There have been days lately which passed without any email check or online activity at all on my part. Not much was happening in real life either. But plenty going on internally. I was not much of a benefit to anyone I guess. No one around to benefit.
That damned cloud of sorrow that has chased me most of my life returned to taunt me. I've got no idea what it is about. Certainly not what got it started. But, over time, it has caused action and, more often, inaction, which resulted in feeding that creature so that there are now specific reasons for its existence. I'm fed up with it, and have been for some time. It saps energy on every level.
I guess few worthwhile things come without a fight of some kind or a bit of pain. So, may as well just go ahead whether the maudlin me has the energy to do it or not.
The one thing that I seem to be able to do, regardless, is play when I get together with my musical friends, the Copper Creek band. Often I am but a shell of myself, but when the music starts, I play. That is a small but fortunate reprieve.
The rest amounts to just doing what I don't want to do, and what seems physically as well as mentally painful. My stomach does flipflops whenever I begin to deal with the personal mess of tangibly organizing and sorting things. In there are keys to projects which would be of benefit if pursued.
I still hold to my view that one is best off if he falls in love, marries fairly young, soon has children, and dedicates himself to providing for his family financially, spiritually, and emotionally. Filter all through what best serves them. And be damned sure when you get married that you're both on the same page regarding kids. It is odd to discover after splitting up that she never wanted kids. Sure was a shocker to me. I used to openly express my wish for an odd number between five and nine, inclusive.
Although I'd settle for one or two if I had to. Too late now.
I've seen people who do all they can to discourage their kids from getting married before they are forty. Mostly, some women who married young for the wrong reasons tend to vicariously live through daughters in an unhealthy way. I said some so don't assume a blanket generality. But it seemed those to whom I refer want their daughters to sample all the sausage in the state before settling down. Must be a way to make up for what Mom thinks she missed.
*just to assure anyone who thinks I speak of them, that is doubtful. Don't know anyone lately who is in that boat. Maybe it is a southern thing.
Guess the grass is always greener. I'd have been better off and happier with a little less distribution of affection, and a lot more commitment to responsibility. Now I see no motive for much responsibility. Just the small drive which starting over against odds brings.
No one to blame but myself. The world is what it is. Blaming it does no good, that's for sure. Things are possible. The end.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
In The Clouds
All day long Ballistic Mountain has been in the clouds. It is misty and water flows in the roof gutter as if it is raining. That is common here. If the cloud is at your elevation, there is nowhere for the rain to fall, so moisture just clings to things and rolls where it can.
The San Diego climate is definitely unique. At the coast it is perpetually springtime. Move a few miles east and it alternates between summer and spring for most of the year with occasional cold snaps. A cold snap there is rarely below freezing.
Go another 10 miles or so east toward my locale and you get into semi desert heat, semi mountainous cold. If we are lucky maybe we'll get real snow. It rarely gets into the 30's but it happens. Go down the hill and head west a few miles and it warms up.
Overall it is almost too perfect. If it is overcast for more than four or five hours it has the same gloomy influence on mood that long fall and winter sunshine deprivation has on people in the northwest and other northern areas. It only takes a little variation from perfect for people to get anxious over heat, cold or rain. To an outsider, it seems trivial at first, but something about the place causes those variations to have more impact than you would think. Why rain induces this land of tailgaters to follow even more closely, I haven't a clue.
So, now that I am a citizen of the land of fruits and nuts, this bit of gloomy weather has taken its toll. Why am I here? Will I ever come to grips with the things I regret in my life? Will I ever quit fighting depression and the lack of direction? Will I ever quit finding excuses to be alone? I'm not sure I can answer yes to any of those questions, and believe it. But, I probably should not give up.
I've removed myself from good opportunity in all those things time after time. I wonder why. Along the way, I think the idea that I had to avoid my true nature became ingrained. The truth is that I am, in part, a gregarious, social being. My life over the last many years, and on and off for most of the time has been rather isolated and solitary. Almost all of it through my own doing or neglect. It has again begun to wear thin.
The answer can only be one thing: become a gigolo. That would bring in income and provide a social life as well. Noting that there may not be much market for someone whose youth is only a memory tends to put a damper on the plan. I am thinking of targeting the deaf, dumb and blind--not meant in any politically incorrect sense, you understand. The problem is what medium to use in order to reach this market.
The San Diego climate is definitely unique. At the coast it is perpetually springtime. Move a few miles east and it alternates between summer and spring for most of the year with occasional cold snaps. A cold snap there is rarely below freezing.
Go another 10 miles or so east toward my locale and you get into semi desert heat, semi mountainous cold. If we are lucky maybe we'll get real snow. It rarely gets into the 30's but it happens. Go down the hill and head west a few miles and it warms up.
Overall it is almost too perfect. If it is overcast for more than four or five hours it has the same gloomy influence on mood that long fall and winter sunshine deprivation has on people in the northwest and other northern areas. It only takes a little variation from perfect for people to get anxious over heat, cold or rain. To an outsider, it seems trivial at first, but something about the place causes those variations to have more impact than you would think. Why rain induces this land of tailgaters to follow even more closely, I haven't a clue.
