Who to Blame

It is once again time for the mayor of New Orleans to high tail it to Vegas. But first be sure not to follow the disaster plans in place. The governor can also, once again, hide under the bed.

The trouble this time is that, if much damage occurs, they can't blame Bush, and Spike Lee may have to find another great insight other than the one about it all being a plot to kill Black people. Maybe he can spin it as a secret CIA plot which was done without Obama's knowledge. One thing for sure, it will be a grandstanding opportunity for politicians near and far.

I hope someone suggests to those in that city, who waited last time for public transportation to come get them out of areas about to flood rather than get to high ground and shelter any way they could, to find a way out as if it were their responsibility to do so; like it is your job to zip and unzip your trousers.

I remember seeing a lady complaining that the government didn't come and get people when evacuation was being suggested. Spin it any way you want, but there is a serious safety issue when people are conditioned to believe that the state controls weather and is there to keep you from putting your hand on a hot stove, getting fat, or sitting on your front porch waiting for someone to get you out of a hurricane. "I knew it was coming, so I waited for 12 hours for someone from the city or whatever to come get me. Then I had to wait on the roof because the water came." victims of the world unite. International Association of Victims Union.

This is the political crisis moment they've been praying for. If the damage is not all that bad, the mayor and the governor don't refuse to do the right thing, then the president can take credit for handing it all better than his predecessor. I was not a big Bush fan, but the hurricane discussion has been hugely twisted, and filled with embellishments and omissions which create a fictitious story.

After all the tornadoes and floods and incredible disasters that have hit so many areas, with so little press and complaint, it causes one to wonder if New Orleans wasn't peopled by far too many criminals and outright idiots. It could be that the press only interviewed and showed criminals and idiots. I don't make light of the devastation. I do think the victim mentality and politics involved were shameful. Their own cops caught on video looting WalMart. People shooting at relief and rescue helicopters. I would hate to live there.

If this one does the city in, maybe they should rebuild somewhere above ground. It is sad when the main reason I don't want it to hit there is because of all the BS that we'll hear for the next billion years as if everyone else did this to poor New Orleans.

Oh no, it will be a bonanza for Hollywood celebrities seeking the limelight. I can't wait to hear the first one show such public sympathy and tell us how righteous she/he is. I'll bet Sean Penn will check to see if the drain plug is in the boat before he does any aquatic grandstanding this time. That was classic how he had a camera crew to document him going to rescue people in a boat driven by someone else, and the damn thing started to sink because the drain plug was not in.

Something must have erased my normal PC and patience with bolshevik idiots filter.

I also worry about people in Mississippi because I know and like them. Not because they will become useful political props.

This must mean I am cold hearted. Memphis set up relief places after Katrina so people from N.O. could come have food and shelter and help getting back on their feet. Bad as it already was in Memphis, crime spiked and car jackings must have quadrupled with the influx of Katrina "victims". When you use the word victim referring to people who experienced an act of nature, I think the stage is set for a strange mental attitude.

I was in hurricane Andrew. I was not a victim of it. Those who claim to be were mostly the victims of corrupt contractors and county officials and building inspectors who allowed stupid buildings to be built in stupid ways and not even to the stupid code.

Nature is a bitch. That is why I do not worship it. Too often it is not our friend.

Anyway, if you live where the Mississippi meets the Gulf of Mexico and there is a minus sign in front of your elevation statistic, get the hell out, preferable to high ground in a building made of something better than cardboard.

I have no idea who you can blame this time, though. Someone has got to be blamed. My guess is that there will be renewed blaming of Bush. Or maybe that Missouri guy who must have been paid by the other side to remain in the senate race. It might be better if politicians just take multiple choice tests on every issue and never say anything off the cuff or even written for them. It is so embarrassing. 57 states, women's bodies can reject pregnancy if they are forced, and on and on.

And you wonder why I think lots of government is big trouble and why I believe it to be one of the major vehicles for most evil. Look who runs it, what they say, how they live, who their friends are, and how many of their own rules include exemptions for themselves. People still play because they get paid to do it, one way or another. Or they think they get paid. In the long run they get stung. It is such a con.

