Perhaps not everyone was taught or received the memo when it comes to the traditional handshake. In the male world, it is supposed to be firm, but stop short of a grip pressure contest.
I've encountered those who want to prove dominance by catching people off guard with a vise-like, bone crusher handshake. Their smile is invariably a odd sneer as they try to play alpha dog.
One of the big tricks some guys play is the quick grab. They close in on the end of your hand before you can get in there far enough for your fingers to wrap around the other palm. They trap the last half of your fingers and crush. Since the rest of your hand can't get in on the act there is little you can do.
I've met a few women who attempt bone crushing handshakes, but very few. Those who use the shake to some purpose generally add a subtle caress which is every bit as powerful and far more persuasive than the bone crusher. But that's another story.
I get the motive behind the bone crusher. It means that someone is trying to prove something, or intimidate others. The quick grippers are merely cheating, or else they fear you might be a bone crusher so they beat you to it by trapping your fingers before your palms can meet.
What I don't get is the limp dish towel, dead fish handshake. If I, too, just stuck out a limp hand, I'm not sure how it would go or if the handshake would ever occur. Maybe lazy people do that so the other has all the responsibility for making the handshake happen.
It isn't as if the handshake is unknown in our culture so, even though the dead fish seemed confused and baffled by the custom, it is unlikely that the mystery of the process is really a explanation for the odd approach.
The crusher usually comes from prospective mates' fathers and brothers, and business people who want to mess with you for some reason. And from crime boss types. The last two categories can overlap, and often do in the world of government-business partnerships. Crony capitalism, which is what that is.
Political types will pull that crusher play, while pulling you toward them, grabbing your arm. It is a message; I'm top dog here and I dominate.
Some say you can tell a lot about a man by his shoes. I say you can tell more by how he acts. Paying attention to how someone behaves and interacts with you and others is probably more telling than staring at his shoes. Anything to avoid contact and reality. Like the hiring process at many firms. Let's avoid actual contact with the candidate. What are his shoes like?
Applicants must submit one page resume detailing the last forty years of job experience, and a photo of your shoes, being worn. Photo must not include anything above the ankles, just the shoes as they appear on your feet.
The evolution of the culture appears to be solving the handshake issue with the fist bump, or even the air fist bump. So far I have not encountered anyone who can turn the fist bump into much of anything. I don't see it taking over in most business situations.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Fiction: Human Nature part 1292013
Whether they admit it or not, people are fans of fiction. It is inescapable.
That's why there are so many conflicting and varied accounts and opinions on any topic. For example, the debt situation and violence are issues which have all kinds of theories and statistics thrown out there. Often the info is skewed or incomplete, but it fits the narrative.
If ten people came upon an automobile that had obviously gone over the cliff 300 feet above, but none actually witnessed the event, several scenarios would emerge in their imaginations. Some would picture the driver intentionally going over the edge while others would assume drugs or alcohol was involved.
Some one might go so far as to create imaginary partial lives for the couple who died in the crash. They must have been on their way home from the hooplah festival a few miles away. And it sound like reasoned deduction, but it is still fiction. If it turns out that it coincides will reality, that reinforces the process, which may or may not be on target the next time.
The origin of the theory is fiction born in the imagination.
If the item is newsworthy in that area, the details and even the number of people involved would change two or three times in 24 hours. That's because people love to jump to a conclusion based on very little information, and they tend to be protective of their view, even in the face of facts or equally valid conclusions. It is as if they are given an irresistible specific event and they create a path that explains how that came to be.
Another part of human nature is that few care to research a thing far enough that it blows their gut reaction theory out the window. It is easier to take in hearsay. Easier not to scrutinize sources and references. Human nature things tend to often fit together hand in glove like that.
Fiction is both the easy, and maybe only, way to explain things, and the way toward working, workable theories. When more facts come to light, then the theories change a bit in order to make sense of those things. And it takes crafting a story in some form which explains it and ties things up until next time.
I think this universal facet of human nature is what Jerry Springer and some other TV hosts have exploited. That thing where the audience weighs in on the drama of the people on stage after hearing a few sound bites. "Yes, I think you should sell everything and go to Tibet", "You need to leave that man." They don't know, but they made up stories to explain the creature before them. . It is just the nature of the beast.
That's why there are so many conflicting and varied accounts and opinions on any topic. For example, the debt situation and violence are issues which have all kinds of theories and statistics thrown out there. Often the info is skewed or incomplete, but it fits the narrative.
If ten people came upon an automobile that had obviously gone over the cliff 300 feet above, but none actually witnessed the event, several scenarios would emerge in their imaginations. Some would picture the driver intentionally going over the edge while others would assume drugs or alcohol was involved.
Some one might go so far as to create imaginary partial lives for the couple who died in the crash. They must have been on their way home from the hooplah festival a few miles away. And it sound like reasoned deduction, but it is still fiction. If it turns out that it coincides will reality, that reinforces the process, which may or may not be on target the next time.
The origin of the theory is fiction born in the imagination.
If the item is newsworthy in that area, the details and even the number of people involved would change two or three times in 24 hours. That's because people love to jump to a conclusion based on very little information, and they tend to be protective of their view, even in the face of facts or equally valid conclusions. It is as if they are given an irresistible specific event and they create a path that explains how that came to be.
Another part of human nature is that few care to research a thing far enough that it blows their gut reaction theory out the window. It is easier to take in hearsay. Easier not to scrutinize sources and references. Human nature things tend to often fit together hand in glove like that.
Fiction is both the easy, and maybe only, way to explain things, and the way toward working, workable theories. When more facts come to light, then the theories change a bit in order to make sense of those things. And it takes crafting a story in some form which explains it and ties things up until next time.
I think this universal facet of human nature is what Jerry Springer and some other TV hosts have exploited. That thing where the audience weighs in on the drama of the people on stage after hearing a few sound bites. "Yes, I think you should sell everything and go to Tibet", "You need to leave that man." They don't know, but they made up stories to explain the creature before them. . It is just the nature of the beast.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Guns Again
It is a bit daunting to hear the talk. Even more daunting to feel corralled into one camp or the other. If only I trusted "the authorities" more with firepower than I do the bulk of citizens. I don't.
Some people do. The underlying question is really one pertaining to functions of various levels of government. I see it one way, and there is substantial disagreement with my view.
Am I here by permission, or not? That is the essence of the question which underlies most of what is going on. Who and what exists by permission, and by whose permission?
Often a public issue, defined by politicians and opportunists (a life form common in the press as well as elsewhere), is somewhat of a code for something else entirely.
In any case, I'm not a gun nut, but if I decided to be, I'd like to indulge that desire unimpeded by the state. That is unthinkable in some circles. So be it. I recognize the squeeze differently than most. It's much the same as the thinking which presumes the feds ought to be in the R and D business.
Some people do. The underlying question is really one pertaining to functions of various levels of government. I see it one way, and there is substantial disagreement with my view.
Am I here by permission, or not? That is the essence of the question which underlies most of what is going on. Who and what exists by permission, and by whose permission?
Often a public issue, defined by politicians and opportunists (a life form common in the press as well as elsewhere), is somewhat of a code for something else entirely.
In any case, I'm not a gun nut, but if I decided to be, I'd like to indulge that desire unimpeded by the state. That is unthinkable in some circles. So be it. I recognize the squeeze differently than most. It's much the same as the thinking which presumes the feds ought to be in the R and D business.
Studies Show: Idiots March With or Without Good Purpose
I've heard so many gun statistics--in on ear and out the other--lately, none of which solve any problems or make a compelling case for anything worth doing.
I am not sure I even own a gun. The nincompoops in this picture make me think I should own several. "Please, Mr. King, please make more rules for us. Rules which apply to us but not you.".
Sometimes the insanity is so...insane...that it is hard to address straight up. First off, your ideas for safety wouldn't have saved anyone. Just like the creation of Homeland Security and the harassment of normal people wouldn't have prevented 911.
One statistic being spouted by some lady on PBS went something like this: those with a gun in the home are 12 times more likely to be victims of a gun accident. No shit. And those who drive cars are way more likely to be victims of an automobile accident.
Putting on the pained martyr's sad face does not mean your cause will do anything to promote peace and prosperity, and prevent the evil doers from doing evil. Your problem is that you don't realize that you keep empowering the longest serving evil doers on the block.
Gun sales are up by a gazillion percent. So, the reactionaries, who seize any cause that they deem to be non-conservative, have actually helped put more guns into the hands of the public. I'm fine with that.
Reactionaries reacting to reactionaries. Nothing wrong with reacting. There is something wrong with reacting in stupid ways. And nine times out of ten regulation is the stupid way, especially in the fashion it is accomplished by professional bureaucrats and government zealots.
It makes me less nervous to hear about private gun sales than it does for government agencies to stock up. Particularly on the domestic side. (maybe Eric Holder will find a way to slip a few more to Mexican gangs just because he can)
For crying out loud, this justice department, and this state department have armed more criminals and enemies of our people that anyone on earth. Now you ask them to disarm over regulate firearm ownership by citizens? You must be nuts to trust your safety to this ever growing monster any more than is absolutely necessary.
I'm skeptical of marches most of the time anyway. One which is a march demanding more laws to curb rights of individuals is definitely suspect. Then I look and realize that the supposed motivation, "to keep our precious little bastards--I mean children---safe" is nothing but nice sounding irrelevancy, and I lose respect for the movement.
Densely populated areas with draconian gun laws do not do well. No lunatics appear to be reading the "GUN FREE ZONE" signs. Or, maybe they are...
More of the big Pretense, self righteous neo bolsheviks who think they will forever be in with the policy makers and others unaffected by their tyranny. Maybe people are just too damned stupid, petty, greedy, and nosy to accept freedom.
I'm in disbelief. If people will spend money and band together in worthless causes which do not accomplish the stated goal, then it ought to be easy to get filthy rich off these wannabe state slaves.
I am not sure I even own a gun. The nincompoops in this picture make me think I should own several. "Please, Mr. King, please make more rules for us. Rules which apply to us but not you.".
looks oddly unionish
Sometimes the insanity is so...insane...that it is hard to address straight up. First off, your ideas for safety wouldn't have saved anyone. Just like the creation of Homeland Security and the harassment of normal people wouldn't have prevented 911.
One statistic being spouted by some lady on PBS went something like this: those with a gun in the home are 12 times more likely to be victims of a gun accident. No shit. And those who drive cars are way more likely to be victims of an automobile accident.
