Sing not Harmonicize

RE: request for covers: it has to be something I can do vocals on. They want me to front a song, which means sing like a bird or maybe some other wild beast.
I guess I wasn't clear. I play anything instrumentally but rarely want to. I did do Silent Night for a studio in Greensboro once.
This is a sing song.

Need a Song I can Cover

I'm not the biggest fan of covers because the original artist usually did it better than it will be, however I know that theory is full of holes. Anyway, not to be a coward, I am trying to acquiesce to wishes from the group and decide on a song I could do. It has to be something that works pretty much acoustically, so most Led Zeppelin is out, and I don't think Doors will fit the general tone. I hear old songs and think about it sometimes but just haven't settled. I'm sure even closest associates doubt my ability to pull it off, but I know better. The right thing and it will be legendary or, at worst, mediocre.
I'm toying with Catch the Wind, but I think maybe something else.

Something sexy and insane, yet sedate.
It must have an identifiable melody, not like the stuff Merv Griffin used to sing. Did anyone else ever see his show years ago? He would sing stuff that had no melody or anything. It made me worry about the composer. Holy smoke. I couldn't imagine anyone actually being excited about writing whatever that song was. Was it a song or maybe Merv was given to fits of insanity which led him to sing non songs. He seemed like a nice guy. Some of the tunes were, I don't even know the word.
Not tappers, those.
Help me, but no Merv Show debacles.
Do any of the thousands of readers of my blog have an idea?

Can of Worms; Cost to Society

A comment (at KCL) from the last post about a proposed extra tax on drinks containing sugar brings up an interesting point. The commenter feels that the bad habits of others pose a burden to those who live a better life. The implication being that the consequences of the personal choices of the individual are shouldered by the collective. Under some systems there could be truth in that.

Assuming that the medical costs resulting from various choices are paid by the collective population at large, then it is only natural for many to believe they have every right to penalize or control such behavior. In this case it is sugar consumption that is alleged to be a health risk. Smoking and the like were also mentioned.

There are many choices that cost the general population. What are the ubiquitous WE to do? The easy solution would be not to shoulder the responsibility for the choices of individuals. But that would remove the legitimacy of controlling the behavior and habits of others. No, that won’t do. Best to find more ways to regulate and tax, and to save these costs.

One huge burden to society is the insistence of many on reproducing. All those damned kids in public schools and just hanging around. Schools cost a ton, not to mention the children’s section of the library, and all the diseases they spread. WE could save billions by taxing the hell out of giving birth, or enforce limits. 1.2 children per couple. If you have a child then get divorced, no starting over with the next spouse. Zero for you.

Wait a minute, once again, China beat us to it. Their version may be slightly different, but the idea is the same. Those who know best, and are in a position to enforce their wisdom, wisely keep tabs on these things. They must have saved a lot of money. Not only that but violators of this rule and dissenters can serve as very cheap labor, hence a thriving global economic force. Enough humans being produced to keep the army strong and replace police and government clerks as needed. There are even enough to populate the Olympic team. Not sure about their sugar intake or tobacco use.

So, the argument that justifies the state enacting measures to penalize or control personal habits and behavior gains leverage the more the state handles the responsibility for the individual. That brings to mind the current health care debate. Would more control actually lead to more freedom of choice or would it lead to stricter monitoring of body fat index, diet, drug choices, alcohol use, exercise, etc.?

What if there are current beliefs which prove faulty? Surely tort reform should be examined. Can WE afford more junk science lawsuits like the famous one in which John Edwards channeled an unborn child, resulting ultimately in a rash of unnecessary C-sections which may have posed more danger to mother and child than natural birth? That was expensive. Not sure who paid, but it was apparently “the rest of us”.

Remember when “cocaine is not addictive”? That was not so long ago. It was in the paper and opined by people with the finest credentials. They missed the boat on that one. Not so long ago the egg yolk was considered the good, healthy part. It gets complicated. If WE are going to be in charge of everything They do, We better figure out everything and the possible changes that might come to light.

And those people who live to 90 or so, eating food with sugar and smoking cigarettes; they need to be banned. It screws up the absolutes when dictating personal habits to others

More Fun From Elitists Who Know Best

Artificial sweeteners just don't do it for me. Some are better than others, but I avoid diet drinks, and that's that.
I caught some news bit about how some legislative body is seriously considering a "soda tax" on the ones that have sugar, like regular Coke. So much per once.

