Ridicule Politics, Half Truth and LOL

One of the most annoying inventions when applied in certain contexts is that of the LOL tag. I was reading a comment on some news site and the guy said,"He wants to go back to how things were set up in 1830. LOL". The first part is paraphrase, the LOL is verbatim.

I was thinking that other than universal suffrage and the abolition of slavery, I'm not all that keen on most of the structural changes since 1830 myself. Should I now add LOL?

It has become the internet way of winning a point, even if the point is not clear or stated. Just say LOL in disputing an argument or describing someone who did bother to state a point, and you win, they are discredited. Throw in half truths, out of context phrases, and the argument becomes absurd while some celebrate their fake win.

No one actually laughs while seeking the truth or hoping to sway others by respectful and honest means. This is the year of ridicule and outlandish half truths in politics. I see it on both sides, and I hate to say that because I am more opposed to one side than the other--however my "side" is not truly represented.

One thing I know, calling the other an idiot or moron is not only inaccurate, but it does nothing to make a valid point. That is another thing this past couple of years has introduced: unsubstantiated claims of low and high IQ. As if IQ has a thing to do with right, wrong, honest, dishonest or respect. I bet Ted Bundy's IQ was way up there, should we have elected him to office instead of fried him? Total bunk.

I know it is very difficult to place principle before personality when it is most prudent to do so. In electing those who control those with the big guns, it is essential if people value their own rights and safety. It can be extremely difficult to concede a point made by someone you see as typical conservative or typical liberal---depending upon your prejudice. Sometimes this happens if the person is not the proper ethnicity for the point at hand--in the viewpoint of the listener.

The fact that one might see a point here and there from either of these artificially labelled camps does not make him a moderate, or middle of the road. That I judge true in looking at my own conclusions. I would not have to wander far to find a self proclaimed conservative and a self proclaimed liberal who would adamantly label me "radical!"

In listening to some things though, I realize that the tendency for some to attach personal hate to strangers because they are either misguided, misinformed, better informed or for some other reason hold different views, seems to be encouraged in some circles.

The thing I see as the basic philosophical question in politics gets diluted with discussions of abortion, exceptionalism--which I'm not sure I understand, and other wacko subjects like marriage. I see all issues flowing from the question of how much power should any government have--state or federal. That covers most things; like do they have a right to take your money to fund my study of teak wood finishes and aphrodesiacs, or not?

This is why I often disagree with the liberal and the conservative among us. Both camps tend to be willing to allow control in ways I'd nix, given the chance. If we would be exceptionally free, then that context of exceptionalism (i think I may be spelling it wrong) I am all for. Bringing stability to people and cultures far away, I don't think so. That's exceptionally suicidal.

Some think that as long as smart people who really care are in charge then the limits ought only involve confining their power to whatever are deemed "good ideas" or for the public good. I see inherent danger in that approach, and the ones who disagree and actually think things through see danger in my approach. No reason for a bunch of LOL, you idiot, MORON! Heretic, etc.

Good satire actually makes a point. LOL and out of the blue name calling are not the stuff of good satire, lampoon or anything else of much use.

LOL in other contexts is another animal. It lets people know you are being light hearted, in case they might not realize it from whatever you wrote. and other purpose (as they say when making laws)

The Story Continues

You won't remember, but I mentioned that I started a story from It was a dark and stormy night. I have no idea how many pages it would be now, but it is adding up.

I've got homeless people, bad cops, crooked managers, sneaky corporate VP, fun revenge, puzzling turn of events, sun sand, --no sex yet-maybe later that can be so trite after awhile. 3rd or first person, I guess is a voyeuristic view in print, but you don't really have to get anymore involved with some details than you would in real life. You can get a little more into their head without losing it. Context is everything.

Maybe I will actually finish this. It does keep evolving and I find myself liking some of the characters. A supporting player has begun to steal the show. That is crazy. Maybe it is as it should be. I try to distance more from the main character so the other one tends to say more what I think at times. I believe I can do this. But like most things, I may quit in the middle. We'll see.

There are people and events inspired by my own experience but not at all laid out in the same context. Who would best be cast in the leading role? Since Gary Cooper is no longer around, I can't think of anyone suitable for this story.

Narration Dreams?

This is a first. I don't think I like it. Dreams which run like a documentary, with a little bit of first person thrown in. Part of the time you are watching listening to yourself narrate and at moments you're the in the action.

Like when the colonial militia, I assume, is having trouble fording a river so they move down the the bank in the shallows before planning to cross where it is mostly shallow rapids.

Trouble is, by that time the British have done the same on the other side. Everyone's on horses.

The Brits showing up was a surprise because the narrator was unaware that we were to the point of conflict yet. Since it was such a surprise and they looked hostile, the other side fired on them, dropping quite a few. Then a bunch more Brits rode up to take their place. The narrator seemed sympathetic to the colonials decision to forget the river and get out of there.

I haven't been reading any more Ben Franklin books or anything like that. This narrator, though, was spouting all sorts of names, facts and figures that I've never heard and don't now remember. It all sounded valid, like he knew his stuff. Could have been propaganda I guess. Or gibberish just to make him sound informed. Except he sounded a lot like me.

If this means I've gone over the edge and am really nuts, I am going to be mad as a hornet. Or a hatter.