Putting on the pained martyr's sad face does not mean your cause will do anything to promote peace and prosperity, and prevent the evil doers from doing evil. Your problem is that you don't realize that you keep empowering the longest serving evil doers on the block.
Gun sales are up by a gazillion percent. So, the reactionaries, who seize any cause that they deem to be non-conservative, have actually helped put more guns into the hands of the public. I'm fine with that.
Reactionaries reacting to reactionaries. Nothing wrong with reacting. There is something wrong with reacting in stupid ways. And nine times out of ten regulation is the stupid way, especially in the fashion it is accomplished by professional bureaucrats and government zealots.
It makes me less nervous to hear about private gun sales than it does for government agencies to stock up. Particularly on the domestic side. (maybe Eric Holder will find a way to slip a few more to Mexican gangs just because he can)
For crying out loud, this justice department, and this state department have armed more criminals and enemies of our people that anyone on earth. Now you ask them to disarm over regulate firearm ownership by citizens? You must be nuts to trust your safety to this ever growing monster any more than is absolutely necessary.
I'm skeptical of marches most of the time anyway. One which is a march demanding more laws to curb rights of individuals is definitely suspect. Then I look and realize that the supposed motivation, "to keep our precious little bastards--I mean children---safe" is nothing but nice sounding irrelevancy, and I lose respect for the movement.
Densely populated areas with draconian gun laws do not do well. No lunatics appear to be reading the "GUN FREE ZONE" signs. Or, maybe they are...
More of the big Pretense, self righteous neo bolsheviks who think they will forever be in with the policy makers and others unaffected by their tyranny. Maybe people are just too damned stupid, petty, greedy, and nosy to accept freedom.
I'm in disbelief. If people will spend money and band together in worthless causes which do not accomplish the stated goal, then it ought to be easy to get filthy rich off these wannabe state slaves.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Speaking for the Voiceless
And I think for the thoughtless.
It sounds so benevolent and righteous to "give voice to those who can't speak for themselves". I've heard it used in order to mess with others over animals, abortion, money. The sky is the limit when you convince people that you are the voice of those who have no voice. Who's going to prove otherwise?
"because the earth needs a good lawyer"...Holy SH**! Am I the only one who freaks out and screams out the window at this kind of absurdity?
Anyway, I think John Kerry said something about being the voice of the voiceless. Words similar enough to that. And I thought, "What does that mean?"
Obviously it is the same tactic used by priests of every culture for as long as we've had priests. Pretend to know what God, or a rock, or the earth, or an unborn human thinks and wants. Then get the king 'n 'em to use force (or do it yourself) to make people do what you want in the name of this mysterious unknowable thing you represent.
I'm assuming the voiceless, in this context, also can't write, or nod their heads to indicate answers to yes-no questions.
Besides thinking for the thoughtless, I bring thrills on behalf of the un-thrilling--at least that's what your wife said. Doing for those who can't do it for themselves.
Beware those who presume to speak for those who allegedly cannot speak for themselves.
And beware of those who claim to represent those whose existence can't be seen or tested.
Perhaps you should advise your wife to beware as well.
.
It sounds so benevolent and righteous to "give voice to those who can't speak for themselves". I've heard it used in order to mess with others over animals, abortion, money. The sky is the limit when you convince people that you are the voice of those who have no voice. Who's going to prove otherwise?
"because the earth needs a good lawyer"...Holy SH**! Am I the only one who freaks out and screams out the window at this kind of absurdity?
Anyway, I think John Kerry said something about being the voice of the voiceless. Words similar enough to that. And I thought, "What does that mean?"
Obviously it is the same tactic used by priests of every culture for as long as we've had priests. Pretend to know what God, or a rock, or the earth, or an unborn human thinks and wants. Then get the king 'n 'em to use force (or do it yourself) to make people do what you want in the name of this mysterious unknowable thing you represent.
I'm assuming the voiceless, in this context, also can't write, or nod their heads to indicate answers to yes-no questions.
Besides thinking for the thoughtless, I bring thrills on behalf of the un-thrilling--at least that's what your wife said. Doing for those who can't do it for themselves.
Beware those who presume to speak for those who allegedly cannot speak for themselves.
And beware of those who claim to represent those whose existence can't be seen or tested.
Perhaps you should advise your wife to beware as well.
.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Another Thoughtful Comment; flattery is so compelling
Here it is, the latest from the insightful, ubiquitous Anonymous, an intellectual giant, humanitarian, and person of refined, discriminating taste:
I leave a response whenever I appreciate a post on a site or if I have something to contribute to the conversation.
Usually it is triggered by the passion communicated in
the article I read. And after this post "When Opportunity, He Knock".
I was actually moved enough to leave a comment
:-) I actually do have a couple of questions for you if it's allright. Could it be just me or does it appear like some of these comments look like they are left by brain dead visitors? :-P And, if you are writing on other places, I would like to keep up with anything new you have to post. Would you make a list every one of your public pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?
my site: network marketing forums --- (actual link removed)
I'm so humbled. To answer the thought provoking questions posed by this lovely person, It is just you. It looks like the comments are left by spam creeps trying to get people to hit their sites. Not you, Mr. and/or Ms. Anonymous, of course.
After feedback like that, who could possibly be down? Yippee, I'm pumped.
The internet, described by some as a bunch of tubes, is a wondrous thing. I hope it remains relatively free from regulation.
.update: already I hear again from anonymous.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Thoughtful Comment; flattery is so compell...":
Hi there, I found your blog by way of Google at the
same time as looking for a related subject, your website came up, it appears great.
I've bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
Hi there, simply become alert to your blog via Google, and found that it is really informative. I'm
gonna be careful for brussels. I will be grateful for those
who continue this in future. Lots of other folks will
probably be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Here is my site : easy affiliate programs --link deactivated for your convenience
.
I leave a response whenever I appreciate a post on a site or if I have something to contribute to the conversation.
Usually it is triggered by the passion communicated in
the article I read. And after this post "When Opportunity, He Knock".
I was actually moved enough to leave a comment
:-) I actually do have a couple of questions for you if it's allright. Could it be just me or does it appear like some of these comments look like they are left by brain dead visitors? :-P And, if you are writing on other places, I would like to keep up with anything new you have to post. Would you make a list every one of your public pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?
my site: network marketing forums --- (actual link removed)
I'm so humbled. To answer the thought provoking questions posed by this lovely person, It is just you. It looks like the comments are left by spam creeps trying to get people to hit their sites. Not you, Mr. and/or Ms. Anonymous, of course.
After feedback like that, who could possibly be down? Yippee, I'm pumped.
The internet, described by some as a bunch of tubes, is a wondrous thing. I hope it remains relatively free from regulation.
.update: already I hear again from anonymous.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Thoughtful Comment; flattery is so compell...":
Hi there, I found your blog by way of Google at the
same time as looking for a related subject, your website came up, it appears great.
I've bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
Hi there, simply become alert to your blog via Google, and found that it is really informative. I'm
gonna be careful for brussels. I will be grateful for those
who continue this in future. Lots of other folks will
probably be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Here is my site : easy affiliate programs --link deactivated for your convenience
.
What Did I Say and Do, and Why?
Times are a little strained, but I believe it is a manifestation of the workings of my inner psyche, and the cumulative result of choices. The battle continues.
I had to check to even see what I last wrote here. Another diversion from what matters in my life. At least what directly matters. All kinds of things matter indirectly. Everything influences everything, supposedly.
Worrying about things like how inaugurations are treated like coronations will not straighten out my personal messes, or fix what ails me. I'm not setting a good example for myself. I fall short due to paralyzing mental blocks. Nothing new there. Obviously, self generated issues can be redirected toward a positive path. Why is that difficult?
I guess I have some assumptions about my place, purpose, and worth which do not result in feeling so grand. It comes in waves. Today that wave is almost drowning me. But it is not even a real thing as far as I know.
Remembering my resolution for this year, the immediate path is clear. I settled on a resolution which necessitates many small goals. Even if I don't feel the passion for the specific goal some of the time, it still holds the blueprint should I decide to finally build the life I think is right for me.
If I can make progress on the things involved in achieving the Big Goal, my value as friend and neighbor will be greatly enhanced. Otherwise, I waste away, go broke, and arrange to fall of the edge of the earth in sad resignation and surrender. That is not what I want.
.
I had to check to even see what I last wrote here. Another diversion from what matters in my life. At least what directly matters. All kinds of things matter indirectly. Everything influences everything, supposedly.
Worrying about things like how inaugurations are treated like coronations will not straighten out my personal messes, or fix what ails me. I'm not setting a good example for myself. I fall short due to paralyzing mental blocks. Nothing new there. Obviously, self generated issues can be redirected toward a positive path. Why is that difficult?
I guess I have some assumptions about my place, purpose, and worth which do not result in feeling so grand. It comes in waves. Today that wave is almost drowning me. But it is not even a real thing as far as I know.
Remembering my resolution for this year, the immediate path is clear. I settled on a resolution which necessitates many small goals. Even if I don't feel the passion for the specific goal some of the time, it still holds the blueprint should I decide to finally build the life I think is right for me.
If I can make progress on the things involved in achieving the Big Goal, my value as friend and neighbor will be greatly enhanced. Otherwise, I waste away, go broke, and arrange to fall of the edge of the earth in sad resignation and surrender. That is not what I want.
.
Friday, January 18, 2013
They Can't Help It
After viewing some of Danny Glover's latest brilliance, I realized how the Hollywood syndrome happens. You get a little acclaim because you look good, and your acting pleases people.
Then you realize people assume you have a brain and invite you to speak for causes, or just expound on your view of Utopia and its many big meanie enemies.
What are you going to do? It is unheard of for an actor to say, "Look, I don't know sh** from Shinola so let me remain silent on the greater philosophical and material implications of nuclear physics and nano-technology.
No, since the easy default position which satisfies peer pressure and approval is that of stubborn Luddite, and knee jerk reaction to whatever is labeled "right wing". I admit, it ca be tough to ferret out the kernes of truth and reason from the rhetoric of both right and left. But if we weren't conditioned to have a team to cheer and one to hate, what would we do?
All the while, these wealthy critics avail themselves of armed guards (carrying guns), convenient transportation, private jets, and climate controlled dwellings, all of which are targeted as being evil, bad for the earth, etc. by these hypocrites. It is the mentality of elitism. We know what's best for you.
