Perhaps not everyone was taught or received the memo when it comes to the traditional handshake. In the male world, it is supposed to be firm, but stop short of a grip pressure contest.
I've encountered those who want to prove dominance by catching people off guard with a vise-like, bone crusher handshake. Their smile is invariably a odd sneer as they try to play alpha dog.
One of the big tricks some guys play is the quick grab. They close in on the end of your hand before you can get in there far enough for your fingers to wrap around the other palm. They trap the last half of your fingers and crush. Since the rest of your hand can't get in on the act there is little you can do.
I've met a few women who attempt bone crushing handshakes, but very few. Those who use the shake to some purpose generally add a subtle caress which is every bit as powerful and far more persuasive than the bone crusher. But that's another story.
I get the motive behind the bone crusher. It means that someone is trying to prove something, or intimidate others. The quick grippers are merely cheating, or else they fear you might be a bone crusher so they beat you to it by trapping your fingers before your palms can meet.
What I don't get is the limp dish towel, dead fish handshake. If I, too, just stuck out a limp hand, I'm not sure how it would go or if the handshake would ever occur. Maybe lazy people do that so the other has all the responsibility for making the handshake happen.
It isn't as if the handshake is unknown in our culture so, even though the dead fish seemed confused and baffled by the custom, it is unlikely that the mystery of the process is really a explanation for the odd approach.
The crusher usually comes from prospective mates' fathers and brothers, and business people who want to mess with you for some reason. And from crime boss types. The last two categories can overlap, and often do in the world of government-business partnerships. Crony capitalism, which is what that is.
Political types will pull that crusher play, while pulling you toward them, grabbing your arm. It is a message; I'm top dog here and I dominate.
Some say you can tell a lot about a man by his shoes. I say you can tell more by how he acts. Paying attention to how someone behaves and interacts with you and others is probably more telling than staring at his shoes. Anything to avoid contact and reality. Like the hiring process at many firms. Let's avoid actual contact with the candidate. What are his shoes like?
Applicants must submit one page resume detailing the last forty years of job experience, and a photo of your shoes, being worn. Photo must not include anything above the ankles, just the shoes as they appear on your feet.
The evolution of the culture appears to be solving the handshake issue with the fist bump, or even the air fist bump. So far I have not encountered anyone who can turn the fist bump into much of anything. I don't see it taking over in most business situations.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Fiction: Human Nature part 1292013
Whether they admit it or not, people are fans of fiction. It is inescapable.
That's why there are so many conflicting and varied accounts and opinions on any topic. For example, the debt situation and violence are issues which have all kinds of theories and statistics thrown out there. Often the info is skewed or incomplete, but it fits the narrative.
If ten people came upon an automobile that had obviously gone over the cliff 300 feet above, but none actually witnessed the event, several scenarios would emerge in their imaginations. Some would picture the driver intentionally going over the edge while others would assume drugs or alcohol was involved.
Some one might go so far as to create imaginary partial lives for the couple who died in the crash. They must have been on their way home from the hooplah festival a few miles away. And it sound like reasoned deduction, but it is still fiction. If it turns out that it coincides will reality, that reinforces the process, which may or may not be on target the next time.
The origin of the theory is fiction born in the imagination.
If the item is newsworthy in that area, the details and even the number of people involved would change two or three times in 24 hours. That's because people love to jump to a conclusion based on very little information, and they tend to be protective of their view, even in the face of facts or equally valid conclusions. It is as if they are given an irresistible specific event and they create a path that explains how that came to be.
Another part of human nature is that few care to research a thing far enough that it blows their gut reaction theory out the window. It is easier to take in hearsay. Easier not to scrutinize sources and references. Human nature things tend to often fit together hand in glove like that.
Fiction is both the easy, and maybe only, way to explain things, and the way toward working, workable theories. When more facts come to light, then the theories change a bit in order to make sense of those things. And it takes crafting a story in some form which explains it and ties things up until next time.
I think this universal facet of human nature is what Jerry Springer and some other TV hosts have exploited. That thing where the audience weighs in on the drama of the people on stage after hearing a few sound bites. "Yes, I think you should sell everything and go to Tibet", "You need to leave that man." They don't know, but they made up stories to explain the creature before them. . It is just the nature of the beast.
That's why there are so many conflicting and varied accounts and opinions on any topic. For example, the debt situation and violence are issues which have all kinds of theories and statistics thrown out there. Often the info is skewed or incomplete, but it fits the narrative.