So, now that I am a citizen of the land of fruits and nuts, this bit of gloomy weather has taken its toll. Why am I here? Will I ever come to grips with the things I regret in my life? Will I ever quit fighting depression and the lack of direction? Will I ever quit finding excuses to be alone? I'm not sure I can answer yes to any of those questions, and believe it. But, I probably should not give up.
I've removed myself from good opportunity in all those things time after time. I wonder why. Along the way, I think the idea that I had to avoid my true nature became ingrained. The truth is that I am, in part, a gregarious, social being. My life over the last many years, and on and off for most of the time has been rather isolated and solitary. Almost all of it through my own doing or neglect. It has again begun to wear thin.
The answer can only be one thing: become a gigolo. That would bring in income and provide a social life as well. Noting that there may not be much market for someone whose youth is only a memory tends to put a damper on the plan. I am thinking of targeting the deaf, dumb and blind--not meant in any politically incorrect sense, you understand. The problem is what medium to use in order to reach this market.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Apology for the Truth of Me
Much as I try, I cannot quell the passion that flares up anytime discussions involving how free a person should be come up, or come to my attention. Like things in the last post, things to do with the USA and the evolution of free states--which have never quite existed.
We were almost there, and as a result much of the world is not as oppressive, openly, as it once was. But in reality, the beast has merely changed form a bit.
I think that once the idea was out of the bag that everyone is born to be as free as he chooses as long as he doesn't impede the same right in others, there was no turning back. All the Che types, the Lenins, Stalins, Castros, Sean Penns, Bushs and Obamas can't permanently pervert the idea and kill it.
Look how long it took before people had some say in their own affairs instead of being under a monarch with all power. It has not been that long, and tax money still supports inbred family titles and privilege in some places.
Wasn't that long ago that my ancestors may have been slaves to the Romans. I'm hoping they were Druids and had some great fertility rite celebrations before being nabbed.
Maybe the point is progress. Another word which may have different connotations to different people. I consider anything that enhances one's realization of the ownership of his/her own life to be a move in the right direction. Such things are constructive progress. That is different than things which feed egos, give one life power over another or special dispensation based on condition of birth. You can't have universal rights and ego feeding, separatist favoritism. Either freedom is everyone's birthright, or it isn't.
It's expensive though because it does not mean you are guaranteed wealth, wit, wisdom or anything other than the right to choose what you want to pursue, if anything.
Sometimes in looking into matters and their history, it takes shutting down kneejerk reactions and trained-in loyalties in order to face and accept truth. Many things have been assigned associations which may not be valid. If you question Obama or don't care for his wife, you are racist. If you think our involvement in the mideast sucks, you are anti-defense, and unpatriotic. Those are not valid conclusions but that is how things get painted. And I get addicted to narrowing down what really makes sense in the evolution toward a free society, and what is a built in roadblock that has the appearance of something else.
Why can't I just be this interested in flowers or dogs or something? It would be far less controversial. But no. I have to carry on this imaginary freedom fighter dialog with no one in particular, half believing that free speech really is under attack and that a few wrong words do get people harassed, audited, arrested, etc
We were almost there, and as a result much of the world is not as oppressive, openly, as it once was. But in reality, the beast has merely changed form a bit.
I think that once the idea was out of the bag that everyone is born to be as free as he chooses as long as he doesn't impede the same right in others, there was no turning back. All the Che types, the Lenins, Stalins, Castros, Sean Penns, Bushs and Obamas can't permanently pervert the idea and kill it.
Look how long it took before people had some say in their own affairs instead of being under a monarch with all power. It has not been that long, and tax money still supports inbred family titles and privilege in some places.
Wasn't that long ago that my ancestors may have been slaves to the Romans. I'm hoping they were Druids and had some great fertility rite celebrations before being nabbed.
Maybe the point is progress. Another word which may have different connotations to different people. I consider anything that enhances one's realization of the ownership of his/her own life to be a move in the right direction. Such things are constructive progress. That is different than things which feed egos, give one life power over another or special dispensation based on condition of birth. You can't have universal rights and ego feeding, separatist favoritism. Either freedom is everyone's birthright, or it isn't.
It's expensive though because it does not mean you are guaranteed wealth, wit, wisdom or anything other than the right to choose what you want to pursue, if anything.
Sometimes in looking into matters and their history, it takes shutting down kneejerk reactions and trained-in loyalties in order to face and accept truth. Many things have been assigned associations which may not be valid. If you question Obama or don't care for his wife, you are racist. If you think our involvement in the mideast sucks, you are anti-defense, and unpatriotic. Those are not valid conclusions but that is how things get painted. And I get addicted to narrowing down what really makes sense in the evolution toward a free society, and what is a built in roadblock that has the appearance of something else.
Why can't I just be this interested in flowers or dogs or something? It would be far less controversial. But no. I have to carry on this imaginary freedom fighter dialog with no one in particular, half believing that free speech really is under attack and that a few wrong words do get people harassed, audited, arrested, etc
Another Biography Review:Ben Franklin by Walter Isaacson
Since I do not have cable or satellite or much else in the way of TV, I sometimes become addicted to reading books at the neglect of all else.