Fame and adoration, and the appearance of respect are too hard to ignore. Since it is clear pretty much what angle gets the kudos, entertainers find new and unusual ways to parrot what their peers cast as rationale and brilliant thought. Mostly it is parrot droppings.
Danny thinks the 2nd amendment was inspired so that people could put down slave revolts ad kill American Indians-native Americans. (I'm a native of America, but that's different) And he is sure everyone is racist. Like Danny, when it comes to some topics, many high profile figures are woefully flawed in their logic and theories.
He also thinks there were only 2.5 million people on earth when he was born. Not sure what that had to do with anything, but I think we can safely say that there were more humans on earth than that during the 1940s.
It is so odd than one who should be so versed on slavery would not be raising hell about the places where it exists even now. Africa being a major player in that game. It is also odd that one who has achieved such financial and professional success, would claim that he lives in a place in which oppression of him is common.
People love opportunities to play self righteous victim. I love watching multi-millionaires in the entertainment business embrace that role while giving lectures to the little people, who made it all impossible, about how they should live as we all march into some utopian slave state.
These are the lovers of Che, Castro and others, who never killed anyone they didn't want to kill. Worshippers of Mao and Stalin and others who weeded their nations of those who might not be good slaves. We're talking mass murderers, killing not to win a war but to control populations and eradicate dissent. And those are the type of people and philosophies the Danny Glovers of the world serve, on purpose or through pure stupidity.
He's not alone in that regard. And many of the alleged opponents of such philosophy are as prone to skewed facts and nonsense as the Hollywood crowd.
The real question the demagogues who are using and abusing the school shooting for their own ends should be asking is, "Would any of the suggested measures and grand stand plays have prevented this?". I feel certain the vast majority of discussion on the matter touches on nothing that would make anyone safer. Except those who would illegitimately seek power over others; criminals and governments. They seem to desire similar ends.
So, forgive you, Danny, you are just smart enough to sound good, and to act well, but not smart enough to know that you are an idiot.
Give a man a public soapbox and pretend he is wise in all matters and that man will find it hard to resist broadcasting his views, whether he knows the subject or not. Or woman. Hollywood women are equally smitten and they have the same Achilles heel--narcissism.
It is human nature. I'm not exempt. Few are.
The real issue at hand has to do with how much control and personal decision making by the state is desirable justified and effective. War on drugs worked out well. Terrorism is now extinct, and obesity is on the run. I'm sure that those who use guns to enforce everything from seat belt laws to milk regulation will do a cracker jack job in their war on gun violence.
One really cool method of debate these days is to use the technique of switching topics when cornered; What about the children? Yea, but what about blablabla off topic. I don't think I've ever seen blatant demagoguery so shamelessly performed. Never let a crisis go to waste. Crisis= golden power grab opportunity.
.
Then you realize people assume you have a brain and invite you to speak for causes, or just expound on your view of Utopia and its many big meanie enemies.
What are you going to do? It is unheard of for an actor to say, "Look, I don't know sh** from Shinola so let me remain silent on the greater philosophical and material implications of nuclear physics and nano-technology.
No, since the easy default position which satisfies peer pressure and approval is that of stubborn Luddite, and knee jerk reaction to whatever is labeled "right wing". I admit, it ca be tough to ferret out the kernes of truth and reason from the rhetoric of both right and left. But if we weren't conditioned to have a team to cheer and one to hate, what would we do?
All the while, these wealthy critics avail themselves of armed guards (carrying guns), convenient transportation, private jets, and climate controlled dwellings, all of which are targeted as being evil, bad for the earth, etc. by these hypocrites. It is the mentality of elitism. We know what's best for you.
Fame and adoration, and the appearance of respect are too hard to ignore. Since it is clear pretty much what angle gets the kudos, entertainers find new and unusual ways to parrot what their peers cast as rationale and brilliant thought. Mostly it is parrot droppings.
Danny thinks the 2nd amendment was inspired so that people could put down slave revolts ad kill American Indians-native Americans. (I'm a native of America, but that's different) And he is sure everyone is racist. Like Danny, when it comes to some topics, many high profile figures are woefully flawed in their logic and theories.
He also thinks there were only 2.5 million people on earth when he was born. Not sure what that had to do with anything, but I think we can safely say that there were more humans on earth than that during the 1940s.
It is so odd than one who should be so versed on slavery would not be raising hell about the places where it exists even now. Africa being a major player in that game. It is also odd that one who has achieved such financial and professional success, would claim that he lives in a place in which oppression of him is common.
People love opportunities to play self righteous victim. I love watching multi-millionaires in the entertainment business embrace that role while giving lectures to the little people, who made it all impossible, about how they should live as we all march into some utopian slave state.
These are the lovers of Che, Castro and others, who never killed anyone they didn't want to kill. Worshippers of Mao and Stalin and others who weeded their nations of those who might not be good slaves. We're talking mass murderers, killing not to win a war but to control populations and eradicate dissent. And those are the type of people and philosophies the Danny Glovers of the world serve, on purpose or through pure stupidity.
He's not alone in that regard. And many of the alleged opponents of such philosophy are as prone to skewed facts and nonsense as the Hollywood crowd.
The real question the demagogues who are using and abusing the school shooting for their own ends should be asking is, "Would any of the suggested measures and grand stand plays have prevented this?". I feel certain the vast majority of discussion on the matter touches on nothing that would make anyone safer. Except those who would illegitimately seek power over others; criminals and governments. They seem to desire similar ends.
So, forgive you, Danny, you are just smart enough to sound good, and to act well, but not smart enough to know that you are an idiot.
Give a man a public soapbox and pretend he is wise in all matters and that man will find it hard to resist broadcasting his views, whether he knows the subject or not. Or woman. Hollywood women are equally smitten and they have the same Achilles heel--narcissism.
It is human nature. I'm not exempt. Few are.
The real issue at hand has to do with how much control and personal decision making by the state is desirable justified and effective. War on drugs worked out well. Terrorism is now extinct, and obesity is on the run. I'm sure that those who use guns to enforce everything from seat belt laws to milk regulation will do a cracker jack job in their war on gun violence.
One really cool method of debate these days is to use the technique of switching topics when cornered; What about the children? Yea, but what about blablabla off topic. I don't think I've ever seen blatant demagoguery so shamelessly performed. Never let a crisis go to waste. Crisis= golden power grab opportunity.
.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Cooking With Hotplates
My stove is a countertop appliance than plugs into a regular wall outlet. Like a lamp. It consists of two "burners", each of which is a metal disc.
The idea is that the metal disc will eventually get hot enough to cook something. I've learned to turn the thing up as high as it goes, and use a large frying pan with a lid. Not a heavy cast iron pan. That might take forever.
Here's what you do. You put whatever it is on the pan, add the upside down large stainless bowl that serves as lid, turn control up to high, go do something else. Like write here, read an article, start a show on hulu. Practice playing when you are in that mood. Right now, I am not very interested in playing music.
A clever trick is to place a small piece of butter here and there. It serves as a temperature report when you check to see how things are.
In some ways this cooking system is a time saver. If the burners actually burned like real burners do, I'd have to keep a close eye on it. This set up can be left for awhile; take a shower, go to the next step in changing the oil in the car, turn on computer and see what's up, etc.
Now that I think of it, this is the picture of an idiot who has gone too long without getting married again. Not necessarily legally and all that. Often there is no point, at a certain stage, in bringing the state and/or the church into it. That probably means commitment. No wonder I am here now.
The idea is that the metal disc will eventually get hot enough to cook something. I've learned to turn the thing up as high as it goes, and use a large frying pan with a lid. Not a heavy cast iron pan. That might take forever.
Here's what you do. You put whatever it is on the pan, add the upside down large stainless bowl that serves as lid, turn control up to high, go do something else. Like write here, read an article, start a show on hulu. Practice playing when you are in that mood. Right now, I am not very interested in playing music.
A clever trick is to place a small piece of butter here and there. It serves as a temperature report when you check to see how things are.
In some ways this cooking system is a time saver. If the burners actually burned like real burners do, I'd have to keep a close eye on it. This set up can be left for awhile; take a shower, go to the next step in changing the oil in the car, turn on computer and see what's up, etc.
Now that I think of it, this is the picture of an idiot who has gone too long without getting married again. Not necessarily legally and all that. Often there is no point, at a certain stage, in bringing the state and/or the church into it. That probably means commitment. No wonder I am here now.
Age of Hypocrisy
European types have experienced a number of eras to which they gave labels; the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, etc.
This era may stand out as the Hypocritical Madness. Either you get or you don't. Not sure expounding on it is worth the trouble.
I was thinking how I am not a fan of basketball. It is OK, I guess, but doesn't appeal to me. On top of that I do not agree with Obama's view of the USA, the role of government in general, and federal power specifically. This would easily land me the label of "racist" among those who lend non-critical support to anything the president does.
Yet, my views are not formulated using race as a factor in the equation. Oh well. Label away.
One statement which defines our difference in viewpoint was made during Obama's first inauguration. I paraphrase but I think the essence is intact. He stated that the size and scope of government is not an issue, only whether it works.
How one defines what "works" means in that assertion is less and less a mystery every day. It is not comforting that some close to the president, supporters in the Congress, have stated that China's government "works". It is a slippery slope.
My idea of a government that works would be one in which individual rights are protected, and one's freedom is maximized as much as possible; personal freedom, and economic freedom. That is not a system under which citizens are subjects and businesses are running the state through convoluted regulations, cronyism, and competition killing measures.
My ideal place is not one in which the immediate answer to anything bad is to curtail the natural rights of individuals.
So, that is why I don't support the would-be king, and most of the others who live large while stealing, and seeking to control the lives of those whom they view as "the masses".
A totalitarian system can be said to work, if your goal is unfettered control over the individual. Of course those in charge assume they know best. One benefit of being older is that one may have glimpsed a freer time, and observed as the political world created crises and wars, then pretended to address the issues by closing the grip on the citizens. Over and over and over again.
Create a problem, tout a worthless fix, spout ay irrelevant lie needed, over and over until people buy it for rational, or include some inducement which will quiet people's better sense. Then do it again. The result is incrementally more responsibilities for government, more money spent, more erosio of rights and liberty.
One key is the casting of the crumbs. nother is convincing people that only the evil, label of the month to hate, group is affected. Like "the rich", the "1%", NRA, Oil, this that the other. Wow, I get a phone or some other perk while my lords stick it to the rich or some ethic group who is out of style. Yippee.