If ten people came upon an automobile that had obviously gone over the cliff 300 feet above, but none actually witnessed the event, several scenarios would emerge in their imaginations. Some would picture the driver intentionally going over the edge while others would assume drugs or alcohol was involved.
Some one might go so far as to create imaginary partial lives for the couple who died in the crash. They must have been on their way home from the hooplah festival a few miles away. And it sound like reasoned deduction, but it is still fiction. If it turns out that it coincides will reality, that reinforces the process, which may or may not be on target the next time.
The origin of the theory is fiction born in the imagination.
If the item is newsworthy in that area, the details and even the number of people involved would change two or three times in 24 hours. That's because people love to jump to a conclusion based on very little information, and they tend to be protective of their view, even in the face of facts or equally valid conclusions. It is as if they are given an irresistible specific event and they create a path that explains how that came to be.
Another part of human nature is that few care to research a thing far enough that it blows their gut reaction theory out the window. It is easier to take in hearsay. Easier not to scrutinize sources and references. Human nature things tend to often fit together hand in glove like that.
Fiction is both the easy, and maybe only, way to explain things, and the way toward working, workable theories. When more facts come to light, then the theories change a bit in order to make sense of those things. And it takes crafting a story in some form which explains it and ties things up until next time.
I think this universal facet of human nature is what Jerry Springer and some other TV hosts have exploited. That thing where the audience weighs in on the drama of the people on stage after hearing a few sound bites. "Yes, I think you should sell everything and go to Tibet", "You need to leave that man." They don't know, but they made up stories to explain the creature before them. . It is just the nature of the beast.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Guns Again
It is a bit daunting to hear the talk. Even more daunting to feel corralled into one camp or the other. If only I trusted "the authorities" more with firepower than I do the bulk of citizens. I don't.
Some people do. The underlying question is really one pertaining to functions of various levels of government. I see it one way, and there is substantial disagreement with my view.
Am I here by permission, or not? That is the essence of the question which underlies most of what is going on. Who and what exists by permission, and by whose permission?
Often a public issue, defined by politicians and opportunists (a life form common in the press as well as elsewhere), is somewhat of a code for something else entirely.
In any case, I'm not a gun nut, but if I decided to be, I'd like to indulge that desire unimpeded by the state. That is unthinkable in some circles. So be it. I recognize the squeeze differently than most. It's much the same as the thinking which presumes the feds ought to be in the R and D business.
Some people do. The underlying question is really one pertaining to functions of various levels of government. I see it one way, and there is substantial disagreement with my view.
Am I here by permission, or not? That is the essence of the question which underlies most of what is going on. Who and what exists by permission, and by whose permission?
Often a public issue, defined by politicians and opportunists (a life form common in the press as well as elsewhere), is somewhat of a code for something else entirely.
In any case, I'm not a gun nut, but if I decided to be, I'd like to indulge that desire unimpeded by the state. That is unthinkable in some circles. So be it. I recognize the squeeze differently than most. It's much the same as the thinking which presumes the feds ought to be in the R and D business.
Studies Show: Idiots March With or Without Good Purpose
I've heard so many gun statistics--in on ear and out the other--lately, none of which solve any problems or make a compelling case for anything worth doing.
I am not sure I even own a gun. The nincompoops in this picture make me think I should own several. "Please, Mr. King, please make more rules for us. Rules which apply to us but not you.".
Sometimes the insanity is so...insane...that it is hard to address straight up. First off, your ideas for safety wouldn't have saved anyone. Just like the creation of Homeland Security and the harassment of normal people wouldn't have prevented 911.
One statistic being spouted by some lady on PBS went something like this: those with a gun in the home are 12 times more likely to be victims of a gun accident. No shit. And those who drive cars are way more likely to be victims of an automobile accident.
Putting on the pained martyr's sad face does not mean your cause will do anything to promote peace and prosperity, and prevent the evil doers from doing evil. Your problem is that you don't realize that you keep empowering the longest serving evil doers on the block.
Gun sales are up by a gazillion percent. So, the reactionaries, who seize any cause that they deem to be non-conservative, have actually helped put more guns into the hands of the public. I'm fine with that.
Reactionaries reacting to reactionaries. Nothing wrong with reacting. There is something wrong with reacting in stupid ways. And nine times out of ten regulation is the stupid way, especially in the fashion it is accomplished by professional bureaucrats and government zealots.