A Duke professor of some kind was quoted as saying he thought this was a step in the right direction. "Our national health" and all that. Once again, my own way of life gets threatened for the "greater good". Or some elitist's opinion of the greater good. Someone knows best what everyone should do, and in order to be sure people comply, institutes a tax to modify behavior. I wonder who the sugar industry pissed off.

I go on the theory that artificial sweeteners cause odd behavior in laboratory animals. That's enough for me. Besides, I am not fat, so a few extra calories, empty or not, won't hurt me or affect the "obesity crisis". That is why I do not like the collectivist philosophy; it is complicated, and usually involves minding my business or altering it when I am bothering no one with my habits and hobbies. In the world of totalitarianism, they just never stop with these things. First you have random road blocks, for the public good, then they tax old school pop drinkers who still like the kind with sugar.

Almost always, if not 100% always, there are special interests behind these things who stand to gain monetarily or in power, at the expense of competitors or other threatening groups. Usually said groups are companies or well placed individuals. It is corrupt, in any case. Some of those scams in the past were well clouded, publicly, and beyond belief in the real. Unfortunately I happened to stumble into one or two such things, and it shed light on the process. Once you see it, other things that come up are more transparent. Like a magic trick involving a fake thumb I was once shown. Once you know, it stands out. Before you know, it is not obvious at all.

Per Doug, 7 things I like that don't require people

Thanks Doug, for the award.
Apparently the seven things only loosely don't require people. Most of what I like involves something people made in some way.

1. I like to drive through mountains and on back roads.
2. Reada a book.
3. Sleep, when sleep is good.
4. go hang out at Mt Laguna
5. Write my rebel thoughts, hoping that one day I can state it so that smarmy elitists actually get it and see the point.
6. Make things that actually come out OK.
7. Dream dreams, sometimes involving music, sometimes new ways of doing things, sometimes just things I hope come to pass.

This may have been a pass it on thing, but I am not too good at figuring out how to do that without making trouble.
I'd list, Bobby, Breath-e, Factotum, and Scribbler, were I to list the four people.
Oh, and give them the Kreative (with a friggin K?) blogger award.
Bobby because he is living the good life, and scratching it out the whole way. He earns it, and he plays music and likes his family. Always something to learn there.
Breathe because I am forever surprised and totally partial.
Factotum because she is brilliant and nuts, and very kind.
Scibbler because I have my reasons and he is my friend and a hotshot writer.

That is all if I were to pass it on, name people, and include a blurb about each stating why, which I'm not doing because I am almost a hermit.

Fishing is a Privilege

You have to have a license to fish, and if driving, which also requires a license is a privilege, then there you have it. I've often argued with fascist friends about that concept---to no avail. Admittedly, many drivers are terrible at handling a motor vehicle. That should help my point, but my fascist friends somehow think the police and heavy handed state can somehow make them better. The license certainly has no influence on it.

I consider driving a right, obviously subordinate to the rights of others. You have to be reasonably safe and follow the conventions of the road or you are hindering others in exercising their right to be mobile. Usually my discussions on the subject find me fielding questions like, "So, does Stevie Wonder have the right to drive then?" My fascist friends tend to piss me off. Obviously that is not the point, or even a reasonable question. Stevie can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't pose an undue hazard to others. Unlike the CA Highway Patrol. They do what they want regardless of the consequence to others. At least the El Cajon crop.

So, you can get a license to fish without taking a test or even knowing how to fish. I like to think of it as a privilege. Do it wrong and your fishing privileges could be revoked. The idea of it comes down to the same thing; control and money.

These are the little things that seemed like a good idea, after all we are only protecting ourselves and our fish, and keeping track of everyone at the same time. I tend to think the purpose could have been served more creatively and without restricting freedom on a wholesale basis. These little things led to the "us vs them" mentality of law enforcement. "Them" being anyone who isn't a cop or a government official that could make trouble if subjected to the tyranny the rest of us enjoy.

It is a bucket that was filled a drip at a time. Until they got impatient and started dumping in a cup load at a shot, and now simply put the hose in and turn it up full blast. It almost makes me mad at the people who are dissenting. You could see this coming for fifty years, minimum. That's if you were half blind.

Now, if you disagree with the fascist totalitarian proposals they call you racist. Jimmy Carter does, anyway. It is the new technique being used to kill examination of principles and bring it back to personalities. Total bullshit and he knows it. Hell, more people absolutely despise Nancy Pelosi than they do Obama, even if they vehemently disagree with his policies, appointments, friends, colleagues and general philosophy. Does that mean they are sexist? Or maybe that, too, classes them as racist. They keep people ignorant so that they can play on that ignorance at times like this.