And the truth is, the evil whoever is probably not phased. Especially the echelon of that group which is very much in bed with the powers that be. Often the public face of the relationship is a total facade to project a adversarial impression. If you have never had cause to discover such deception first had, you may think this sounds like paranoia and fantasy.
I assure you it is not. I was bit pretty hard one time due to this phenomenon in our federal government. I'm sure it occurs on every level to some degree. Anyway, there was no doubt about the truth. My discovery was the result of pure coincidence and being in the right place at the right time. Or wrong time, depending upon how you look at it.
I'm just venting. It is all true and right, but...never mind. I know this is a worthless waste of time. I like to write such things down. I'd say, "so sue me", but I'm not sure you won't, ad not sure you wouldn't win.
.
This era may stand out as the Hypocritical Madness. Either you get or you don't. Not sure expounding on it is worth the trouble.
I was thinking how I am not a fan of basketball. It is OK, I guess, but doesn't appeal to me. On top of that I do not agree with Obama's view of the USA, the role of government in general, and federal power specifically. This would easily land me the label of "racist" among those who lend non-critical support to anything the president does.
Yet, my views are not formulated using race as a factor in the equation. Oh well. Label away.
One statement which defines our difference in viewpoint was made during Obama's first inauguration. I paraphrase but I think the essence is intact. He stated that the size and scope of government is not an issue, only whether it works.
How one defines what "works" means in that assertion is less and less a mystery every day. It is not comforting that some close to the president, supporters in the Congress, have stated that China's government "works". It is a slippery slope.
My idea of a government that works would be one in which individual rights are protected, and one's freedom is maximized as much as possible; personal freedom, and economic freedom. That is not a system under which citizens are subjects and businesses are running the state through convoluted regulations, cronyism, and competition killing measures.
My ideal place is not one in which the immediate answer to anything bad is to curtail the natural rights of individuals.
So, that is why I don't support the would-be king, and most of the others who live large while stealing, and seeking to control the lives of those whom they view as "the masses".
A totalitarian system can be said to work, if your goal is unfettered control over the individual. Of course those in charge assume they know best. One benefit of being older is that one may have glimpsed a freer time, and observed as the political world created crises and wars, then pretended to address the issues by closing the grip on the citizens. Over and over and over again.
Create a problem, tout a worthless fix, spout ay irrelevant lie needed, over and over until people buy it for rational, or include some inducement which will quiet people's better sense. Then do it again. The result is incrementally more responsibilities for government, more money spent, more erosio of rights and liberty.
One key is the casting of the crumbs. nother is convincing people that only the evil, label of the month to hate, group is affected. Like "the rich", the "1%", NRA, Oil, this that the other. Wow, I get a phone or some other perk while my lords stick it to the rich or some ethic group who is out of style. Yippee.
And the truth is, the evil whoever is probably not phased. Especially the echelon of that group which is very much in bed with the powers that be. Often the public face of the relationship is a total facade to project a adversarial impression. If you have never had cause to discover such deception first had, you may think this sounds like paranoia and fantasy.
I assure you it is not. I was bit pretty hard one time due to this phenomenon in our federal government. I'm sure it occurs on every level to some degree. Anyway, there was no doubt about the truth. My discovery was the result of pure coincidence and being in the right place at the right time. Or wrong time, depending upon how you look at it.
I'm just venting. It is all true and right, but...never mind. I know this is a worthless waste of time. I like to write such things down. I'd say, "so sue me", but I'm not sure you won't, ad not sure you wouldn't win.
.
Life Meaning
It must have been a reaction to someone describing the "service" of a senator. The tone and context implying that living on the public dime, making a career of it, is somehow an elevated calling. Not in my book. I checked it and it said "NO".
That brought me to thoughts and recollections of harboring and hearing concerns about meaningful work. I think any honest, freely traded work is significant. People are designed to create, cultivate, build and imagine. Our minds and bodies are designed for that and sex. That's it.
Really, that should be a great deal. We're designed to be nuts as well. It humors the powers that be. Should I have capitalized Powers That Be? Maybe add PBUH(peace be upon him; it, they, she, he, that).
When I remember that any endeavor which requires use of body and mind, and pays money or serves as trade, is making use of what I've been given to navigate life, I tend to do better. It all has meaning.
That doesn't mean all work has the same market value. The significance is still there.
Things that I am only just learning, a healthy 13 year old would already know. My parents, for whatever reasons, just assumed I'd understand life and all else by pulling the info out of the ether. To some extent I guess I did.
Most of the time I feel freer and less stressed now than I did at thirteen. Looking back it hardly seems like that was me. I don't think I enjoyed much for several years. I know.
I did go through the motions, and I had my dreams, even though they seemed somehow forbidden. I'm pretty sure, if I had to grow up the way it is now in the USA, I'd be locked up or dead. Kids have less freedom, in some ways, than did everyone older than them. That trend has been there for awhile.
I'd roller skate up and down the street, at four years old, with no one outside watching. I was five or six when I got my first BB gun. I'm not sure if crime was that much lower or the politics of paranoia and the accompanying entertainment industry built around fear had simply not yet matured and molded the psyche of the culture.
Whatever the case, it was not all roses. Not in Miami, that's for sure. Largely a town of jerks when I was growing up. Living elsewhere makes that clear.
Alright, finding meaning in what's being done right now. Making use of the design in which they chose to house me, whatever I am. It was all arranged at the factory. I don't remember it. Who knows where to find the factory. Cheap imitations, like public schools, are the best you get.
.
That brought me to thoughts and recollections of harboring and hearing concerns about meaningful work. I think any honest, freely traded work is significant. People are designed to create, cultivate, build and imagine. Our minds and bodies are designed for that and sex. That's it.
Really, that should be a great deal. We're designed to be nuts as well. It humors the powers that be. Should I have capitalized Powers That Be? Maybe add PBUH(peace be upon him; it, they, she, he, that).
When I remember that any endeavor which requires use of body and mind, and pays money or serves as trade, is making use of what I've been given to navigate life, I tend to do better. It all has meaning.
That doesn't mean all work has the same market value. The significance is still there.
Things that I am only just learning, a healthy 13 year old would already know. My parents, for whatever reasons, just assumed I'd understand life and all else by pulling the info out of the ether. To some extent I guess I did.
Most of the time I feel freer and less stressed now than I did at thirteen. Looking back it hardly seems like that was me. I don't think I enjoyed much for several years. I know.
I did go through the motions, and I had my dreams, even though they seemed somehow forbidden. I'm pretty sure, if I had to grow up the way it is now in the USA, I'd be locked up or dead. Kids have less freedom, in some ways, than did everyone older than them. That trend has been there for awhile.
I'd roller skate up and down the street, at four years old, with no one outside watching. I was five or six when I got my first BB gun. I'm not sure if crime was that much lower or the politics of paranoia and the accompanying entertainment industry built around fear had simply not yet matured and molded the psyche of the culture.
Whatever the case, it was not all roses. Not in Miami, that's for sure. Largely a town of jerks when I was growing up. Living elsewhere makes that clear.
Alright, finding meaning in what's being done right now. Making use of the design in which they chose to house me, whatever I am. It was all arranged at the factory. I don't remember it. Who knows where to find the factory. Cheap imitations, like public schools, are the best you get.
.
Monday, January 14, 2013
29 feels like 18
That may or may not apply to age; in my case 18 is not a year I'd care to relive or feel like.
However it is 29 deg. F in Descanso, and it feels like 18, according to authoritative weather sources.
Keep an eye on the water pipes. We don't get a lot of freezing weather, but the last few ights have dropped into the 20's. Sometimes low 20s.
I wonder how this works with SDGE's billing system, and smart meter assessments. Out here people use wells. They will be letting water drip or run to avoid bursting pipes. That means the pumps will run more. Or they will have some heating setup for the pipes.
Because you pay more per unit if you use more units of power, and smart meters bill you more if sdge deems it a high usage time of day, those living very thin financially could be dealt a slight blow which needn't be.
The rationale for such price fluidity is that this will save the world. In practice these measures, and many others geared at behavior hurt the poor and not so wealthy the most. Does it actually do anything toward saving the dear earth? I don't think so.
I've always turned out lights that didn't need to be on, minimized use of electric heat and A/C, but my motive for this over the years was purely to save money. I am a creature of the market, I suppose. Certainly no one can claim I am an activist who hates all things related to oil, coal, and industry.
I happen to think that the business--government complex has retarded development in areas which would have resulted in fewer side effects sooner. People have been trying to find ways to save fuel, power homes, etc., in better cheaper, more independent ways forever.
Those who think everything should be highly regulated, ad that personal liberty is a permission rather than a natural state of being crushed many outspoken innovators over the years. It was in the interest of those who pay for campaigns and whose companies were in bed with government.
Now, they hammer into everyone that alternative energy is good, and it has become a cause. These are the people who prevented private production of home power, and squashed many enterprises which aimed to make life better. They act as if all this is new.
The only reason it is now OK is because they have cornered solar and wind, and decide where the payoff grants go. Often to cronies whose companies can't survive, yet their CEOs walk away much richer for the failed endeavor.
This is where side issues and non-sense get in the way of sanity. Marriage, abortion, and other things which are not really worth governmental involvement unless a contract is in play steer people toward those who share their views on these narrow topics. Those same people may be destroying the economy and restricting rights in any number of ways, including the freedom needed for individuals to thrive in a free market.
I'm not sure, but it seems like in San Francisco, and other places no doubt, pets are no longer called pets. I think they are nonhuman companion animals now. And they have rights, dammit! So, the number and nature of restrictions is daunting.
California. Maybe the gold rush miners were mostly crazy, and their madness still dominates the gene pool here. I don't know.
I'm pissing in the wind. Too many people are vested in an over litigated, bureaucratic nightmare of a society to set their sights on a culture of respectful freedom. Earth justice, because the earth needs a good lawyer. I didn't make that up. Now the ad council and some outfit have an ad with little kids claiming it's the animals turn to have rights, so please donate to whatever that is called.
It's insanity. Most people eat animals. Many animals eat animals. And they seriously do not give a damn whether humans survive and thrive or not. There is a balance of sorts, but the most consistent thing about nature is that it is never in a static balance. It is in constant flux and things change.
Where are the saber tooth tigers? Did they die because they didn't have a good lawyer, or kids who were told what to say spouting off about their rights? Maybe global warming got them, or the incandescent light bulb.