In my quest for biographies about people whose stories might offer me something of substance, I ended up with Davy Crocket and then Benjamin Franklin. Crockett was an autobiography for the most part. It seemed less inclined to have subtle undercurrents revealing what he wanted you to think.
Although the Franklin biography is fairly even handed in many ways, it is clear that Isaacson comes from a viewpoint which renders him almost apologetic in acknowledging basic, useful accomplishments when not accompanied by cynical snobbery. It is subtle and I doubt the average reader would realize when the tone switches from fact and information based on letters and statements from contemporaries to the author's voice gently prodding the reader to come to certain conclusions. It is very standard in modern reporting and in historical texts of recent issue.
It is as if you are shown a photograph of a pastoral scene which includes cows, sheep, and a farmer and his daughter- who are picking tomatoes, then told, "obviously the farmer is overly fond of sheep and the girl resents having to pick tomatoes rather than tip cows". You both have the same information but he owns the photo, so he must be right.
There is a lot of good info and the book is well enough written. The between the lines, "Sorry, but this guy really was remarkable. Wish I didn't have to admit it", gets a bit in the way. It was as if he was treading a line so that academics who despise the whole liberty thing wouldn't accuse him of being Glenn Beck or God knows what.
Like I said, it is all done with enough finesse that I doubt most people would pick that out.
One thing that was inaccurate and somewhat misleading was his use of the words populist, liberal, and conservative in describing various beliefs of the time, and relating them to modern day impressions such terms give. For one thing, I do not think populist was even a term back then. In that day, conservative was Loyalist and all for mega government control, while liberal was freedom based and pretty much anti-authoritarian. Also, those terms may mean something different to me. He is subtly reinforcing what he wants the reader to think of the modern day categories. Very clever.
The terms have other meanings than they did back then. Today those who call themselves liberal tend to want a large central government which handles most aspects of life. Conservative, ideally would want less government (however most who class themselves as conservative tend to be unwilling to pull government out of some areas). Today the terms are not as meaningful as some espouse. But why split hairs. I would consider myself conservative if it was understood to mean fewer laws, legalize freedom, minimize government, and leave people alone even if you think they are wrong--ie: abortion.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, so I say Libertarian, or not quite anarchist.
Franklin started from almost zilch and managed to make great success in many realms. He was a successful printer/publisher/businessman, a renowned essayist/writer, extremely influential scientist and inventor, plus one of the savviest diplomats of all time.
In some ways I consider him a bit too much of a big government guy, but those people were living in a day when it was a big deal that you could even break the caste of your birth. That was a thing the colonies offered more than England and that helped lead to the nervy break and revolution.
It does help to get good information regarding that period because you otherwise have no idea how things happened, where the people deserve admiration and where they missed the mark. It certainly gives a better picture than the disparaging one which has been promoted in the last few decades. And a clearer one than the fairy tale nature which missed the point in earlier decades. Many a hardcore patriot who deems himself a constitutionalist may have no idea that the pledge of allegiance was not part of the deal until much later. I personally think it was a mistake, not a view I always held. Most everyone lost sight of the fact that many who framed the nations constitution were concerned that even under that document government could grow from useful to tyrannical. And it did.
Toward the end of the book, Isaacson quotes and offers opinions in a way that seduces you to think he's stating fact until you step back. How the hell do they know what Franklin would think of an office park or a mall? The effort was to imply that Franklin would have thought the modern version of the republic is just what the doctor ordered, and that he'd be all for this mammoth tangle of corruption lies and heavy handed control. I am unconvinced.
____==a little aside: people often blame Ben for daylight savings time. He's not guilty. He often wrote mock essays which were jokes and satire. In one of those he suggested the people of some country get up earlier to save on candles. He was actually joking. Who knew we'd be doing it seriously, and making laws about it? And have some hollywood people seriously, in public, going on and on about using less toilet paper?
In my quest for biographies about people whose stories might offer me something of substance, I ended up with Davy Crocket and then Benjamin Franklin. Crockett was an autobiography for the most part. It seemed less inclined to have subtle undercurrents revealing what he wanted you to think.
Although the Franklin biography is fairly even handed in many ways, it is clear that Isaacson comes from a viewpoint which renders him almost apologetic in acknowledging basic, useful accomplishments when not accompanied by cynical snobbery. It is subtle and I doubt the average reader would realize when the tone switches from fact and information based on letters and statements from contemporaries to the author's voice gently prodding the reader to come to certain conclusions. It is very standard in modern reporting and in historical texts of recent issue.
It is as if you are shown a photograph of a pastoral scene which includes cows, sheep, and a farmer and his daughter- who are picking tomatoes, then told, "obviously the farmer is overly fond of sheep and the girl resents having to pick tomatoes rather than tip cows". You both have the same information but he owns the photo, so he must be right.
There is a lot of good info and the book is well enough written. The between the lines, "Sorry, but this guy really was remarkable. Wish I didn't have to admit it", gets a bit in the way. It was as if he was treading a line so that academics who despise the whole liberty thing wouldn't accuse him of being Glenn Beck or God knows what.
Like I said, it is all done with enough finesse that I doubt most people would pick that out.