Let's see how it goes down. I'm going to probably vomit the first time I see a picture of some politician "surveying the damage" from a helicopter. As if they accomplish anything other than a photo op and satisfaction of morbid curiosity. How can people sit still for such pandering, insulting play acting? Oh. I guess if they believe people like Spike Lee, they'll believe anything. Just tell them they are victims and the sale is as good as made.

Early in the Morning

This is how it was early this morning looking north off the back deck of Ballistic Cabin. Maybe something to do with the marine layer they often mention in SoCal. The thick white cloud looks like a foamy ocean. I think the peak in the distance to the right is Cuyamaca, 6200 ft according to an unreliable source.

On my way down the dirt road, heading toward civilization, I drove through, then under, the cloud. Much of my life I've been accused of having my head in the clouds (better than up my...). I guess they weren't always wrong.

Whether it is the slightly cooler temperatures or something else, my mood is stranger than it has been in some time. It may be that sadness thing, but I'm not sure. I am too calm, and too resigned in a way that defies definition. Like a man a peace with himself and the world as he climbs the 13 steps up to the gallows. Bizarre.

Songs and Lyrics

Lately, I've done some experiments at Valley Music on Saturday nights. I'll take a song that I haven't been able to get get guitar players to work out, yet, and try to sing it, giving the bass player there a rough idea of a lead in line. I pretty much do know the key at least.

Then, I finish the singing and go off on the harp, and last time it worked into a bit of a jam. Still, I'd love to get the words fitted to a better melody, in most cases.

They decided to do an originals night on wednesday which prompted me to write something new. I have yet to try to present that. It did make me curious about what I have in the lyrics file, though.

After years of losing what I write, or throwing it away, I decided to type things on the computer and save them. Many are from many years ago.

I was surprised at the number of songs in there that are not too bad. There are some that need to be worked further, but they do have promise. Or I think they do. I'd forgotten most of them entirely.

When I was in Memphis, I'd email lyrics to the band, but I gave that up for two reasons. One was that I could not get G1 to shutup and try to catch the idea of melody I had in mind, and the other reason was that he'd try to jazz up the words. One of the tunes I found tonight was one he'd tampered with, then sent back, apparently. It was immediately obvious what he'd written; awful cliches which I'd never ever put under my name. Pretty funny. But it reinforced my choice to quit sending anything out.

The stuff is not as dark as I remember. Or maybe the music I hear now to go with it eases the impact. Lots of wimmin songs. One is called You Ain't My Baby, and one is called Baby, Don't Come Back. The last one is kind of funny. Most of the material does not have words like ain't and isn't filled with double negatives. Those two are probably exceptions.

I really like the one called Dream Lady. I totally forgot writing it. It is sappy in a way, but I'm a sap--in case I never mentioned that. I can see that one being a very pretty tune. Maybe even include a flute or one of these nice wooden flutish instruments I have sitting around. Nothing may ever come of it, but the one song that got halfway completed with the Memphis Snake Doctors, even though I was never completely at ease with the entire melody line, is their biggest crowd pleaser. They definitely do it differently than I would but it is still satisfying to know. It lends itself to singing, screaming guitar and free running instrumental.

I discovered that I reworked the lyrics of that tune and added several verses. I like it. One new bit goes like this:

they say the light of heaven
is for the pure of heart
and I know a moment
can be a work of art

some say my motives
were not pure and true
I say they're wrong
'cause I purely wanted you

Tough to figure that out with no context but that is the way it goes. I'm not going to put it all down here. It's a rocking song in Cminor. Almost an Aztec or Indian tom tom sort of beat. In my mind. What happens when it plays, who knows. When we had two guitar players in the Memphis band, the best instrumental they ever did was on that song. I loved the bass line and what those guys did. We should have worked on it more.

I will give a hint--one line in the song is kind of suggestive, depending on how it is taken. Again, there is context which may temper it a bit;
felt my body rising
like the flame of a fire

Hey, I didn't say stuff like "we knocked boots in my MPV", or any number of other equally odd phrases which have permeated the musical airwaves over the years.

One of the songs ends with, a good woman's worth a (blank) one's weight in gold. Haven't filled in the blank yet. There was a word, but I fear it would bruise feelings and make a few people uncomfortable. So, I'll replace that word with something else that works without causing such injury.

