While two factions of a village are debating whether they should build a dike or a tornado shelter, the village is destroyed by a forest fire.

This happens all the time. The Great Concerns of 10, 20, 50 years ago have mostly faded away. Most of the Great Concerns of today weren’t even on the radar a few years back, and they’ll fade away too. No one can say with any certainty what the Great Concerns of tomorrow will be. Maybe arguing about them is a waste of time. Getting vehement or even violent about it is definitely a waste of effort.

It might be impossible to avoid disagreements, but this doesn’t imply that conflicts must necessarily follow. Ask anyone who’s been married to the same person for 50 years or more. But thinking of that…

When you consider that no two people have exactly the same experiences, starting with childhood… exactly the same education or ideas… the same genes and dreams… maybe the amazing thing is that we humans get along as well as we do. — Jd Belanger

This year’s crop of college graduates has woeful career prospects — perhaps the worst in the history of the country. Joe Queenan, writing in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal, said “Even the Pilgrim toddlers in 1620 had better prospects. At least the Massachusetts economy was still expanding then.”

Queenan makes a strong case with some excellent points. To name a few:

• The average graduate today spent $100,000-$200,000 on a degree, and most are starting out with massive college debt.

• The unemployment rate for ages 20-24 is 17.2%.

• Most middle-class kids are totally unprepared emotionally for the world they are about to enter — and it’s a world that’s tougher than ever.

• These kids are also inheriting costs that were unthinkable in the past. “Who’s going to pay for the health care bill?” Queenan asks. The federal deficit… cops’ and teachers’ and firemens’ pensions… social security?

He notes that many kids who can’t find jobs are staying in school, usually law school. Applications are at an all-time high, even though thousands of legal positions at investment banking firms have disappeared forever. Recent Ivy League law school graduates are now working as file clerks, substitute schoolteachers, census takers. The college grad flipping burgers has become a cliché, and the “hero” of Queenan’s piece is an Ivy League grad working as an intern at a street fair in New York.

Not long ago, young graduates became Henrys: High Earnings, Not Rich Yet. Today not many can claim the high earnings part.

For the past 30-40 years The Establishment — our normal everyday society — has warned high school grads that they had to go to college in order to get ahead in the world. That was true when there was a demand for engineers and other skilled professionals. Now there is some question about the need for more such workers, but also concerns about more practical occupations. If everybody goes to college, who will repair our aging cars and leaky faucets?

Computer programming is being outsourced overseas. You can’t outsource putting on a new roof or unclogging a toilet to a lower-paid offshore worker.

Of more interest to me is seeing highly trained, highly educated, highly successful men and women burning out in the world of commerce and industry, and turning to less stressful, more satisfying occupations. I recently read a story on the unusually large number of politicians who are quitting that arena, which used to be a sinecure! Former executives are becoming artisan bakers or cheesemakers, or they run a small country hardware store or B&B. They have discovered that making a living isn’t the same as making a life.

Then too, it always amuses/amazes me to read about someone who retires… and then does what they had always dreamed of doing, such as gardening, wood-carving, or raising cattle. And they’re happy! So why in the world did they wait so long? (“Life is what happens while you’re getting ready to live.”)

No doubt there are some people who really and truly want to become lawyers because they love laws or whatever it is that turns lawyers on. But there are obviously many, many more who want to become lawyers only because they want to rake in big bucks. These are people who are going to have to readjust their thinking.

Just one more sociological note, of the many that could be used in my argument: many experts are now saying the current generation is likely to be the first that will not achieve the financial success of their parents. The importance of this is that it will have an inevitable effect on our mood: It will create a feeling of desperate hopelessness… or it will create a challenge of the make-lemonade variety… on a national scale.

At this point it all comes together so seamlessly it’s almost embarrassing to state the obvious: Why don’t more young people skip all the middleman nonsense and cut to the chase? Why don’t they decide what really and truly matters, then go for it, right now?

Not everyone will accept that. But those opting for an opulent lifestyle must recognize the challenges they face. They will have to fight even harder for jobs that will support them in the manner to which they would like to become accustomed — meaning even more stress. They’ll face the bitterness of the losers. They will have to face the wrath of those already up-in-arms about outrageous compensation and conspicuous consumption.  They will most likely face what some are calling ruinous taxation on their extravagant incomes.

But instead of just giving in and giving up, some of these people will see the light. Doing something they love, they won’t even notice that they can’t afford an annual cruise or vacation abroad. Recognizing that even in mansions, people live in only one room at a time, they will transform their humble cottages into dwellings filled with beauty and love (and without a mortgage — putting even more bankers and lawyers out of work).