One thing that was inaccurate and somewhat misleading was his use of the words populist, liberal, and conservative in describing various beliefs of the time, and relating them to modern day impressions such terms give. For one thing, I do not think populist was even a term back then. In that day, conservative was Loyalist and all for mega government control, while liberal was freedom based and pretty much anti-authoritarian. Also, those terms may mean something different to me. He is subtly reinforcing what he wants the reader to think of the modern day categories. Very clever.
The terms have other meanings than they did back then. Today those who call themselves liberal tend to want a large central government which handles most aspects of life. Conservative, ideally would want less government (however most who class themselves as conservative tend to be unwilling to pull government out of some areas). Today the terms are not as meaningful as some espouse. But why split hairs. I would consider myself conservative if it was understood to mean fewer laws, legalize freedom, minimize government, and leave people alone even if you think they are wrong--ie: abortion.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, so I say Libertarian, or not quite anarchist.
Franklin started from almost zilch and managed to make great success in many realms. He was a successful printer/publisher/businessman, a renowned essayist/writer, extremely influential scientist and inventor, plus one of the savviest diplomats of all time.
In some ways I consider him a bit too much of a big government guy, but those people were living in a day when it was a big deal that you could even break the caste of your birth. That was a thing the colonies offered more than England and that helped lead to the nervy break and revolution.
It does help to get good information regarding that period because you otherwise have no idea how things happened, where the people deserve admiration and where they missed the mark. It certainly gives a better picture than the disparaging one which has been promoted in the last few decades. And a clearer one than the fairy tale nature which missed the point in earlier decades. Many a hardcore patriot who deems himself a constitutionalist may have no idea that the pledge of allegiance was not part of the deal until much later. I personally think it was a mistake, not a view I always held. Most everyone lost sight of the fact that many who framed the nations constitution were concerned that even under that document government could grow from useful to tyrannical. And it did.
Toward the end of the book, Isaacson quotes and offers opinions in a way that seduces you to think he's stating fact until you step back. How the hell do they know what Franklin would think of an office park or a mall? The effort was to imply that Franklin would have thought the modern version of the republic is just what the doctor ordered, and that he'd be all for this mammoth tangle of corruption lies and heavy handed control. I am unconvinced.
____==a little aside: people often blame Ben for daylight savings time. He's not guilty. He often wrote mock essays which were jokes and satire. In one of those he suggested the people of some country get up earlier to save on candles. He was actually joking. Who knew we'd be doing it seriously, and making laws about it? And have some hollywood people seriously, in public, going on and on about using less toilet paper?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
My Beef With the Constitution?
It did not limit federal powers or state powers enough.
Simple as that.
But the fact that anyone set up a country based on a document designed to limit the authority of the state was a damned good thing, and a first as far as I know---the state's existence was a privilege granted by the people rather than the other way around.
Who messed with it and got the tables turned, and why?
Simple as that.
But the fact that anyone set up a country based on a document designed to limit the authority of the state was a damned good thing, and a first as far as I know---the state's existence was a privilege granted by the people rather than the other way around.
Who messed with it and got the tables turned, and why?
If So Many People Weren't Incapable of Reason, Would I still Feel Smart?
Or would I just find civilization a less frustrating place?
Being able to reason and being smart are actually only partially overlapping sets. There are very smart people who do things which are not very useful in the long run. Many of them like to do things with goods, services, and money that are not theirs or voluntarily given.
In the long run, that is a detriment to all as it causes conflict, pain, and ups the cost of living directly and indirectly. That is what a lot of people can't figure out. When you take time, labor or property from others at point of gun, it is a bad thing. Some may even consider it immoral.
Populations which orchestrate or acquiesce to their own enslavement in various forms are quite common, and that can't be good. Can it? According to all kinds of very well spoken, intellectual, and affectedly rational people, it is good.
Is it possible that a thing is wrong or an erroneously reasoned idea if thousands believe it and only one or two don't?
The arrogant title implies that I am capable of proper reasoning. That is not always true, so I thought I should admit it.
===
Sometimes, as I drive toward home from either Descanso or Alpine, a vista will appear as I round a curve or crest a hill that knocks all the anxiety, fear and pessimism right out of me for a least a few minutes. I think it is the sudden nature of the scene. View is just right and you hit it at the perfect time of day, whamo.
Being able to reason and being smart are actually only partially overlapping sets. There are very smart people who do things which are not very useful in the long run. Many of them like to do things with goods, services, and money that are not theirs or voluntarily given.
In the long run, that is a detriment to all as it causes conflict, pain, and ups the cost of living directly and indirectly. That is what a lot of people can't figure out. When you take time, labor or property from others at point of gun, it is a bad thing. Some may even consider it immoral.
Populations which orchestrate or acquiesce to their own enslavement in various forms are quite common, and that can't be good. Can it? According to all kinds of very well spoken, intellectual, and affectedly rational people, it is good.
Is it possible that a thing is wrong or an erroneously reasoned idea if thousands believe it and only one or two don't?
The arrogant title implies that I am capable of proper reasoning. That is not always true, so I thought I should admit it.