Most of the songs on Wednesday were face value and either somewhat comical in intent or about how my girlfriend left me, didn't like how I dressed, hurt my feelings, made me jealous, etc. They sounded like police reports describing the details of everyday, he-said-she-said life. One, somewhat comical tune was a good song I thought. Cliff wrote that. He has some great material.

What was the point of this post? I forgot. It must be another secret I am keeping from myself.

------
that reminds me, Valley really needs a business plan. If I could think of one, I could probably raise the capital to implement it. They are strapped---no significant inventory and no dough to get any, but not in debt. If I knew what woud sell right away, I might work something out. They've been in business 60 years, but between some robberies and such and just being asleep at the wheel, I suspect, they've fallen out of rhythm with the times. No way to compete with guitar center but they have lots of connections in the musician world and the open mic thing is getting better and better. The space is ample, they do give guitar lessons and such, but rent is becoming tough for them to cover. If only I had the vision of what would turn it around, I know I could put it into play and the owner would gladly work with me.

It is one of those times when I think, what would Mitt do? He's the only one I can think of that I hear has turned a company or two around. Joe would apply for a grant. Jesse would sue. Who is famous that could honestly, without tangling with government, turn such a company around? I know I can't think like Mitt. That might freak me out. Who then? Maybe that WalMart guy from yesteryear.

Part 3; another union anecdote

When I worked for the airline, living in Memphis, the teamsters made a big push to get voted in by the agents. That was when I worked for Fawlty Airways. Agents there worked upstairs as well as on the ramp, although we tended to keep some exclusively upstairs and others exclusively ramp. Everyone was cross trained, but I assure you, you do not want some people anywhere near an aircraft being pushed out of the gate, or involved in loading your bags on the plane. And you don't want people whose scowling face would scare children, and whose vocabulary consisted primarily of expletives, checking you in.

I was considered to be in management so I couldn't vote one way or the other. The agents most invested in promoting the union believed that they would be in heaven and never have any more difficulties if the teamsters prevailed. Reminds me of the woman who thought Obama would pay her mortgage and put gas her in car if he was elected. Somehow I doubt her hopes and dreams came to pass. Who knows, maybe he bought her house.

Fawlty, itself, was asking for it in my opinion. I forget most of the details but their management was awful. Other than the chief financial officer, I don't think any of them attained their positions based on ability and brains. Scum bags. The CFO, though was a person I considered brilliant. He also had a clever wit and sense of humor--something the others sorely lacked.

What many agents did not realize is that if the union won, many of the rules which now could be tempered by common sense would have to be followed by the letter. Since I was rather generous in giving benefit of the doubt, my group would have suffered a lot.

The good thing about this threat was that someone in corporate figured out that it was to their benefit to make some changes that any sane person would have put in place from day one. The union lost, changes were made, and Fawlty improved ever so slightly. Unfortunately the lying worms who permeated the managerial staff remained.

But, the moral of the story is that the agents were better off without the union, but because of the union, things got better. Why people are so steeped in the feudal mentality that they have to have a gun to their head to somewhat treat people in certain industries as possessing just a tad bit of value and humanity is beyond me. My way of dealing with it is to walk away. Because most people don't do that, the method of choice is to unionize.

I guess unions are the reason that everyone who has been in a job the same period of time gets paid the same. At least in many companies. Probably those that have government contracts in the closet. In the case of the airline I had about four agents worth X dollars per hour, ten worth X/4, and maybe seven worth X/3, the remainder were worth X/7. But they got paid the same, based on seniority. I'm being generous in the relative values. Some were only useful because you need to place a warm body in certain places at certain times. If we could have got by with a mannequin we'd have been better off, even if we paid it more.

Those worth X, were paid about half their worth. The others were paid more than their worth to the operation.

That is where the labor/management model we have falls way short. It wasn't that X/3 was doing his or her best. They were just devoid of that quality which causes some people to care if your bag makes the flight, if you make the flight, if your wheelchair gets destroyed, etc. The lack of empathy in the general workforce, both in Memphis and Greensboro, in that world, shocked me. At the same time, the inner drive of the A team to do a thing right, as long as they were going to do it, was impressive. Some people have pride in their work despite management's best efforts to kill it. And believe me, management in many companies does punish the responsible employees while rewarding the slackers by keeping them around.