However it is 29 deg. F in Descanso, and it feels like 18, according to authoritative weather sources.
Keep an eye on the water pipes. We don't get a lot of freezing weather, but the last few ights have dropped into the 20's. Sometimes low 20s.
I wonder how this works with SDGE's billing system, and smart meter assessments. Out here people use wells. They will be letting water drip or run to avoid bursting pipes. That means the pumps will run more. Or they will have some heating setup for the pipes.
Because you pay more per unit if you use more units of power, and smart meters bill you more if sdge deems it a high usage time of day, those living very thin financially could be dealt a slight blow which needn't be.
The rationale for such price fluidity is that this will save the world. In practice these measures, and many others geared at behavior hurt the poor and not so wealthy the most. Does it actually do anything toward saving the dear earth? I don't think so.
I've always turned out lights that didn't need to be on, minimized use of electric heat and A/C, but my motive for this over the years was purely to save money. I am a creature of the market, I suppose. Certainly no one can claim I am an activist who hates all things related to oil, coal, and industry.
I happen to think that the business--government complex has retarded development in areas which would have resulted in fewer side effects sooner. People have been trying to find ways to save fuel, power homes, etc., in better cheaper, more independent ways forever.
Those who think everything should be highly regulated, ad that personal liberty is a permission rather than a natural state of being crushed many outspoken innovators over the years. It was in the interest of those who pay for campaigns and whose companies were in bed with government.
Now, they hammer into everyone that alternative energy is good, and it has become a cause. These are the people who prevented private production of home power, and squashed many enterprises which aimed to make life better. They act as if all this is new.
The only reason it is now OK is because they have cornered solar and wind, and decide where the payoff grants go. Often to cronies whose companies can't survive, yet their CEOs walk away much richer for the failed endeavor.
This is where side issues and non-sense get in the way of sanity. Marriage, abortion, and other things which are not really worth governmental involvement unless a contract is in play steer people toward those who share their views on these narrow topics. Those same people may be destroying the economy and restricting rights in any number of ways, including the freedom needed for individuals to thrive in a free market.
I'm not sure, but it seems like in San Francisco, and other places no doubt, pets are no longer called pets. I think they are nonhuman companion animals now. And they have rights, dammit! So, the number and nature of restrictions is daunting.
California. Maybe the gold rush miners were mostly crazy, and their madness still dominates the gene pool here. I don't know.
I'm pissing in the wind. Too many people are vested in an over litigated, bureaucratic nightmare of a society to set their sights on a culture of respectful freedom. Earth justice, because the earth needs a good lawyer. I didn't make that up. Now the ad council and some outfit have an ad with little kids claiming it's the animals turn to have rights, so please donate to whatever that is called.
It's insanity. Most people eat animals. Many animals eat animals. And they seriously do not give a damn whether humans survive and thrive or not. There is a balance of sorts, but the most consistent thing about nature is that it is never in a static balance. It is in constant flux and things change.
Where are the saber tooth tigers? Did they die because they didn't have a good lawyer, or kids who were told what to say spouting off about their rights? Maybe global warming got them, or the incandescent light bulb.
Friday, January 11, 2013
If It Saves Just One Life It Must Be Right
Here's the sort of logic that dictates rights, regulation and way too much else. According to Uncle Joe and His Excellency any measures enacted which could save just one life are hereby justified and good.
Think of all the people who die in cars, who die because they eat too much, who overdose, who buy the farm base jumping. By the logic presented, banning automobiles, over-eating, and sky diving would be just and righteous because that would clearly save lives.
Banning cars is easier than banning guns because you'd be able to quickly identify scoff-laws because only they would be on the roads. The arguments which seek to limit bullet clip capacity and such would hardly have prevented most of the troubles we had with people shooting people when they shouldn't have shot people.
Perhaps if we go to the root of the problem and ban dangerous lunacy we'd fare better. Ban any form of mental disorder or character flaw which could result in maniacal outbursts which could be dangerous to others.
To do otherwise, and to oppose such a ban is clearly an indication of callous indifference to the children and their families.
While we are banning stuff, let's ban swimming pools, lousy parents, ladders, and bicycles. All of these items have been critical items in the death of citizens.
Perhaps we should also ban police and others who have been known to shoot people for whatever reason. One life saved is worth it.
I'm not really a big fan of guns myself. I am a big fan of people being able to defend themselves, and I'm a fan of being armed in whatever way if one chooses. Being armed and being threatening or violent are not necessarily tied together.
What is always a red flag is when people run around in hysterical madness demanding that "something be done!!" while labeling those who question such things as heartless bastards and fools. I'll agree, a lot of fools have come out of the woodwork on both the alleged sides of the discussion.
It is a happy orgy for professional demagogues. These people who want for nothing, rarely wait on themselves, have the nerve to preface their statements with "what the American people want" while maintaining a straight face. I don't have a clue what "the American people want", and I am one.
I'm working on figuring out what I want. Clearly I have not allowed myself to think in those terms for quite some time. That is unacceptable.
Think of all the people who die in cars, who die because they eat too much, who overdose, who buy the farm base jumping. By the logic presented, banning automobiles, over-eating, and sky diving would be just and righteous because that would clearly save lives.
Banning cars is easier than banning guns because you'd be able to quickly identify scoff-laws because only they would be on the roads. The arguments which seek to limit bullet clip capacity and such would hardly have prevented most of the troubles we had with people shooting people when they shouldn't have shot people.
Perhaps if we go to the root of the problem and ban dangerous lunacy we'd fare better. Ban any form of mental disorder or character flaw which could result in maniacal outbursts which could be dangerous to others.
To do otherwise, and to oppose such a ban is clearly an indication of callous indifference to the children and their families.
While we are banning stuff, let's ban swimming pools, lousy parents, ladders, and bicycles. All of these items have been critical items in the death of citizens.
Perhaps we should also ban police and others who have been known to shoot people for whatever reason. One life saved is worth it.
I'm not really a big fan of guns myself. I am a big fan of people being able to defend themselves, and I'm a fan of being armed in whatever way if one chooses. Being armed and being threatening or violent are not necessarily tied together.
What is always a red flag is when people run around in hysterical madness demanding that "something be done!!" while labeling those who question such things as heartless bastards and fools. I'll agree, a lot of fools have come out of the woodwork on both the alleged sides of the discussion.
It is a happy orgy for professional demagogues. These people who want for nothing, rarely wait on themselves, have the nerve to preface their statements with "what the American people want" while maintaining a straight face. I don't have a clue what "the American people want", and I am one.
I'm working on figuring out what I want. Clearly I have not allowed myself to think in those terms for quite some time. That is unacceptable.
What a World
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Dog and Pony Show Glut":
I think the admin of this website is genuinely working hard in favor
of his web site, as here every information is quality based data.
Stop by my webpage media. The word "media" was a link but I removed it.
Is spamming a hobby? Maybe it is done automatically, with such nonsense being generated by software which picks up key words. Ca this possibly lead to customers for whatever it is they market?
I don't know. I do know it takes people of suspended sense of values to market in ways that attempt to trick and mislead. Unfortunately, the realization that this is rule more than exception struck me long ago, before the internet was even up and running. I found that it is easy to legally walk that line between out and out deception and legitimate trade, with one foot clearly over the line. It usually requires the buyer to be one who wants something for nothing, or something beyond his means. So, you have both sides of the trade ignoring reality.
Some think that capitalism is synonymous with tricks and boondoggles. This is false. That is like saying that driving a car involves mowing down pedestrians on the sidewalk. Free trade and enterprise is not the same as deceptive and dishonest trade and enterprise.
The idiocy is to believe that the number one tool used in the corruption of trade--government--is the entity which, if further empowered, would ensure equal opportunity and transparent transactions. They've circumvented enforcement of measures against force and fraud by writing thousands of regulations which more often than not serve to promote one interest or company over their competition. Always those writing the regs seem to enjoy more wealth after some time in office than they did before becoming "public servants".
Coincidence?
Anyway, thank you, Mr and/or Ms Articulate spammer.
An offshoot of the indictment I made against government solutions to problems largely of their making can be seen in the brazen efforts of Biden, Holder, Obama and company to usurp more power on the backs of those killed at the school in Connecticut.
Here we have an attorney general whose underlings provided Mexican cartels with weapons which have killed Americans and Mexicans. The gun running scheme has been kept rather vague as it obviously did not result in anything pleasant. The idea was apparently to track the weapons. It must have been carried out for other reasons because none of the reasons I've heard make any sense.
Biden talks in terms of the 2nd amendment and hunting which clearly shows he either does not realize or does not want to admit that the right to bear arms is unrelated to hunting. It is about power. Not about violence or deaths.
But these are the people to solve the problem and soothe the panic and hysteria they fuel.
The problem is that people are greedy in that they will sucker for anything if you throw them crumbs. They are also woefully ignorant to the point that the majority of people cannot follow a simple logical syllogism. Who is in charge of the organization and content of education? No child left behind. We'll be sure they all know how to conform and be pliable fools for the Crown.
I've only see one person in this public theater of the absurd regarding guns who did a decent job refuting the skewed statistics and reasoning put forth by the poster boy of gun control in the US, piers Morgan who thinks he is superior because he's a Brit.
What Piers and many others do not get; our rights are not privileges granted by kings or Congress. Their powers are privileges granted by the people. And such power is limited by a constitution simply because it has been well known for centuries that governmental power naturally grows into totalitarianism and tyranny if not severely and closely checked and limited. That is the distinction between our model and that of the rest of the world.
Obviously I speak in terms of what was to be, should be, should have been. Today, in this country, people see presidents as kings and DC as a royal court. The fact that they exempt themselves from certain rules they pronounce upon others, are lifelong politicians, and vote for themselves cushy pensions and healthcare which is not subject to the rules their "healthcare reform" placed on us.
We were told that driving is a privilege, and so is everything else.
No secret that I disagree. You don't have the right to be dangerous or abusive to others. Beyond that you have the right. Even if it is a thing which demands a show of competency, once demonstrated, then that activity is a right, not a privilege granted by His Majesty.
.
I think the admin of this website is genuinely working hard in favor
of his web site, as here every information is quality based data.
Stop by my webpage media. The word "media" was a link but I removed it.
Is spamming a hobby? Maybe it is done automatically, with such nonsense being generated by software which picks up key words. Ca this possibly lead to customers for whatever it is they market?