Pilot Refuses Full-Body Scan, Says TSA Doesn’t Make Travel Safer « CBS New York – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of NY

Pilot Refuses Full-Body Scan, Says TSA Doesn’t Make Travel Safer « CBS New York – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of NY

This guy has my support. The practice of subjecting pilots to the mindless harassment which is definitely the M.O. of Memphis TSA is absurd. Any baggage handler can go all day without ever dealing with security of that type. They have special badges which scan and undergo other things. Pilots have similar ID badges and any number IDs with pictures etc. There is little common sense in the system and almost none in the Memphis TSA employee pool.

Of all the places where body scanning is most likely to serve the prurient interests of the security force, Memphis has to rank up toward the top. I know those people. They love to harass pilots, little kids, and old people while missing large knives and all sorts of other things.

I'm not sure if it is political correctness gone awry, or just the work of those who believe in a totalitarian state which uses any excuse to keep citizens under its boot. In either case, this is a poor, ineffective, and unimaginative approach to thwarting the bad guys and ensuring the freedom and welfare of the good people.

It often makes people think they are safer when they can see and be a part of the inconvenience. The old adage of "I've got nothing to hide so I don't mind" is a myopic view to take. Can we search your house to be sure you aren't doing something the state doesn't like? These things lead to abuse and a breach of rights which were initially specified and reserved to the people for good reason. Throwing the 4th amendment out the window in the name of wars on drugs, drunk driving abatement, and terrorism is coming back to bite us. This is the tip of the iceberg and the danger of it will become more clear as time goes on.

This pilot may lose his job. I've seen the routine and can sympathize with him for finally refusing to take it any more.

Why Don't I get It?

Millions of people find facebook useful, and useable. I find it neither. Especially useable. If you decide you like something then you end up with that person or organizations quips all over your "wall". Some of them put more than I care to see. The whole thing is chaotic. I must be missing something.

It tells me what some person on ist liked about someone else who doesn't interest me. It's too much info.

I'm sure I am missing something, but I can only stand to be on that site a few minutes at a shot. Perhaps I am just anti-social. I don't know if what I see is what anyone who hits my page sees or not. I can't figure it out.

Since I only go there when I get email relating to someone I know there, I guess it is ok. But recently I received notification that claimed 2 photo tags. It said my friends were waiting on me. For what? I click the link and a page about finding friends, with links to yahoo and other suggested hunting grounds shows up. I am not trying to "find friends" there. Some people show hundreds or thousands of friends. I hardly believe those can really be friends. I get requests from strangers. Nothing of interest to me on their pages so screw them.

I know it and twitter are great pr venues which maybe I will one day want to use, but for now I can't even figure out facebook. By the time I need it maybe there will be another, more intuitive site that makes sense to me, like the old JS, or even this site. Unlikely. I'm glad I used an assumed name on facebook.

That guy who created it is a billionaire. Never in a million years would I figure a big chaotic pain like that would go over. I'm sure I am somehow missing the beauty of it. That sort of bothers me. If it is so easy for everyone else, why is it headache material to me?

It Was a Dark and Stormy Night; part xxi

The reason I put part xxi in the title is because I think I'll use the title again, and assumed I'd used it in the past. Too many Snoopy (Peanuts) cartoons back in the old days, before crack and XBox.

Anyway, what happened was I replied to a message regarding how I was doing with, "It was a dark and stormy night". I'm not sure what happened next, maybe a question about if that was the beginning of a book. I took it as a challenge to start with that and come up with a story.

So I did. No telling how many printed pages it is now. I haven't printed it.

We've got a guy posing as a panhandler spying on someone else, using an alias. There are desalination machines, bicycles, Little Eddie, a sneaky transplant from the company in Texas, a forklift fiasco, and what looks like a satisfying come-uppance.

We'll see what happens. At this point the main character may quit his assumed identity as he became rather comfortable panhandling under a pseudonym, sleeping in a tent and thinking of himself in the third person. But he can't exit that persona until the mission is accomplished, which it may be. If so, he's off on another adventure, as often befalls those whose lives are like a leaf in the wind--not predictable or purposeful. I try not to be too autobiographical, but it is amazing how things and people from your past and present can be reshaped to fit.

All chapter one consists of is the one line, "It was a dark and stormy night". Being set in SoCal, the eager reader quickly discovers it was dark and stormy somewhere else, but not here.

One thing I do little of is description. Maybe I should work on that, but I get tired of reading when someone spends a page detailing the color of sunlight on someone's shoe, or goes on about something like an apple when it has no purpose whatsoever. I mean if a character is a pompous bully, what more can you say? Seen one, you've seen em all. That is not really a serious statement, only sort of serious.

I'm pretty sure the scenes are feasible. All the action that depends on the laws of physics is pretty sound and realistic. Less extreme than my usual, like the time someone was beheaded by a flying CD of Ethel Merman tunes. In that case, just playing it at high volume would more likely do the trick. I was never a big fan of dear Ethel.

It is a dark and misty night. This makes two in a row. All day in the clouds and mist. A coyote howled. His colleague coyotes yipped and yapped, then fell silent. An owl, or what I think is an owl, keeps doing that howl hoot thing. It could be Indians or mountain men sneaking about communicating in that way. I've seen it done in movies, and Davy Crockett actually mentioned it in his book.

Too Old For This

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.

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.

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

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?