And naturally, in my dream world they will produce most of their own food in their gardens, chicken coops and goat sheds. (Those who prefer city living will have acceptable substitutes.) Along with this will come all the other attributes of sustainable living, because one thing leads to another. But someone has to take the first step.

My dream world has glommed onto many other possible catalysts in the past 50 years, all of which turned up empty. Maybe this one will too. But when so many people are lamenting their current situation and future prospects, there is hope. Even if only a few see the light, there could be a massive shift in attitude.

So, should we pity the class of 2010? Heavens, no. Their career prospects might be woeful, but they have an awesome opportunity to save the world. —Jd Belanger

Chickens have been big news in Eau Claire, our nearest “big city” and shopping town. The city council has been debating whether or not to allow raising them in the city. There are strong opinions on both sides.

This week the news got so big it beat out a Supreme Court nomination and the oil spill for that valuable front-page above-the-fold placement in the daily newspaper. Daughter Anne-marie gets home delivery, and emailed us this photo before our paper arrived by snail mail.

Yes, that's me with a chicken on the front page of the May 10 Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. Since "A dog fight on Main St. is more newsworthy than a war in China," the Great Chicken Debate in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, got a better position than the Supreme Court nominee or the Gulf oil spill. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right newly-published book —The Complete Idiot's Guide to Raising Chickens — to get in on the action.

The controversy depresses me, and the issue of having chickens in town is only a part of it. But that part is bad enough.

Why in the world would anyone want to outlaw the soothing clucking of a couple of hens, while yapping crapping dogs are okay? And in some places I’ve been, what about sirens, trains, airplanes, busses, garbage trucks… Come to think of it, is it humane to subject chickens to such human turmoil by raising them in an urban setting?

Why does there have to be a law about such matters? Why can’t neighbors just work it out amongst themselves, if there’s a problem?

Which there shouldn’t be, and in most cases, isn’t. (But a council member dissed anybody who says the officials are wasting their time with such nonsense. That reinforces my policy of never voting for anyone stupid enough to run for public office.)

What is even more depressing — and in a way, frightening — is that issues like these lead to the realization that some people have no idea whatsoever how the real world functions. They have no appreciation for its marvels and beauty, and more significantly, they lack the information required for making the right decisions about utilizing its resources.

Most farm or homestead people who have entertained visitors from the city have some experience with this. Kids, (and in too many cases their parents as well) think milk comes from a factory of some kind, never from a cow or goat. And I’d like to have a nickel for every kid who has watched a cow poop and said, “Yuck! I’m never drinking milk again!”

I have seen children gag, watching me make beautiful, rich, thick and delicious tomato paste with a Victorio strainer. Sure, they eat catsup on everything, but that’s different: that comes from a bottle, not a icky-squishy fresh fruit.

These people are amazed to discover that carrots grow in the ground… with dirt on them. And then there’s Archie Bunker having a fit when Edith said they were having tongue  for supper: “Tongue!? I ain’t eatin’ nuttin’ that came out of a cow’s mouth! Fry me an egg!”

The real problem intensifies when these attitudes are transferred to the wider world. Just as food comes from brightly-lit supermarkets via wonderful factories that are marvels of modern science, gasoline comes from a pump at a filling station. Water comes from a faucet when you turn it on, and electricity arrives through some kind of wiring whenever you flip a switch. It’s all too easy, too simple, too magical to even think about. It’s also predictable and guaranteed… for now.

But of course it results in a disconnect. These people begin to exist, totally and completely, in an artificial world, where the livin’ is easy. They cannot understand, and so they ignore and avoid at all costs the real world, where not all apples are perfect and where death and decay — to say nothing of manure — are hard facts of life.

Little things like being able to identify birds and weeds, watching something edible grow from a tiny dry seed, and seeing first-hand and close-up how eggs are produced, would go a long way toward making people more aware of the world they inhabit. More aware, and therefore, hopefully, more caring. By applying NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) not only to landfills, toxic waste sites and nuclear plants but also to naturalized front lawns, vegetable growing, raising chickens — and nature in general — people become more and more isolated from reality. Allowing nature and all things natural back into our artificial lives is not regressing into primitive living: it makes us more human.

I read this morning that despite the current oil spill, 6 out of 10 people still favor offshore drilling, saying the economic benefits outweigh the environmental dangers. And the Eau Claire city council voted down the chicken ordinance, 8-3. I see a connection.

Sometimes I feel like the old Indian in the tv ad, looking at the ravaged land and cruddy water, and shedding a tear. What more can be done? Humanity will learn, eventually. When all of the breathable air, drinkable water, and fertile soil are gone, they’ll have no choice. Of course, then it will be too late.

The saddest part is, it could have been so wonderful. — Jd Belanger