I don't know. I do know it takes people of suspended sense of values to market in ways that attempt to trick and mislead. Unfortunately, the realization that this is rule more than exception struck me long ago, before the internet was even up and running. I found that it is easy to legally walk that line between out and out deception and legitimate trade, with one foot clearly over the line. It usually requires the buyer to be one who wants something for nothing, or something beyond his means. So, you have both sides of the trade ignoring reality.
Some think that capitalism is synonymous with tricks and boondoggles. This is false. That is like saying that driving a car involves mowing down pedestrians on the sidewalk. Free trade and enterprise is not the same as deceptive and dishonest trade and enterprise.
The idiocy is to believe that the number one tool used in the corruption of trade--government--is the entity which, if further empowered, would ensure equal opportunity and transparent transactions. They've circumvented enforcement of measures against force and fraud by writing thousands of regulations which more often than not serve to promote one interest or company over their competition. Always those writing the regs seem to enjoy more wealth after some time in office than they did before becoming "public servants".
Coincidence?
Anyway, thank you, Mr and/or Ms Articulate spammer.
An offshoot of the indictment I made against government solutions to problems largely of their making can be seen in the brazen efforts of Biden, Holder, Obama and company to usurp more power on the backs of those killed at the school in Connecticut.
Here we have an attorney general whose underlings provided Mexican cartels with weapons which have killed Americans and Mexicans. The gun running scheme has been kept rather vague as it obviously did not result in anything pleasant. The idea was apparently to track the weapons. It must have been carried out for other reasons because none of the reasons I've heard make any sense.
Biden talks in terms of the 2nd amendment and hunting which clearly shows he either does not realize or does not want to admit that the right to bear arms is unrelated to hunting. It is about power. Not about violence or deaths.
But these are the people to solve the problem and soothe the panic and hysteria they fuel.
The problem is that people are greedy in that they will sucker for anything if you throw them crumbs. They are also woefully ignorant to the point that the majority of people cannot follow a simple logical syllogism. Who is in charge of the organization and content of education? No child left behind. We'll be sure they all know how to conform and be pliable fools for the Crown.
I've only see one person in this public theater of the absurd regarding guns who did a decent job refuting the skewed statistics and reasoning put forth by the poster boy of gun control in the US, piers Morgan who thinks he is superior because he's a Brit.
What Piers and many others do not get; our rights are not privileges granted by kings or Congress. Their powers are privileges granted by the people. And such power is limited by a constitution simply because it has been well known for centuries that governmental power naturally grows into totalitarianism and tyranny if not severely and closely checked and limited. That is the distinction between our model and that of the rest of the world.
Obviously I speak in terms of what was to be, should be, should have been. Today, in this country, people see presidents as kings and DC as a royal court. The fact that they exempt themselves from certain rules they pronounce upon others, are lifelong politicians, and vote for themselves cushy pensions and healthcare which is not subject to the rules their "healthcare reform" placed on us.
We were told that driving is a privilege, and so is everything else.
No secret that I disagree. You don't have the right to be dangerous or abusive to others. Beyond that you have the right. Even if it is a thing which demands a show of competency, once demonstrated, then that activity is a right, not a privilege granted by His Majesty.
.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Dog and Pony Show Glut
I'm pretty sure that will bring spam comments for livestock and pet products. Although, spammers have become my best and only fans. I understand that. I've become repetitious and possibly boring. I'm not sure why. Since the Journalspace days, I've gone downhill in many ways. Uphill in others.
If you do not see the futility of the grandstanding and pure demagoguery resulting from the Connecticut school shooting, then I doubt a logical approach to the discussion would be fruitless.
But do take a minute to remember that the US government has been known to massacre people who were not threatening them with force. Waco. Kent State. I guess Kent was the Ohio Guard. I believe someone else triggered the gunfire there, but either way, it was wrong. Other cases have happened, but those slaughtered were uncooperative and not good at conforming.
Those who are publicly arguing this thing are doing a piss poor job. At least the ones who are close to my beliefs on this non-issue. Or it should be a non issue.
In short, there is no shortage of entertainment these days if you are a fan of dog and pony shows. Unfortunately, animal theater has never been my favorite genre.
It is hard to even talk to people these days, especially if they OD'd on the koolaid. A friend in NYC was asking me about the place where I work, knowing that the owner is close her Lord and Master. She gets dreamy and swoons at the mere mention of the president's name.
Yet she had to bring up "the 1%" in the discussion. In reality, like Ed Asner and other limousine Luddites and neo-bolsheviks of that ilk, she is probably in the top 1%, financially. This is not a person who is easy to please or who suffers reduction in standard of living gladly. If were under the Castro/Chavez style of state that they applaud, I wonder if they realize that they may not be a part of the inner circle of elites running the show.
They think they are compassionate and cool. Maintaining that chic edge requires looking down upon people who build companies that produce anything requiring natural resources. Except farmers, as long as they are organic and greenish.
You've heard it before, maybe. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Never did. The argument that all they had was muskets back then is also flawed. That's mostly what the state had as well. It says arms not muskets, etc.
Enough of that. You are not any more going to reduce crime ad make people safer by blindly acting on flawed reasoning and incorrect descriptions of hardware than allowing cops to stop and search people at will served to reduce drug use.
We have new people to hate since that is easier than actually discussing the matter and using reason. Democracy is tyranny without limits and rules. Our limits were supposedly codified in the Constitution. Clearly, this concept eludes most people, especially professional politicians and presidents.
That is because the lifers benefit most by continually increasing their power. And people still love to act like the neck tie party mobs of old westerns. Screaming and cussing at any who disagree. No offense, but many modern union rallies, ad political rallies peopled by them, provide stark examples of this group-think phenomenon which induces people to act according to the collective emotion of the mob without respect for life, liberty or property of others. Not to mention rights of association, movement, etc.
That is why I shy away from demonstrations, even when I may be on their side. I do not stop traffic or heckle individuals or shout people down. I think it is wrong, that's why.
Someone must be buying the grandstanding. They've been buying it forever. Geez. If regulation worked, people wouldn't do a lot of things they tend to do on a regular basis.
I could make the argument that I trust John Q Public with weapons more than I do government employees, on a per capita basis. I base this upon my experience with police, some of whom were people I know. Friends. I also base it on the fact that out of many millions of people, it is very rare to encounter a seriously deranged maniac, though there are too many.
In government, I find every other person to show signs of a thirst to abuse power, or they simply enjoy not handling what you need. And they often don't leave you alone when they ought.
I'm not sure that 50% estimate is accurate or not. Because I am not sure in which direction I err, I settle for the balance point.
The tone and inflection in which "the one percent" was introduced into the conversation, mentioned above, took me aback. It was as if I was being cued to respond in a similar tone of disdain for this hypothetical group.
I stopped cold momentarily, then tried to get back on subject. She caught my lack of lockstep, and the entire tone of the conversation plainly changed. We were talking things going on with us, nothing political. We already know better than that. But, I've noticed that if you don't ridicule who is chic to ridicule, and parrot platitudes, and love Obama, she is torn because her programming tells her to hate you, label you racist, etc.
Oh man, and I'm a white male. She doesn't put those labels on me because she knows better, but she is perplexed by my lack of hip politics. Not perplexed enough to discuss it rationally. Some people make a good case for their man, even though I usually disagree with certain basic premises in their argument. Mostly it comes down to function and scope of governments on every level; individual, local, state, federal---in order of legitimate importance and authority, from most to least.
See? Right there, those who love to find a way to disagree, will find a way. And those who simply don't agree for whatever reason, will have their way, as well.
Do people now pepper everything in their thoughts with political code? I bet they have me programmed too or we wouldn't be discussing this. We'd be profiling various musicians or discussing something cool.
If you do not see the futility of the grandstanding and pure demagoguery resulting from the Connecticut school shooting, then I doubt a logical approach to the discussion would be fruitless.
But do take a minute to remember that the US government has been known to massacre people who were not threatening them with force. Waco. Kent State. I guess Kent was the Ohio Guard. I believe someone else triggered the gunfire there, but either way, it was wrong. Other cases have happened, but those slaughtered were uncooperative and not good at conforming.
Those who are publicly arguing this thing are doing a piss poor job. At least the ones who are close to my beliefs on this non-issue. Or it should be a non issue.
In short, there is no shortage of entertainment these days if you are a fan of dog and pony shows. Unfortunately, animal theater has never been my favorite genre.
It is hard to even talk to people these days, especially if they OD'd on the koolaid. A friend in NYC was asking me about the place where I work, knowing that the owner is close her Lord and Master. She gets dreamy and swoons at the mere mention of the president's name.
Yet she had to bring up "the 1%" in the discussion. In reality, like Ed Asner and other limousine Luddites and neo-bolsheviks of that ilk, she is probably in the top 1%, financially. This is not a person who is easy to please or who suffers reduction in standard of living gladly. If were under the Castro/Chavez style of state that they applaud, I wonder if they realize that they may not be a part of the inner circle of elites running the show.
They think they are compassionate and cool. Maintaining that chic edge requires looking down upon people who build companies that produce anything requiring natural resources. Except farmers, as long as they are organic and greenish.
You've heard it before, maybe. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Never did. The argument that all they had was muskets back then is also flawed. That's mostly what the state had as well. It says arms not muskets, etc.
Enough of that. You are not any more going to reduce crime ad make people safer by blindly acting on flawed reasoning and incorrect descriptions of hardware than allowing cops to stop and search people at will served to reduce drug use.
We have new people to hate since that is easier than actually discussing the matter and using reason. Democracy is tyranny without limits and rules. Our limits were supposedly codified in the Constitution. Clearly, this concept eludes most people, especially professional politicians and presidents.
That is because the lifers benefit most by continually increasing their power. And people still love to act like the neck tie party mobs of old westerns. Screaming and cussing at any who disagree. No offense, but many modern union rallies, ad political rallies peopled by them, provide stark examples of this group-think phenomenon which induces people to act according to the collective emotion of the mob without respect for life, liberty or property of others. Not to mention rights of association, movement, etc.
That is why I shy away from demonstrations, even when I may be on their side. I do not stop traffic or heckle individuals or shout people down. I think it is wrong, that's why.
Someone must be buying the grandstanding. They've been buying it forever. Geez. If regulation worked, people wouldn't do a lot of things they tend to do on a regular basis.
I could make the argument that I trust John Q Public with weapons more than I do government employees, on a per capita basis. I base this upon my experience with police, some of whom were people I know. Friends. I also base it on the fact that out of many millions of people, it is very rare to encounter a seriously deranged maniac, though there are too many.