So, I have cited an example in which a union was useful---even though they broke rule after rule in their efforts to cajole the employees to instate them.

part 2 re anarchy, laws, right and wrong

I must preface by saying if one believes as my "there is no truth" friend, then one likely also holds to the corollary of that theory which suggests there is no right or wrong--your wrong may be my right. In that case, there is no point in the discussion.

Once upon a time I was a member of a union. I thought it would help my plight with the racist, sexist phone company in Miami, heavily dominated by Cuban women and duplicitous managers of all shades. In reality, the well meaning union reps' hands were tied. The contract consisted mostly of guarantees for union management, provisions for offices, etc.

If you had a legitimate grievance, the first review to see if it could be acted upon was before a small board of 3, 2 of which were the people against whom you filed the grievance. There were further tedious, time consuming procedures which were very difficult to implement. Mostly the game was, pay dues, and let the union bosses thrive under a guaranteed tenure.

Not all of them are quite like that. I finally just left. If they didn't want me there and wanted to ignore good work while harassing me, my free market beliefs directed me to remove my services. The whole thing got rolling due to an incompetent co-worker who was in my training class. We were being sent to the same section at the end. He, one of few males in the place, was Cuban, so he would go up after class to kiss up in spanish. He gave reports on me that were untrue. A Black girl and I were the top of the class, but she was much faster at things. He was the class idiot. He claimed I was not getting it and he was trying to help me out.

Shameless, but he was of the preferred race and that set the stage. Unfortunately, Zena, my classroom pal, the black lady, went to another section. But this has little to do with anything.

What does have to do with anything is that it has become beneficial to many politicians to suspend normal rules for union behavior. Coupled with that is the effort to force people and companies to be unionized against their will. In public service (tax paid) jobs that means you have no choice but to pay dues to the outfit which then lobbies Congress and contributes to campaigns favorable to extending their power and wealth. Not many union bosses on food stamps.

To me that is a bit of a scam on taxpayers. That is where the money originates. This has become a major force in elections. And the tactics on the street are not always pretty. No one even blinks at union violence or destruction of property when they want to get their way.

Of course, I'd disallow any government contractor from direct lobbying. But, that would imply a free market approach to necessary government contracts. That doesn't always mean award the lowest bidder. As in real life, the best approach is to settle on what works best for the duration of the need.

Anyway, I know some people worship unions and turn a blind eye to this power structure. They beg the question; "what about xyz, etc.."

My argument is for choice, and for union members using their own personal money if they want to campaign for Chuck Schumer or some such crook. I've seen signs that say the International Brotherhood of Firefighters--or whatever it is called support a particular candidate, and that the ad is paid for by them. I'm thinking, "What if I was in that union and did not support that person?. My dues go to his campaign against my will, and that has nothing to do with the alleged purpose of this organization."

The fact that all is paid by the pubic under the guise of having people around to put out fires leads me to believe that this is a far cry from government services and agencies being under the will of the people.

But, that is why I think laws governing government need to strictly limit the scope of authority. The Constitution is supposed to do that but, like in the case of the union loop (union pays to campaign, politician kicks back laws and regulations to promote union which gets richer and more powerful and puts more people in office---etc). It goes on elsewhere too, I understand that, but this scheme may be about as powerful or moreso than any of them. They also push and cajole their people to vote a certain way. Sheeple welcome, all others Beware!

The healthcare thing is much less about health than it is a forfeiture of power by the citizenry. Or, in other words, a power grab by the federal government, particularly the executive branch. I still wonder why Congress and the president are exempt.
So many convoluted, unrelated little tidbits in that mammoth bill. Well, it bothered me when I heard Huxley, or one of them, predict that people would end up not only marching willingly into a type of slave state, but that they'd actually ask for it. He was right.

Whether this is evolution or design, I am not sure. It is such a subtle process that involves emotion and psychology that there seems no way to stop it. Considering the fact that people on every strata of power do, and have done, great harm to others, there is always a way to avoid the subject and point to past transgressions of one sort or another, then claim the new bold tyrannical move will fix it. But it doesn't seem to do anything but further limit freedom and mobility. That growth of that syndrome accelerated exponentially since the inception of TSA and Homeland security.