===
Sometimes, as I drive toward home from either Descanso or Alpine, a vista will appear as I round a curve or crest a hill that knocks all the anxiety, fear and pessimism right out of me for a least a few minutes. I think it is the sudden nature of the scene. View is just right and you hit it at the perfect time of day, whamo.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Uh Oh. Looks Like I Will Have To Visit NH
Through one site or another I found myself transported to a thing called freekeene.com.
It appears some very strange things are going on in and about Keene, new Hampshire. Even some of their cops are involved. From what I read, so far, people who think government is ruling by force have located themselves in the region. They pretty much don't cooperate with things they deem out of line. They are peaceful but annoy the hell out of feds, tax people and anyone who uses force to restrict behavior in the form of victimless "crimes" and the like.
They encourage non state controlled education and even contribute funds toward such things, to help families afford it. They also run around town and drop money in parking meters if it looks like someone is running out of time---so that the person won't be fined. I've done that myself when the spirit hit me, and I had a quarter. It was worth the money to prevent the ticket, even to a stranger.
It sounds like a lot of these people somehow went from thinking government was the big answer to seeing it for what it is, force.
In any case, it sounds like, and looks like, a fun place. I'm not sure I wouldn't do well there. At this moment, I sure am curious to visit. Too bad it is in the northeast, in yankeeland. But, I figure you get into some of those areas and maybe it is OK. Can't say I've ever been drawn to Connecticut or Mass, but maybe I am wrong. Doubt it. This enclave appears to be a different culture, though not too far from Boston and all that. Alpine is not that far from Los Angeles but the place is like a different country, so there you have it.
Anyway, it is interesting to see people who are not hateful or violent beginning to realize that freedom may be a good thing, and that it is becoming a rather elusive condition.
It appears some very strange things are going on in and about Keene, new Hampshire. Even some of their cops are involved. From what I read, so far, people who think government is ruling by force have located themselves in the region. They pretty much don't cooperate with things they deem out of line. They are peaceful but annoy the hell out of feds, tax people and anyone who uses force to restrict behavior in the form of victimless "crimes" and the like.
They encourage non state controlled education and even contribute funds toward such things, to help families afford it. They also run around town and drop money in parking meters if it looks like someone is running out of time---so that the person won't be fined. I've done that myself when the spirit hit me, and I had a quarter. It was worth the money to prevent the ticket, even to a stranger.
It sounds like a lot of these people somehow went from thinking government was the big answer to seeing it for what it is, force.
In any case, it sounds like, and looks like, a fun place. I'm not sure I wouldn't do well there. At this moment, I sure am curious to visit. Too bad it is in the northeast, in yankeeland. But, I figure you get into some of those areas and maybe it is OK. Can't say I've ever been drawn to Connecticut or Mass, but maybe I am wrong. Doubt it. This enclave appears to be a different culture, though not too far from Boston and all that. Alpine is not that far from Los Angeles but the place is like a different country, so there you have it.
Anyway, it is interesting to see people who are not hateful or violent beginning to realize that freedom may be a good thing, and that it is becoming a rather elusive condition.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
San Diego--home to the oddest sports teams in the nation
Both my teams, the SD Chargers and SD State Aztecs, have mastered the art of letting lesser teams win, even while outplaying and out-classing the crummy opponent. It must be something to do with geography and the never ending springtime weather.
I can't figure it out. The Chargers have a QB who has all the qualities of a guy who can win against odds. Besides his obvious skill, he has heart. I hope he doesn't go the way of Dan Marino; tacking up great stats but never winning the big one. I'm not sure Marino even made it to the Super Bowl.
The difference in Marino and Rivers is that Phil is a product of NC, a southern boy from a worthy state, and he does not rag on his team every time a pass fails to complete. He should be winning. But you can't do it when you get 2 punts blocked in one game, and fumble 3 times, even though I still maintain the last one was an incomplete pass--arm in motion. Makes me wonder if the NFL hasn't been taken over by fixers and hoodlums.
I've never lived anywhere where the teams managed to lose as many games that they are winning in every way but the final score. It is very strange and typical of a Chargers or Aztec game. I think they must be drugged by evil doers before certain games.
In the past I had favorites who lost the old fashioned way--they just weren't that good. These guys lose in new and creative ways to lousy teams. It's crazy.
Fortunately I do not get too excited or upset. After all, the guys on the team are the ones making big bucks. Losing sleep and self flagellation is their job. That's what they get paid for, caring whether they win or lose. Just a game but one that only the best of the best ever get to play at this level, and one that should offer a shred of inspiration--I stop short of suggesting they are, or should be, role models. For one thing, many get into lots of trouble, seem to have no known first language, and many of them act like arrogant idiots every time they do their job well. I miss the Larry Czonka approach. In the main, I would not hold these people up as role models for a son.
I think the idea of bigger than life celebrity role models is flawed anyway. Let your kid strive to be a creative engineer or an honest person who carries honor into any endeavor. Fame is usually a false goal and that path leads to mayhem and disappointment. If one becomes rich and famous, fine, but let the role model involve principles regarding behavior and character, or some such.
So, how do we break this San Diego sport team syndrome? Maybe I'll have to step up and take over the management of these organizations. It may be their best option, however I am not saying I am or am not available for such a project.