I absolutely believe we are headed toward a form of fascist state. Under Bush, we saw more of the framework set in place; homeland security dept, harassment of citizens who travel, etc. But it was not a cult of personality thing going then. Enter Obama and we have the charismatic leader who gets away with playing savior, dictating policy to private firms, heading up nationalization of any number of industries, etc. And his cronies plant little media seeds to villainize dissenters, and spread outright lies. People like me would be lumped in with religious right and God only knows who else.

I'm for legalizing freedom, and limiting the hell out of the power of any government. If we functioned under the constitution it would help. It leaves a lot to the states and I'd be wanting to find the one whose power was the most restricted. No state is within bounds at this time. They all got sold out, or bought out, due to the feds extorting them with their own money.

For many life will continue to be good even if the executive branch assumes pretty much all power. They are well on their way. The long term result and the consequence to many will not be so pleasant. It will be fine for those who play ball. But freedom as we used to think of the word will be dead. Some people just can't live in a world where being asked for credentials and to prove innocence at random is accepted. On top of that, even if the state is OK with you smoking a joint the feds come and raid the legitimate suppliers. Makes me think they are tied in with the foregn drug cartels and like the way it works; gangs and all that.

I just had to get this out, again. Obama was making a speech about how HE was going to make this and that against the law for the insurance companies. What gives him that power? Making laws? And telling private firms who they can do business with and how? I guess he'll force them to keep their doors open if they find his way to be highly unprofitable. Maybe he's a racist.

I threw that in for anyone who wanted something irrelevant to spice up the argument, like Carter claiming racism is behind the dissent. Turning the tables with equal justification in the assertion.

Real Life is Good

Unlike the subject matter of the last post---things "they" create and butcher---real life, as lived by me, is not bad. No way to be too down when driving from here to the Duke's in the most perfect weather ever, with mountains and blue sky and breeze. When my spirits are high, people smile at me, even young pretty people. It is really amazing how that works.

In early Oct I get to journey north again, and I do like journeys.

Funny how I lose a bit of optimism when I ponder the police state, whether it is the one in which I live or the national hoax. I feel obligated to remain aware because that is how it happens and has in all the famous fascist or totalitarian states; people were stupid and compliant. Yet, the nature of that insanity is such that it causes me to lose sight of the real opportunities for the good life that are in my world. By good life, I don't mean the stuff of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Just pleasant life filled with ideas and good people..

Things We (I) Ponder

I remember when I first read the "we" bit which has a name I don't know. It is the same we they used in the Playboy advisor, like, "we think the FSU coeds are the hottest". How do I know that? When I was maybe 15 or so, I thought Playboy knew something. They could get good looking babes to hang out in the buff--more than I could do. Back then plastic parts were rare or non-existent. Air brushing was rampant. I'm glad I developed a taste for the real and more plentiful.

Anyway, we wonder how many in America have the slightest clue how cause and effect, quid pro quo, and even gravity work. It may be that there is some kind of hard wired need for humans to be led and exploited, even if they are robbed so that the exploiters can carry out their control. The cash for clunker debacle was an example of this. People being bribed with their own damned money.

The way many mafia figures are revered and held in high esteem is another example where people sell out cheap to those who hold the guns and have no hesitation in using them should their path get cluttered by things such as values and individual rights and freedom. Always there are those who benefit from this tendency in average people to serve unworthy masters.

Back to quid pro quo and all that. The term "health insurance" has come to mean "health assurance" in public debate and legislative halls. The fact that most bills are passed by people who don't even read them is another matter. Insurance counts on one thing; that the average person will pay more in during their lives than they take out. How else could such a company exist? Why would they exist? In the case of large insurance, they also use that money to invest in any number of things that yield a profit of some kind. That is only smart, and it helps keep premiums down. So does competition.

Almost all large corporations look like they are made of money and must be reaping obscene profits but the reality is that they do not make even double digit profits in most cases. The IRS influence bastardizes the basic market principles more than any other factor, excluding direct government payments and control. How you can expect an organization which enforces its will with guns and force, and which has no intrinsic expertise in any business other than the military, to provide a better service at lower price is beyond me. They have no competition and can smash any competitor because they play by one set of fluid rules while enforcing other rules on normal organizations and people.

Health insurance does not equal a healthy life. It just means a contract whereby the agreed amount is paid if you find yourself in need of medical services. Some people pay as they go, and some don't go due to religious reasons or disgust with the corrupt AMA. They bet a different way. It was once their right.