I'm all for defense and squashing the bad guys, but not for reverting to a condition of existing by permission of the state rather than vice versa. Never sure whether visa versa or vice versa is more correct.

Lots of people are short sighted idiots, or lack the nature not to steal and cheat if they can by with it, so I am not for no law whatsoever. I do think something is wrong when police culture is generally one of an "us against them" mentality, where the world of non-cops is seen as the enemy, or the prey. That is the fault of the way the system and laws have been constructed.

I've often been on the receiving end of great disdain when I suggest a distaste for the over-regulated nature of things, and the boot-on-your-neck nature of current governments. The compulsive devil's advocates always pretend I'm for chaos and anarchy. I almost am for the latter, but not quite. That is like me pretending that they are for central control of all industry, resources, personal choices, everything. Ooops. I guess some people actually are. Odd that the one extreme sounds more radical than the other.

Giving Anarchy a Bad Name

It is a bit of subtle salesmanship when officials and others decry amoral behavior and violence in the streets as "lawlessness and anarchy". An overly high percentage of violence and abuse of human rights is perpetrated by the lawmakers and enforcers, themselves. So, being of the law does not really define justice and peace.

Maybe it is because governing is one of the oldest professions, possibly as old as the "oldest profession". Certainly kindred in spirit, although I consider good honest prostitution far nobler, and less destructive. It is always about money and power.

So, it makes sense that every effort has been made to convince people that government, people and groups who rule others, are holy and necessary and are more worthy of trust and reverence than any other human institution. They share this with religion when they have to. Or, like in the MidEast, the sort of meld the two entities. What a great thing. That's the worst insanity ever.

Diversity be damned, hard core muslims are lunatics. Don't give me the "what about Christians? blablabla". First off, Christians aren't the topic here, and secondly they aren't the ones who won't let women drive, ar actually crucifying people by nailing them to trees, stoning people to death, etc.

Any religion shoved at me with any force annoys the hell out of me. But I will flatly say, I think Islam is bloody insanity, a cult, and like just about any overly superstitious, rite ridden faith, I am opposed to any public accommodation of the insanity. Everyone can do what they want on their own time. If you want to drive my cab and you won't take service animals and have other taboos which screw with my clients, then you are out of here. There should be no credence to given to the sneaky lying groups like muslim association that sues everyone, knowing they are playing us against ourselves. Killing us with our misguided notions of tolerance, of which they have zero.

OK, back to anarchy. These thugs who use that title, organize in groups, and spray paint the logo are not anarchists. They are amoral disrupptionists. Pure misanthropes and unforgivably selfish.

The latest thing is to disrupt the republican and democratic conventions. No real goal, just do things which cause harm to innocent people because the parties are bad. Yea, I get it. Hell, I think most police departments are bad. That doesn't give me the right to stop traffic, throw bottles, damage businesses and private property--or public.

It goes back to that school of reasoning which argues by saying "what about..blablabla". Like I say, you are messing up lives in unknown ways when you stop traffic---someone may be minutes from dying and almost to the hospital, who knows--and you say, "What about the dirty corporations and politicians not paying their fare share, what about Bush, the Gulf of Tonkin, Mary Jo Kopekne, blablabla?"

Begging the damned question. It is unreal. That is how the tyrants manage to keep strangling the country with more and more laws and regulations. The real question is whether the majority, the government or anyone has the right to regulate certain aspects of life and to decide the fate of certain resources. That question is ignored and instead people debate whether or not regulating the size of a stupid drink will help in "our battle against obesity". It is insane!

The way things are going, be glad ou are fat. If this crowd gets another four, we are in for some lean times ahead. We probably are anyway, but I think the full tilt bolshevik plan which modern democrats espouse is less palatable than the bolshevik lite we may get with republicans. I'm ignoring the dumbass talk regarding abortion, etc. I don't think abortion or birth control, or health care for that matter ought to be paid by tax money--in most cases. That's about it.

But I don't think much should be paid with tax money. As far as regulating abortion and morning after, before or whatever contraception, that's foolish. But come on. Convincing people that if it isn't provided by government that then there is no hope and that they are being abused---that is pandering, condescending and indicates a desire to have a paternalistic/maternalistic parenting government. Excuse me while I vomit in an officially approved bio bag which I have no idea how to discard in a legal manner.