I can't figure it out. The Chargers have a QB who has all the qualities of a guy who can win against odds. Besides his obvious skill, he has heart. I hope he doesn't go the way of Dan Marino; tacking up great stats but never winning the big one. I'm not sure Marino even made it to the Super Bowl.
The difference in Marino and Rivers is that Phil is a product of NC, a southern boy from a worthy state, and he does not rag on his team every time a pass fails to complete. He should be winning. But you can't do it when you get 2 punts blocked in one game, and fumble 3 times, even though I still maintain the last one was an incomplete pass--arm in motion. Makes me wonder if the NFL hasn't been taken over by fixers and hoodlums.
I've never lived anywhere where the teams managed to lose as many games that they are winning in every way but the final score. It is very strange and typical of a Chargers or Aztec game. I think they must be drugged by evil doers before certain games.
In the past I had favorites who lost the old fashioned way--they just weren't that good. These guys lose in new and creative ways to lousy teams. It's crazy.
Fortunately I do not get too excited or upset. After all, the guys on the team are the ones making big bucks. Losing sleep and self flagellation is their job. That's what they get paid for, caring whether they win or lose. Just a game but one that only the best of the best ever get to play at this level, and one that should offer a shred of inspiration--I stop short of suggesting they are, or should be, role models. For one thing, many get into lots of trouble, seem to have no known first language, and many of them act like arrogant idiots every time they do their job well. I miss the Larry Czonka approach. In the main, I would not hold these people up as role models for a son.
I think the idea of bigger than life celebrity role models is flawed anyway. Let your kid strive to be a creative engineer or an honest person who carries honor into any endeavor. Fame is usually a false goal and that path leads to mayhem and disappointment. If one becomes rich and famous, fine, but let the role model involve principles regarding behavior and character, or some such.
So, how do we break this San Diego sport team syndrome? Maybe I'll have to step up and take over the management of these organizations. It may be their best option, however I am not saying I am or am not available for such a project.
All Quiet On The North of Here Front (OMG another rant?)
Since the house manager is in the Indian Ocean or somewhere on the other side of earth, I have been designated as the guy to call if anything goes wrong or if the guests staying at the resort house have any issues. So far no problems.
Perhaps since they have a security contingent and the clout of high level DC stuff behind them, an anonymous rebel like me is not something they need. Of course, I don't think they know I am the sort that homeland security frowns upon; you know, a guy who questions the wisdom of not holding to early Constitutional limits, who suggests eliminating the IRS in favor of something less oppressive, all that. I'm still amazed that calling one's self a "Constitutionalist" is considered threatening in a country that allegedly is guided by such a body of law. Not sure that is what I call myself as I think the document doesn't limit governmental power enough.
Be that as it may. There can be no doubt that I relish in the peculiar circumstance. Here I am doing ace work for someone who helps put people in power whom I wouldn't hire to do basic labor if I owned a landscape business. Unlike a lot of people, I do not have overwhelming personal dislike for most of those people. I just don't like their philosophy and find their tendency to sell their souls a bit disheartening. One on one, many of those people would be OK. I doubt I'd find that Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer are fun to be around, but I doubt they'd enjoy me, so there you go.
I miss the days when I had Ted Kennedy to kick around. Having known people who'd brushed shoulders with him or lived in his Palm Beach 'hood, I'm sure I'd not have enjoyed his friendship, so I felt fine with personal cheap shots. Easy prey.
Avoiding personal attack and stupid cheap shots is the best course. Unfortunately, I often hear people who seem to oppose policies which I oppose ranting on about complete trivia and getting personal. That hurts the substance of the point. The big problem is that the choices for replacing people that I think are trouble are often not that great.
The cleverest thing I heard lately was pulled by Jerry "MoonBeam" Brown's campaign. Supposedly he left a voice mail then didn't know he had not hung up. OK. Stop right there. These days people rarely have such an issue if they are not driving or smashed out of their minds. The "unintended" stuff goes on with Jerry and aids discussing how he is unwilling to compromise his principles regarding some pension, and how Meg, his opponent, is likely to jump at the chance to pick up their support. His aid says, "she's a whore", and they go yea. Then someone says, "you should tell them". Yea, we should use that.
Now, c'mon. It is being spun by Meg supporters as "Oh, Jerry Brown called Meg a whore. This is an insult to women everywhere." Give me a break. It was obviously used in the sense that politicians who trade influence for votes are whores. Had nothing to do with whore as woman selling sex. This is one of those cases where the Brown opponents jump on a bs thing and pretend it is other than what it was. The big joke is that I think they played right into his hands. They are playing the sound bites and then ranting, but it makes Jerry look all concerned that an unprincipled opponent will use his stout character and integrity against him. Talk about a rope-a-dope maneuver.
So, once again, people who oppose what I oppose (maybe for different reasons) act like fools and give thoughtful dissenters a bad name and image. They hurt the cause. Not that I am all that trusting of Meg. I just think Brown is a gentle version of Castro or Chavez. He believes in more government function, not less. Simple as that. And his past policies indicate a willingness to interfere with personal mobility for the greener good, etc., which I believe to be a trap and not the way to do those things. But what do we focus on? Jerry said "whore". Or his aid did and Jer did not object. In a country that has little kids on TV talking about kicking ass and any number of other borderline uses of language, I find outrage like this to be purely phony and opportunistic. And it backfires. They are doing nothing but helping the people I believe don't need to be in power.