In government, I find every other person to show signs of a thirst to abuse power, or they simply enjoy not handling what you need. And they often don't leave you alone when they ought.
I'm not sure that 50% estimate is accurate or not. Because I am not sure in which direction I err, I settle for the balance point.
The tone and inflection in which "the one percent" was introduced into the conversation, mentioned above, took me aback. It was as if I was being cued to respond in a similar tone of disdain for this hypothetical group.
I stopped cold momentarily, then tried to get back on subject. She caught my lack of lockstep, and the entire tone of the conversation plainly changed. We were talking things going on with us, nothing political. We already know better than that. But, I've noticed that if you don't ridicule who is chic to ridicule, and parrot platitudes, and love Obama, she is torn because her programming tells her to hate you, label you racist, etc.
Oh man, and I'm a white male. She doesn't put those labels on me because she knows better, but she is perplexed by my lack of hip politics. Not perplexed enough to discuss it rationally. Some people make a good case for their man, even though I usually disagree with certain basic premises in their argument. Mostly it comes down to function and scope of governments on every level; individual, local, state, federal---in order of legitimate importance and authority, from most to least.
See? Right there, those who love to find a way to disagree, will find a way. And those who simply don't agree for whatever reason, will have their way, as well.
Do people now pepper everything in their thoughts with political code? I bet they have me programmed too or we wouldn't be discussing this. We'd be profiling various musicians or discussing something cool.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Smart vs Intelligent
In my own life and in the world around me I see mounting evidence that pure intelligence does not necessarily equate to smart action and decision. It is like having a computer with impressive capacity and power, but using it for worthless ends. Someone else may have a computer of modest capabilities yet uses it to good purpose and profit.
At one time I could listen to talk radio, to get different angles on what is supposedly being done in the world of laws and spending public money. When Air America was around I tried to listen to that but found it so full of angry rants which cloaked whatever kernels of fact there were in over the top hostility and violent self righteousness that I had to give it up.
The stuff that is out there now often contains material with which I agree, but presented in such a way that discredits the message, and often contains additional, irrelevant tenets with which I disagree. Or I do not see it as a suitable matter for the forums they seek to influence.
It is hardly worth weighing in on current public debates. Mostly what we have circulating constitutes an odd pop news phenomenon. What wins is the caricature that has the air of being cool and trendy. Often, when one sees some delineation between the approved sides as they go to battle, he might easily image he is watching the GlobeTrotters play the Washington Senators.
To actually be a big fan of either team, one must suspend disbelief and embrace the world of fantasy.
Glad I don't live in LaJolla. They have a huge stink problem because they can't legally clean the bird poop off the cliffs, and they have seal issues which are rather misanthropic.
Public policy arguments invariably stray from the principles invoved and devolve into personal attacks and/or hysterical hyperbole.
This is where labels like "the 1%" tend to lose me. For one thing not all the wealthiest 1% think the same, accumulate their wealth similarly, or interact equally with the public treasury. It is a label because people flock to causes with some one or some group to hate. Suggesting they be killed, shot, etc. is OK because it is righteous indignation. Or self righteous, easily grabbed vanity.
I'm no fan of the feudal system, kings, and elitism in law making. The controlled and directed hatred, and the fueling of base and petty qualities is the business of such systems. People only strengthen the power of these tyrants when they fall into the trap of personal attack and studied ignorance of fact.
These are times when I prefer to ignore some nagging personal questions and assessments. Those people who thrive do, rather than worry. That is how it appears to me.
.
At one time I could listen to talk radio, to get different angles on what is supposedly being done in the world of laws and spending public money. When Air America was around I tried to listen to that but found it so full of angry rants which cloaked whatever kernels of fact there were in over the top hostility and violent self righteousness that I had to give it up.
The stuff that is out there now often contains material with which I agree, but presented in such a way that discredits the message, and often contains additional, irrelevant tenets with which I disagree. Or I do not see it as a suitable matter for the forums they seek to influence.
It is hardly worth weighing in on current public debates. Mostly what we have circulating constitutes an odd pop news phenomenon. What wins is the caricature that has the air of being cool and trendy. Often, when one sees some delineation between the approved sides as they go to battle, he might easily image he is watching the GlobeTrotters play the Washington Senators.
To actually be a big fan of either team, one must suspend disbelief and embrace the world of fantasy.
Glad I don't live in LaJolla. They have a huge stink problem because they can't legally clean the bird poop off the cliffs, and they have seal issues which are rather misanthropic.
Public policy arguments invariably stray from the principles invoved and devolve into personal attacks and/or hysterical hyperbole.
This is where labels like "the 1%" tend to lose me. For one thing not all the wealthiest 1% think the same, accumulate their wealth similarly, or interact equally with the public treasury. It is a label because people flock to causes with some one or some group to hate. Suggesting they be killed, shot, etc. is OK because it is righteous indignation. Or self righteous, easily grabbed vanity.
I'm no fan of the feudal system, kings, and elitism in law making. The controlled and directed hatred, and the fueling of base and petty qualities is the business of such systems. People only strengthen the power of these tyrants when they fall into the trap of personal attack and studied ignorance of fact.
These are times when I prefer to ignore some nagging personal questions and assessments. Those people who thrive do, rather than worry. That is how it appears to me.
.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Water water everywhere
perhaps a drop I'll drink.
I find myself forming New Year resolves. It doesn't seem as if I did that last year, although I may have. Wouldn't it be unique if I brought these plans to fruition.
I find myself forming New Year resolves. It doesn't seem as if I did that last year, although I may have. Wouldn't it be unique if I brought these plans to fruition.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Statistics; still the debate is pandering pablum for the public
According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.
I guess that includes assault weapons, whatever they are. Rifles, I think. Seems like any weapon used in, or intended for the purpose of, assault would be an assault weapon. Billy club, throwing knife, pepper spray, etc.
Quit controlling everything from diet to health care by force and threat of force, and let people defend themselves and their property legally, and the overall troubles may decrease. Keep looking to the same gangster creeps, who take and use your resources for their personal gain, for solutions to theft and violence and you will get nothing but more theft and violence.
Rationale of Optimism
I may complain about the state of the state, but I realize that in the history of people that we know, there is not much in the way of role models that are actually healthy and functional. The common thread that screws up everything is force in one form or another.
Often, dysfunctional systems spin off equally dysfunctional systems. People who grew up in a household in which the marriage was a cruel game played by people who didn't know better often find it difficult to create something healthy and lasting.
Or such is my theory.
BUT, if my brother could be married over 40 years, and he got married young, and be happy with successful grown kids who actually enjoy and seek his company, then I think it is possible for people to eventually figure out a natural order which isn't reliant on force in some form.
If a company is in bed with government and gets regulations, contracts, etc. in place so that their competitor is artificially handicapped, that is a form of force. Just to clarify...
Really, he had little to go by, as far as I know. And his wife's situation was a little squirrelly, too. I do know that they consciously did whatever they could to break unhealthy patterns. I'm proud of him because it was secretly my influence. Only I know that.
Bottom line, if you can imagine it, it is probably possible.
Often, dysfunctional systems spin off equally dysfunctional systems. People who grew up in a household in which the marriage was a cruel game played by people who didn't know better often find it difficult to create something healthy and lasting.
Or such is my theory.
BUT, if my brother could be married over 40 years, and he got married young, and be happy with successful grown kids who actually enjoy and seek his company, then I think it is possible for people to eventually figure out a natural order which isn't reliant on force in some form.
If a company is in bed with government and gets regulations, contracts, etc. in place so that their competitor is artificially handicapped, that is a form of force. Just to clarify...
Really, he had little to go by, as far as I know. And his wife's situation was a little squirrelly, too. I do know that they consciously did whatever they could to break unhealthy patterns. I'm proud of him because it was secretly my influence. Only I know that.
Bottom line, if you can imagine it, it is probably possible.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Subris
That is the term for Subaru drivers who over estimate the power of all wheel drive. I had been thinking to myself, the other day, how common it is for people to forget that everyone has 4 wheel brakes, and they do little good on a frictionless, or nearly so, surface.
I made a post office run a day or so after Christmas. It was a dark and stormy day. Just getting dark. Descanso had a pretty good dusting of snow.
As I was heading back home on the long, winding, elevation changing, out in the sticks, 2 lane, dark road, it started snowing like crazy. It wasn't all snow; a wintry mix.
So, I drove slowly enough. No problem. Then there was no precip at all. Fine. Until I entered the spot with the downhill multiple S-curves. The curves are such that you can't look down or ahead and glimpse the future; not like switchbacks.
All of a sudden the road is covered with a layer of snow and ice. And I'm head for a ninety degree left on a downhill grade. I touched the brakes and nothing, and the car was wanting to slide a little sideways with no brakes.
The one like a woman who yearns to be tamed was front wheel drive. No comment. That's mine in the Keys last year. It's 4wd.
I was wondering if I'd fall off the edge. I downshifted. The rear wheels took enough of the load that I could make the turn. It would have been very bad if a car was coming around the turn because I was sliding in the left lane and then almost off the right side of the curve. I was on the wrong side for awhile.
Afterwards I thought it was a fun thing. Once is enough and it was a lucky break. Still, I am not so sure that I'd have made the turn if I'd only had front or only rear drive. I could be wrong. I've very rarely been in a situation that a front wheel drive car wouldn't have worked just fine.
I made a post office run a day or so after Christmas. It was a dark and stormy day. Just getting dark. Descanso had a pretty good dusting of snow.
As I was heading back home on the long, winding, elevation changing, out in the sticks, 2 lane, dark road, it started snowing like crazy. It wasn't all snow; a wintry mix.
So, I drove slowly enough. No problem. Then there was no precip at all. Fine. Until I entered the spot with the downhill multiple S-curves. The curves are such that you can't look down or ahead and glimpse the future; not like switchbacks.
All of a sudden the road is covered with a layer of snow and ice. And I'm head for a ninety degree left on a downhill grade. I touched the brakes and nothing, and the car was wanting to slide a little sideways with no brakes.
The one like a woman who yearns to be tamed was front wheel drive. No comment. That's mine in the Keys last year. It's 4wd.Afterwards I thought it was a fun thing. Once is enough and it was a lucky break. Still, I am not so sure that I'd have made the turn if I'd only had front or only rear drive. I could be wrong. I've very rarely been in a situation that a front wheel drive car wouldn't have worked just fine.