I'm not anarchist, but I do believe that there are models of life which include only the slightest governmental presence which might be preferable. Anarchist just means no government. No ruler. It is a propaganda device used over a great deal of time which has conditioned us to define anarchy as chaos. You don't think the proliferation of gangs, of never ending wars in parts of the world we can't even name, the increased incidence of terrorism, mass shootings, goddam beheadings---never heard of such things a few decades ago---is a sign of chaos? All that has come with the exponential growth of governmental powers in the western world. With that comes involvements in affairs outside our borders which defy analysis of any real validity by most laymen because we have no idea what the truth or the whole story is.

People have their theories and ideas but many do not hold much water. Afghanistan and Iraq are about oil? I don't see how that is happening. If oil is such a goal, why is China taking more advantage of offshore drilling in the Gulf than we are? If we want oil, we have it. It was a blunder to let the Arab oil become nationalized over there. But, that's what you get when you aren't careful when you go doing stuff in someone else's yard. Chances are, if you don't get things straight up front, they'll want it all if you strike gold.

So, if anarchy is senseless crime and chaos, it seems that half the world or more has been run by official governing bodies which must have been anarchists for many years.

Don't be fooled by the logo. Those selfish creeps are merely Aberrant creatures. That is what the A stands for. It is perfectly OK to throw bricks at them, or to shoot them if you see them harassing strangers and tearing up property. You may be better off using a blowgun, stun gun, or paint balls because, in our wisdom, it is not OK to violate the rights and freedoms of those who threaten your life and property.

I think they should be beaten for false advertising. Just because one doesn't appreciate edicts from legal bishops and priests does not mean he is supposed to have a logo and an inexplicable disregard for the rights of others.
Aberrants, not anarchists.

Summertime Blues

Ever catch yourself behaving in the same manner which you found troublesome in someone else? Then you realize that had it not been for the person who ruffled your feathers you wouldn't realize you were doing, or about to do, the very same thing to someone else.

What a conundrum. It takes all the self righteous wind right out of your sails. You can no longer feel quite as justified in feeling wronged, on the one hand, and justified in setting someone straight--when it wasn't my business-- on the other.

When my energy level is low, like today, I wonder if I am capable of any direct communication with others which won't find me making more blunders than politicians from Delaware and Missouri. Of course I have no claim to the kind of pension such blunderheads often enjoy, so I guess it doesn't hurt me as much in that way. But I have an active conscience, and a desire not to step on the sanctity and rights of other humans which may very likely lead to a bit more angst in my case.

It may sound like I'm making the case that I am a better person, in some spiritual or moral sense than some of the politicians to whom I've alluded. I guess I'd have to say that most of my friends and acquaintances are better people by my measure than most politicians I've followed. As am I. Sorry, but while I consider than all should have equal opportunity and protection under the law, I guess I can't deny that I think some individuals are better human beings than others.

I do not think Che, Stalin, Castro, Hitler and people like that are good people. Most likely you agree. That would mean that you, too, believe some people are better than others in that sense. Many churches seem to think that way or they wouldn't bestow sainthood on some but not others.

I just had a discussion with a lady who claimed there is not truth; that my truth is true for me and someone else's truth is true for them. I asked if that meant if my truth was that a bullet in my head would not kill or maim me if that was still valid truth. She said it would be for me. I suppose my truth would default to reality after the funeral.

If one assumes absolutely no absolutes exist, then how can people carry on any meaningful discussion? Some definitions have to be in place or it is all gibberish. Speaking the same language indicates a tacit agreement on the meaning of at least some sounds and words. That implies a bit of universal truth. Either a chair is a chair or it is not a chair. Of course, there are nuances and varying meanings which occur, but all it takes is a small portion of the language to be concrete to make the point.

What happens when people adhere to her view, which is very much stuff of the sixties, is that people pick and choose when to agree with accepted meanings and when to decide their truth is in play. The issue of rights is a perfect example.

All people should have unalienable human rights; an assertion with which most in our country would agree. The Islamic governments may have a severely abridged version of that. Then people of my friend's school of thought decide that the word right means something other than what I would think, or what it generally meant in 1800. It's a complicated world and very tough to find harmony and peace unless one remains incommunicado.