That has little to do with the guests at Mr Big's house----as far as you know...
Perhaps since they have a security contingent and the clout of high level DC stuff behind them, an anonymous rebel like me is not something they need. Of course, I don't think they know I am the sort that homeland security frowns upon; you know, a guy who questions the wisdom of not holding to early Constitutional limits, who suggests eliminating the IRS in favor of something less oppressive, all that. I'm still amazed that calling one's self a "Constitutionalist" is considered threatening in a country that allegedly is guided by such a body of law. Not sure that is what I call myself as I think the document doesn't limit governmental power enough.
Be that as it may. There can be no doubt that I relish in the peculiar circumstance. Here I am doing ace work for someone who helps put people in power whom I wouldn't hire to do basic labor if I owned a landscape business. Unlike a lot of people, I do not have overwhelming personal dislike for most of those people. I just don't like their philosophy and find their tendency to sell their souls a bit disheartening. One on one, many of those people would be OK. I doubt I'd find that Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer are fun to be around, but I doubt they'd enjoy me, so there you go.
I miss the days when I had Ted Kennedy to kick around. Having known people who'd brushed shoulders with him or lived in his Palm Beach 'hood, I'm sure I'd not have enjoyed his friendship, so I felt fine with personal cheap shots. Easy prey.
Avoiding personal attack and stupid cheap shots is the best course. Unfortunately, I often hear people who seem to oppose policies which I oppose ranting on about complete trivia and getting personal. That hurts the substance of the point. The big problem is that the choices for replacing people that I think are trouble are often not that great.
The cleverest thing I heard lately was pulled by Jerry "MoonBeam" Brown's campaign. Supposedly he left a voice mail then didn't know he had not hung up. OK. Stop right there. These days people rarely have such an issue if they are not driving or smashed out of their minds. The "unintended" stuff goes on with Jerry and aids discussing how he is unwilling to compromise his principles regarding some pension, and how Meg, his opponent, is likely to jump at the chance to pick up their support. His aid says, "she's a whore", and they go yea. Then someone says, "you should tell them". Yea, we should use that.
Now, c'mon. It is being spun by Meg supporters as "Oh, Jerry Brown called Meg a whore. This is an insult to women everywhere." Give me a break. It was obviously used in the sense that politicians who trade influence for votes are whores. Had nothing to do with whore as woman selling sex. This is one of those cases where the Brown opponents jump on a bs thing and pretend it is other than what it was. The big joke is that I think they played right into his hands. They are playing the sound bites and then ranting, but it makes Jerry look all concerned that an unprincipled opponent will use his stout character and integrity against him. Talk about a rope-a-dope maneuver.
So, once again, people who oppose what I oppose (maybe for different reasons) act like fools and give thoughtful dissenters a bad name and image. They hurt the cause. Not that I am all that trusting of Meg. I just think Brown is a gentle version of Castro or Chavez. He believes in more government function, not less. Simple as that. And his past policies indicate a willingness to interfere with personal mobility for the greener good, etc., which I believe to be a trap and not the way to do those things. But what do we focus on? Jerry said "whore". Or his aid did and Jer did not object. In a country that has little kids on TV talking about kicking ass and any number of other borderline uses of language, I find outrage like this to be purely phony and opportunistic. And it backfires. They are doing nothing but helping the people I believe don't need to be in power.
That has little to do with the guests at Mr Big's house----as far as you know...
Friday, October 8, 2010
Davy Crockett
Lately I have been in the mood to read a biography. When I checked the bio section at the used book store it was rather slim pickings. All they had was movie star hype or books about political figures I'm already more familiar with than my stomach can stand.
So, I stepped into the little Descanso branch of the SD county library system. There I spotted a book titled, "Davy Crockett's Own Story, as written by himself". Who knew Davy wrote, or even considered such things?
There is dispute about whether he actually wrote it or had others do it for him. I tend to agree with whoever wrote the notes in the book: it is likely the majority is authentic Davy, with possible grammar and spelling help from others, which Davy suggests is the case in the book. They have excerpts from speeches he made and the style is somewhat distinct. Also, it seems a very introspective sort of thing, in a Davy sort of way.
The biggest surprise to me was that Crockett was a representative in Congress more than once. He was heavily interested in the events of the day. He didn't start out so much on top of that, but after being elected he learned. He supported Jackson's run for president, but once Andy was in office Davy was appalled at what he considered the overstepping, power grabbing and disregard for the Constitution and public funds.
He rants about Jackson throughout the book. He'll be telling the story of a bear hunt and compare some event to the behavior of Congress or "the Government" (a nickname for Jackson, implying Andy considered himself above the law). All that, I found unexpected.
I expected heroics beginning at age 3, and homespun BS thereafter. Instead you get the story of a guy who at times seemed to struggle to keep from getting a swelled head from fame (he was the equivalent of a rock star in that day) and a man who was very broadminded and quick on the uptake.