Let Them Eat Organic Arugula
The only certain thing about the future is that it will require a few adjustments on my part. I'm not going to panic or rush into action without a plan.
Often, when the bulk of the population is riding on a particularly large wave of mass idiocy, money can be made. That is what I will be thinking about.
It is surprising how often very smart people can be duped, and in the most straight forward and simple terms. You just wouldn't think it possible, considering the stakes.
So, am I alone in my disbelief, and disgust, at the whole "fiscal cliff" debacle? Someone coined the term and demagogues swarmed in like flies on shit. Sorry, I am not going to be polite this year.
There was no real debate, just absurd discussion which meant nothing. The government gets into trouble when it spends more than it has. That is a pure and simple fact.
It tends to spend more than it has when people get to vote on the use of the resources of others; when I can vote for you to subsidize me. Politicians know that votes can be bought cheaply, and often can be bought by merely saying gifts will be forthcoming--even though they never pay up.
They consistently ignore and re-interpret the limits of the power which were spelled out in the Constitution. But the fools nod in agreement when those limits are berated as outdated, etc. People fear freedom and are so small and mean spirited that they smile when the rights of others, of whom they disapprove, are violated.
So, another bit of total fiction is rammed down the throats of citizens, and a pretend argument provides entertainment while more rights are abridged, and more money is sucked out of everyone's wallets; even the idiots who think they are safe and "the rich" will at last get theirs. Geez, talk about medieval mentality.
As always, the real problems and causes are not clearly identified. Only the short sighted out of context analysis is allowed.
There seems to be no viable alternative, but I have to say, I am absolutely sick of democrats and their insistence on making everyone be happy on their backhanded plantation. I don't want to work on Maggie's Farm no more. But we will take such good care of you! All you gotta do is sign up and play the game.
I may die younger than I ought, but I swear I think will exit the planet before I allow myself to become a ward of the state, or under the state's control of my medical choices. I'll be one of those who goes down unnoticed with his middle finger raised.
I'm not even sure I get the motive of totalitarianists, but I know the under class of that group really enjoys sticking it to those with whom they disagree, or simply don't get along. I do see the groups who separate themselves in political and legal environments by race, sexual preference, woman vs man, etc., as complete idiots who are useful to those who would enslave them. Useful idiots. Not useful to me or my philosophy, but very much a force in The Big Pretense.
So, this year, screw you to every thief, liar, self righteous destroyer of property, violator of personal privacy, thug, mob activist and demagogue. Let's get it out of the way ahead of time--you suck.
I'm sick of thug unionism, pubic employee unions being confused with private sector unions. Sick of conservatives acting like dorks when their argument may have been valid. But then we have to make marriage a federal issue. Forget all of that. Marriage and much else has no business under federal purview or any government jurisdiction.
Democrats have become Stalinists. Republicans have become theocrats with a twist of socialist lite. Both are dishonest and not good. If you hate people, there is plenty of room for you in either camp. Big trap, and big money making scam.
Why do republicans care if democrats have abortions? I encourage them. Democrats, religious zealots, gang members, code pink, 99%, 1%, and all those who label themselves and their beliefs according to race, sex, and where they stick their junk, all should have abortions at every opportunity. Don't multiply. Be noisy and unfruitful.
Let's discuss stupid, stupid subjects which do not personal affect us while we let a few in power regulate us out of business, steal our money for wars of no clear cause, and generally make rules that don't need making. Worry about whether some totally useless moron is going to abort her baby while your 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure go out the window.
I see random roadblocks on major thoroughfares as more of an evil, and a threat, than a stranger opting to end a pregnancy. Their pregnancy does not affect me. Being stopped to prove innocence does.
Sucker plays abound. It is sick, sad, and macabre. The truth is, there is not more murder recently than there was 20 years ago. Due to the exploitation of things by press, government, and demented people who just have to claim tragedy for themselves whenever possible, it seems as if there are more random acts of mass violence. Apparently that is not true.
It is another excuse to try to further bundle the living into the slave package of over regulation. I think I do see the grand plan of the very few who are above the fray, calling the shots. You'd never believe me. In any case, so many things can go either way and still serve the purpose. Many of the so-called debates actually avoid the real question at hand.
Ed Asner is a jewel of the useful Hollywood idiot world. He hates the rich, although he's rich, and he thinks people like Castro are just the bee's knees. He and Sean Penn have been bitten by the same bug. I know I'm somewhat of a Miami redneck still because I always want to punch them whenever I see them say anything.
This year. No more Mr. PC Nice Guy. I don't feel like being polite any longer.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Nice Way to Welcome the Year; 2 good sets
So, because I have a tire with a slow leak, and because I despise roadblocks, even if I have nothing to hide, as far as I know. The party was in the vicinity of roadblockland. I ended up riding in with Kevin and Lauren, and out with Cliff and Linda. Fiscal Cliff, I call him.
The party took up the bulk of the restaurant. The back half is the main dining area, I guess. Nice enough area for stage and such, and maybe 50 or 60 people.
[photos are bound to show up. I'll put one here to make the post look less boring. There may be video. If I like it I'll post it]
The guy throwing the party scheduled a few different people to play. He either gave them 15 or 30 min set. Plus he had some of his old band mates in, so he and his crew played plenty.
We, the Coppercreek crew from Ballistic Mountain, played a thirty minute set. Then played again for maybe twenty minutes or so. Time flew, because I was having fun.
Prior to playing, my ears were plugged up and I could not hear well. Someone gave me an allergy pill and it gave a little relief. It was only an issue when I had to sing a verse of a song. I adapted.
It was an appreciative crowd. I didn't know the majority of people there, just a core group who play. That is good because they only react if they like what the hear. The usual musician crowd applauds for everyone. It's California, we all get a prize.
They only ran the party from 6 pm to 10 pm. After that some of us went to a lady's house and played until after two. They had all the alcohol that you could want, but those driving pretty much refrained, and no one got psycho drunk.
I had no intention of being out so late. I chose to go to that party because it is part of a long term strategy in my goal of mingling with non-hideous single women who may fall into the age envelope as I see it. That is not an envelope made of iron or cement. It is highly elastic these days.
At any rate, it is very rare that I enjoy playing as much as I did last night playing with our mountain group. We had a few people sit in the 2nd set who really did well. Some of the video has to be good, assuming they got it all. I think the party house lady and her pal have video of the who thing.
Everyone who played was on their game last night. One note on the A harped choked, but I think I was able to slur it so that it sounded intentional. Other than that, I'm not aware of landing on a note I didn't like.
You never know because it trying bluff your way out of trouble you can convince yourself in a nano second that you really did like it and that it was exactly what you wanted. When I get to play some extended thing in those settings, it reminds me of when I was a kid playing football in the neighborhood.
The yards were good for it. When I was between the age of 7 and 15, I loved nothing more than running with a football. Started to go out for it and canned the idea for various reasons.
But the feeling of time changing pace, and of knowing where you are headed but not for sure how to get there. And the process of navigating through a bunch of older bigger people becomes an artful moment.
Nothing ever gave me that feeling until I started playing at Somewhere Else Tavern way back when. The hint of that was there or I wouldn't have played so much on my own and with a guitar player here and there.
So, that is why I still play; because, sometimes, it feels like running with the football, reacting before you even register it. It's really a remarkable thing when you hit that zone. Not something that is always achievable. And it may not sound right or do a thing for anyone else. That's the danger.
Most of the time people tend to like it when I like it, so I don't get banned from playing with others in pubic. Please limit yourself to the meaning of "playing" in the context in which it was intended.
Thank you
The party took up the bulk of the restaurant. The back half is the main dining area, I guess. Nice enough area for stage and such, and maybe 50 or 60 people.
[photos are bound to show up. I'll put one here to make the post look less boring. There may be video. If I like it I'll post it]
The guy throwing the party scheduled a few different people to play. He either gave them 15 or 30 min set. Plus he had some of his old band mates in, so he and his crew played plenty.
We, the Coppercreek crew from Ballistic Mountain, played a thirty minute set. Then played again for maybe twenty minutes or so. Time flew, because I was having fun.
Prior to playing, my ears were plugged up and I could not hear well. Someone gave me an allergy pill and it gave a little relief. It was only an issue when I had to sing a verse of a song. I adapted.
It was an appreciative crowd. I didn't know the majority of people there, just a core group who play. That is good because they only react if they like what the hear. The usual musician crowd applauds for everyone. It's California, we all get a prize.
They only ran the party from 6 pm to 10 pm. After that some of us went to a lady's house and played until after two. They had all the alcohol that you could want, but those driving pretty much refrained, and no one got psycho drunk.
I had no intention of being out so late. I chose to go to that party because it is part of a long term strategy in my goal of mingling with non-hideous single women who may fall into the age envelope as I see it. That is not an envelope made of iron or cement. It is highly elastic these days.
At any rate, it is very rare that I enjoy playing as much as I did last night playing with our mountain group. We had a few people sit in the 2nd set who really did well. Some of the video has to be good, assuming they got it all. I think the party house lady and her pal have video of the who thing.
Everyone who played was on their game last night. One note on the A harped choked, but I think I was able to slur it so that it sounded intentional. Other than that, I'm not aware of landing on a note I didn't like.
You never know because it trying bluff your way out of trouble you can convince yourself in a nano second that you really did like it and that it was exactly what you wanted. When I get to play some extended thing in those settings, it reminds me of when I was a kid playing football in the neighborhood.
The yards were good for it. When I was between the age of 7 and 15, I loved nothing more than running with a football. Started to go out for it and canned the idea for various reasons.
But the feeling of time changing pace, and of knowing where you are headed but not for sure how to get there. And the process of navigating through a bunch of older bigger people becomes an artful moment.
Nothing ever gave me that feeling until I started playing at Somewhere Else Tavern way back when. The hint of that was there or I wouldn't have played so much on my own and with a guitar player here and there.
So, that is why I still play; because, sometimes, it feels like running with the football, reacting before you even register it. It's really a remarkable thing when you hit that zone. Not something that is always achievable. And it may not sound right or do a thing for anyone else. That's the danger.
Most of the time people tend to like it when I like it, so I don't get banned from playing with others in pubic. Please limit yourself to the meaning of "playing" in the context in which it was intended.
Thank you
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- John0 Juanderlust
- Ballistic Mountain, CA, United States
- Like spring on a summer's day