But that is just no fun. The desire for socialization is a characteristic of our species. Not to be confused with socialism. Although allocating the use and beneficiaries of the resources of others does appear to be a popular hobby of many of our kind.

Allocating my own resources, such as they are, is enough of a challenge for me. Deciding what to do with your time, effort, money and property is probably not best left to me. That's part of the summertime blues I think.

The heat and energy sapping weather leave me lethargic, tired and low on brain power. That leads me to do less than optimal allocating of my resources. I waste time, lose track of ideas, and generally don't look at the world around me, spot the possibly opportunities to fill a demand or maximize my enjoyment or that of others, and act so that these opportunities become concrete reality. Nope. I just can't wait for the chance to sleep and keep cool.

Now maybe I can convince myself that my truth states that I am really working hard and doing the best I can, and that I am really rich, married to the hottest most beautiful perfect woman possible, and that my private helicopter is due to pick me up any minute. It really helps that my truth can be true without having the slightest resemblance to reality.

Then Again, Maybe Not

There is a fine line between being realistic and fatalistically cynical. It is so easy to convince myself that nothing I am or ever have been, nothing I do or ever have done is at all worthy of even an approving nod. That is a stupid exercise if one's goal is something other than depression and misery.

Still the mind is a persistent doomsayer. It is the old battle, still raging. The one I never quite win, but haven't quite lost.

I do feel that there is a possible final win in the cards, though.

How come so many naturalized citizens I've met, who actually made the effort to become citizens rather than spend their time protesting and waving the flags of their ex-countries, seem to know more about identifying and seizing opportunity than I, or most Americans, do.

I think we've been conditioned through stupid status ideals and ridiculous convolutions of what constitutes respectable behavior so that we refuse ourselves the freedom we ought to embrace. I don't necessarily blame Hollywood and other media strongholds, but I do believe they are hugely influential. Who influences them, I can't say. Someone who knows how to make idiocy seem intellectually advanced, that's for sure.

There is a vast difference between the arrogant person who flaunts his disdain for a country he is visiting (or annexing, or squatting upon to illegitimately demand rights), and one who has respect. The LaRaza mentality is not one of respect, and their total lack of knowledge, or intentional lies, when it comes to their own history is shameful, selfish, destructive and born of nothing but naked greed and envy.

You should see the looks you get in this part of the country if you are doing any work that resembles yard work or domestic labor if you are not of the prescribed ethnic group. If you are American doing the work Americans supposedly won't do--one of the most absurd arguments ever posited--you could get mugged by the illegals who believe they are entitled to have all such work reserved for themselves. They'd probably picket city hall if they knew what I get paid.

But, unlike them, I do not cause collateral damage in doing my work. You don't have to clean the building if I clean the patio. Since their number one tool of choice is a power blower, if they clean the driveway, your cars and all nearby building will need cleaning, or the neighbor's driveway. If they paint the wall, all the things which were too near to the wall now need a paint removal job. That is how it is in SoCal.

Thank God there is a huge difference between general attitude and philosophy from north country and east county, and from LA to San Diego. Closer you get to Hollywood, both geographically, and in the trade, the jerkier and more hypocritical the nature of people and culture becomes. I guess I am a little harsh. Why not? It is true, and the world of pretend gets old sometimes, causing one to impolitely suggest that the emperor has no clothes.

Maybe This Is A Life

My return from the week or two journey was uplifting. I looked forward to coming home--something I rarely felt in Memphis, or other places in the last decade or so.

I had texts and messages from friends on the coast and here on Ballistic Mountain expressing the sentiment that I was missed. They even sang to me in one voicemail. That was very cool.

Now we are back to practices up here, and practice with the other group in Poway. I managed to lure a pretty girl onto the property, and even made her a cappuccino with Cuban coffee. I've done some work, and have more work ahead, and I feel primed to finish a particular creative project which has been on hold for some time.

Hot as it has been, the gully washer which assaulted the mountain this afternoon was quite welcome. It truly was a gully washer, as the road up past me now has deep crevices that most cars can't navigate. There is enough flat path on the edge of the road for them to make their way on up, I guess. It was a spectacular rain storm. Intensely hard rain.

Back to reading Michener again. The last one I read is called the Novel, and like My Mexico, it gives plenty of insight into the writing process. The Novel delves a lot into all the facets of publishing, as of maybe 1990. Even though that world has radically changed, I think it provided some timeless insights. The fact that change was on the horizon did not escape him.