His chronicle involving a trip throughout New England was particularly interesting. He was impressed with the factories and praised the people, their ingenuity, drive, hospitality and manner. Hardly what one might expect from a Tennessee back woods hick. He paid very close attention in the factories to see how things were done and how the workers seemed to view their lot, etc.
Other than to bears, he appears to have been kind and generous, even giving some of his opponents the benefit of the doubt. He was a consummate campaigner. It is funny how he admitted he knew little about the issues, especially the first time, but by making jokes and treating everyone to a drink, he did very well. He also like to remain noncommittal whenever in doubt on the campaign trail. A word he used more than once in describing his approach.
His reasons for going to Texas were because he felt the US government had become too corrupt--he thought an election was unfairly and crookedly stolen from him by Jackson/Van Buren people---and he felt like the Texas cause was one of freedom. I think he knew he was risking it all even before they figured out Santa Ana had huge numbers headed their way.
He also explains some background which makes the assertion that Texas was greedily stolen from Mexico a bit questionable. Today many forget that Texas gained its independence as a republic before becoming a state. To some extent I think he felt let down and unappreciated after some political dirty tricks left him high and dry and somewhat smeared in the press. I think the smear actually was devious and unfounded. You can get a sense of these things, even hearing one side. (I can spot a lopsided documentary even when slickly edited).
People actually did talk in terms of live free or die, liberty and all that. You get a little bit of a better more rounded picture of how this place developed, who made it happen, and who caused trouble through books like this and the one I read about John McLaughlin in the Northwest. It doesn't sugar coat things but it gives a little more credit than the way these people have recently been painted.
The amount of moving from place to place and traveling some of those people did is surprising considering that much was on foot or horse/mule and cart. And by boat.
I don't think Davy was much like the old TV series. Maybe a little. But not a lot. Another of those surprises.
Next, I'd like to read a good bio on Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun. Most likely, neither of them graced us with an autobiography or comprehensive book of memoirs.
So, I stepped into the little Descanso branch of the SD county library system. There I spotted a book titled, "Davy Crockett's Own Story, as written by himself". Who knew Davy wrote, or even considered such things?
There is dispute about whether he actually wrote it or had others do it for him. I tend to agree with whoever wrote the notes in the book: it is likely the majority is authentic Davy, with possible grammar and spelling help from others, which Davy suggests is the case in the book. They have excerpts from speeches he made and the style is somewhat distinct. Also, it seems a very introspective sort of thing, in a Davy sort of way.
The biggest surprise to me was that Crockett was a representative in Congress more than once. He was heavily interested in the events of the day. He didn't start out so much on top of that, but after being elected he learned. He supported Jackson's run for president, but once Andy was in office Davy was appalled at what he considered the overstepping, power grabbing and disregard for the Constitution and public funds.
He rants about Jackson throughout the book. He'll be telling the story of a bear hunt and compare some event to the behavior of Congress or "the Government" (a nickname for Jackson, implying Andy considered himself above the law). All that, I found unexpected.
I expected heroics beginning at age 3, and homespun BS thereafter. Instead you get the story of a guy who at times seemed to struggle to keep from getting a swelled head from fame (he was the equivalent of a rock star in that day) and a man who was very broadminded and quick on the uptake.
His chronicle involving a trip throughout New England was particularly interesting. He was impressed with the factories and praised the people, their ingenuity, drive, hospitality and manner. Hardly what one might expect from a Tennessee back woods hick. He paid very close attention in the factories to see how things were done and how the workers seemed to view their lot, etc.
Other than to bears, he appears to have been kind and generous, even giving some of his opponents the benefit of the doubt. He was a consummate campaigner. It is funny how he admitted he knew little about the issues, especially the first time, but by making jokes and treating everyone to a drink, he did very well. He also like to remain noncommittal whenever in doubt on the campaign trail. A word he used more than once in describing his approach.
His reasons for going to Texas were because he felt the US government had become too corrupt--he thought an election was unfairly and crookedly stolen from him by Jackson/Van Buren people---and he felt like the Texas cause was one of freedom. I think he knew he was risking it all even before they figured out Santa Ana had huge numbers headed their way.
He also explains some background which makes the assertion that Texas was greedily stolen from Mexico a bit questionable. Today many forget that Texas gained its independence as a republic before becoming a state. To some extent I think he felt let down and unappreciated after some political dirty tricks left him high and dry and somewhat smeared in the press. I think the smear actually was devious and unfounded. You can get a sense of these things, even hearing one side. (I can spot a lopsided documentary even when slickly edited).
People actually did talk in terms of live free or die, liberty and all that. You get a little bit of a better more rounded picture of how this place developed, who made it happen, and who caused trouble through books like this and the one I read about John McLaughlin in the Northwest. It doesn't sugar coat things but it gives a little more credit than the way these people have recently been painted.
The amount of moving from place to place and traveling some of those people did is surprising considering that much was on foot or horse/mule and cart. And by boat.
I don't think Davy was much like the old TV series. Maybe a little. But not a lot. Another of those surprises.
Next, I'd like to read a good bio on Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun. Most likely, neither of them graced us with an autobiography or comprehensive book of memoirs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- John0 Juanderlust
- Ballistic Mountain, CA, United States
- Like spring on a summer's day