Every now and then I get a little worked up when I see or hear the thuggery of unlimited government being sold as intellectually sound, beneficial to the little people, and good. People are being bribed with their own money, and at the cost of better opportunity and often better technology. Half the things the green zealots are trying to force would have been in much better condition but for the influence of a government which has overstepped proper limits for at least 100 years.

They did it because all you have to do is paint the opposition as uncool, usually singling out one vocal opponent. Twist the words and focus on the personality--forget the principles in question. It works like a charm. I remember the way the opponents to adding fluoride and other non essential chemicals to water were painted as wacko extremists. Now the same general group who pushed it through buy bottled, purified, chemical free water. They do it because it is hip. They think and do everything according to whether it is accepted by their group, which sees itself as elite and superior.

This current coup is a pack of lies, from the bailouts, to the airport and border security, to health care, to cap and trade. It has gone on for a long time. Now it is in the open and heading toward the police state at full steam.

I know there has been a lot of dissent and much is not reported or minimized. Hundreds of thousands marched on Washington. Not much of stir there. They also took their trash with them when they left, from what I heard. Even the inauguration crowd left mountains of trash behind, and they weren't even protesting. Yet that crowd of dissenters is labeled as nazis and worse. No possible justification for that. I think anyone wanting a national security force run by government, independent of military and police, is more nazi-like than people who oppose nationalizing industries and who oppose restricting speech and other rights.

It is good to see some backlash. Soon the bogus homeland security method of protecting against terrorists will label such activity as a threat to national security. I'll bet Obama and Pelosi secretly thank the Bush crowd for that on a daily basis. He didn't let a crisis go to waste, a la Rahm Emanuel.

I'm just spouting off because I can, because I am glad to hear rumblings of rebellion to this insane path we are on, and because the alleged debate on these issues does not exist, is not allowed, and almost never allows a full accounting of the real motives for proposed action, or the true long term causes of the alleged crisis that is claimed to need fixing.

We have heard over and over that we are in a health care crisis, yet we don't see John Edwards and others who directly raped the medical industry in ways that raised the cost for all forced to answer for their actions. I don't know if there is a crisis. It will be a crisis if I can't go in, pay cash and let a doctor poke where she (hopefully) will. I don't care to pay a man to poke me. You do what you must when in pain so who knows.

Everywhere in which people think they have a great, free system, things have deteriorated and the wealthiest come here to save time. Nothing is free. Air used to be, but not the labor, skill, products and expertise of others. They have needs too, so they take payment. If you don't pay, someone does. If you pay tax then you pay thousands of other people to pay for what you get. It is not just the middle man you pay, it is the middle multitudes.

People hate freedom, especially the freedom of others. They'll sacrifice their own just to feel the power rush of limiting someone else's freedom. It is a sick trend.

Like The Moon; Waxing and Waning

t must be the way of life, cycles. If you lrack a point on a wheel rolling along, depending on the location of the point and the angle of the viewpoint, it can trace a curvey track that loops back on itself, or just an up and down yoyo, or maybe something akin to a sine curve(not too sure about that one.--doesn't matter). The one that curves up and down and loops back on itself seems the most accurate. It is the way of progress toward something. Three steps forward, one or two back, if you are lucky. Being lucky is the way to go when you can, but it does take a little effort. I call it luck, but I don't actually believe in luck in the usual sense of the word.
Good fortune, and being open to it, I can understand. Then there are circumstances some just have to experience that others don't. I don't know why; whim of the Gods is my guess. Or factors beyond this dimension. Whatever it is, I believe it is out of the reach of lawyers and police, which that gives me comfort.

Once again, the babble is a bit vague. There is an obscure Donavan song that puts a little clarity to the real subject at hand.

Whatever the meaning, I think I now know what I'm shooting for in a general way. It is all possible, even though it is about like building a bridge out of cardboard boxes. It is possible to do that and make it strong enough to hold a car. Got to be corrugated cardboard. I've seen it done. Still, it is a fragile and somewhat tenuous endeavor. OK. Maybe that is a stupid comparison. The point is, things like this are fragile and strong and the same time. The goal is to build toward the goal, fragile bit by fragile bit, and if it is done well, all those bits combined make for a structure as strong as you need.

Hopefully the Chargers will prevail over the dreaded Oakland Raiders tomorrow. I expect they will.

.

The Script

The bane of my existence is that I don't know the lines and continually miss my mark. Oddly enough, there are those who are aware of this, and keep track of each deviation from the script. Nice people, sometimes. It is not a thing I can help.