I've got books scattered everywhere, and all of them have been read, so it is time to haul them into the used book store and trade them for more. I'm so illiterate in ways that I will never be able to catch up to where I should be, so I select what suits my purpose, and holds my attention.

I revisited the film, Artois the Goat, and I still consider it a brilliant screenplay. Low budget, obviously, and made in such a way that that adds to the charm. Some of the humor is silly, but so well placed. Kind of like Monte Python meets A River Runs Through It. I very rarely watch a movie more than once, but I found watching this one again was not at all boring. Of course, plenty of time had elapsed since my first viewing.

Code Contemplation

There was a conversation that ended quite badly some weeks ago. I've mentally reviewed it and tried to look at it from both sides. My conclusions are inconclusive.

After experiencing events in which much alcohol was present, I thought maybe the other party was somewhat drunk; had reached that point of belligerence which happens sometimes when you drink, especially when talking to someone who makes or contemplates choices you wouldn't make.

That conversation was worrisome. If the other party is unaware how questions were put to me, then my answers probed for more detail, then when detail was offered I was assaulted with angry complaints about the topic, then there is a serious problem which needs to be addressed. I can't make it happen, and I suspect any direct suggestion would bring more rage.

Another case of a person getting super angry because I did not care to entertain unsolicited advice about matters which affect only me. The subjects came up in response to queries, not from me introducing the topics out of the blue.

It was either a conversation tainted with some mind altering substance, or possibly influenced by some health issue or outright mildly psychotic episode. All my experience with such interactions proved in the end to be the result of depression tempered by drinking.

Where the code comes in is this: I will not tell you how to spend your money unless you ask. If it makes you happy to buy an iphone for every day of the week, then I'm happy for you. That is not my business. I won't step in uninvited claiming I'm doing it because I care and am your friend. Some things are simply the result of how a person chooses to use time, resources, and whatever else life is offering. Ridiculing innocuous choices is just a way of raining on your parade because one refuses to accept that he is ignoring his own. Or her own.

My code differs from that of some people. Just like I am very hesitant to apply the concept of social cost in supporting measures which ban or require certain behaviors; like helmets, use of poppies or pot, sugar, and a host of other things. If I see a real and present danger to what a friend is about to do, I will speak up if I can. Sometimes it only sends them over the edge, so discretion is needed. Let it look like someone else's idea. There are times when giving up the credit for an idea is the surest way it gets implemented. I've used that trick many times. I was more interested in the result than getting my ego justly boosted. That's kind of an ego trip in itself.

The code is largely about boundaries. That is a form of respect. It has to do with knocking and waiting to be admitted before barging in. Not like they do in the medical profession--knock on the door as they open it. Why do they bother knocking if it is not a polite request for admittance?

Defining those boundaries and what constitutes respectful approach is kind of difficult at times. I know the rules when the situation arises. Sugar coating the breach does not change anything. You can't humiliate or ridicule a person's nature, then justify by saying you are only trying to help them, it is only because you are a friend, or that it is for his own good. It is a strange way of killing trust. It certainly does not ring of the respect the one offering the character assassination claims is the motive.

There are things one can not fix. I think it is when the personal code of one person is too different from that of another.

We see it all the time. There is a growing difference of opinion in this country over the definition of the word "right"--as in right to a free press, speech, etc. Some believe in a right to brain surgery, higher education, housing etc. Others believe in the right to earn or pursue such things;you have a right to buy a house if you can, as opposed to the right to have that house, regardless of purchasing power, willingness of the seller to sell it, builder to build it, etc. That bit with rights goes on and on. There are people who think their right to free speech includes the right to stop traffic and more. Sometimes I think semantics clouds the reality to which the discussion allegedly refers.

The point is, not everyone is on the same page, and that can be fine and dandy until one's understanding conflicts with another's in a way which makes it impossible for them to peacefully occupy the same space or conduct a pleasant conversation.

A perfect example would be the situations in which someone gets emotionally involved over whether someone else does or does not eat meat. If you don't do what I do in a situation which has absolutely no affect on me, then you are no good. People have been on this planet too long to be such idiots. No excuse for it.