It makes me less nervous to hear about private gun sales than it does for government agencies to stock up. Particularly on the domestic side. (maybe Eric Holder will find a way to slip a few more to Mexican gangs just because he can)
For crying out loud, this justice department, and this state department have armed more criminals and enemies of our people that anyone on earth. Now you ask them to disarm over regulate firearm ownership by citizens? You must be nuts to trust your safety to this ever growing monster any more than is absolutely necessary.
I'm skeptical of marches most of the time anyway. One which is a march demanding more laws to curb rights of individuals is definitely suspect. Then I look and realize that the supposed motivation, "to keep our precious little bastards--I mean children---safe" is nothing but nice sounding irrelevancy, and I lose respect for the movement.
Densely populated areas with draconian gun laws do not do well. No lunatics appear to be reading the "GUN FREE ZONE" signs. Or, maybe they are...
More of the big Pretense, self righteous neo bolsheviks who think they will forever be in with the policy makers and others unaffected by their tyranny. Maybe people are just too damned stupid, petty, greedy, and nosy to accept freedom.
I'm in disbelief. If people will spend money and band together in worthless causes which do not accomplish the stated goal, then it ought to be easy to get filthy rich off these wannabe state slaves.
I am not sure I even own a gun. The nincompoops in this picture make me think I should own several. "Please, Mr. King, please make more rules for us. Rules which apply to us but not you.".
looks oddly unionish
Sometimes the insanity is so...insane...that it is hard to address straight up. First off, your ideas for safety wouldn't have saved anyone. Just like the creation of Homeland Security and the harassment of normal people wouldn't have prevented 911.
One statistic being spouted by some lady on PBS went something like this: those with a gun in the home are 12 times more likely to be victims of a gun accident. No shit. And those who drive cars are way more likely to be victims of an automobile accident.
Putting on the pained martyr's sad face does not mean your cause will do anything to promote peace and prosperity, and prevent the evil doers from doing evil. Your problem is that you don't realize that you keep empowering the longest serving evil doers on the block.
Gun sales are up by a gazillion percent. So, the reactionaries, who seize any cause that they deem to be non-conservative, have actually helped put more guns into the hands of the public. I'm fine with that.
Reactionaries reacting to reactionaries. Nothing wrong with reacting. There is something wrong with reacting in stupid ways. And nine times out of ten regulation is the stupid way, especially in the fashion it is accomplished by professional bureaucrats and government zealots.
It makes me less nervous to hear about private gun sales than it does for government agencies to stock up. Particularly on the domestic side. (maybe Eric Holder will find a way to slip a few more to Mexican gangs just because he can)
For crying out loud, this justice department, and this state department have armed more criminals and enemies of our people that anyone on earth. Now you ask them to disarm over regulate firearm ownership by citizens? You must be nuts to trust your safety to this ever growing monster any more than is absolutely necessary.
I'm skeptical of marches most of the time anyway. One which is a march demanding more laws to curb rights of individuals is definitely suspect. Then I look and realize that the supposed motivation, "to keep our precious little bastards--I mean children---safe" is nothing but nice sounding irrelevancy, and I lose respect for the movement.
Densely populated areas with draconian gun laws do not do well. No lunatics appear to be reading the "GUN FREE ZONE" signs. Or, maybe they are...
More of the big Pretense, self righteous neo bolsheviks who think they will forever be in with the policy makers and others unaffected by their tyranny. Maybe people are just too damned stupid, petty, greedy, and nosy to accept freedom.
I'm in disbelief. If people will spend money and band together in worthless causes which do not accomplish the stated goal, then it ought to be easy to get filthy rich off these wannabe state slaves.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Speaking for the Voiceless
And I think for the thoughtless.
It sounds so benevolent and righteous to "give voice to those who can't speak for themselves". I've heard it used in order to mess with others over animals, abortion, money. The sky is the limit when you convince people that you are the voice of those who have no voice. Who's going to prove otherwise?
"because the earth needs a good lawyer"...Holy SH**! Am I the only one who freaks out and screams out the window at this kind of absurdity?
Anyway, I think John Kerry said something about being the voice of the voiceless. Words similar enough to that. And I thought, "What does that mean?"
Obviously it is the same tactic used by priests of every culture for as long as we've had priests. Pretend to know what God, or a rock, or the earth, or an unborn human thinks and wants. Then get the king 'n 'em to use force (or do it yourself) to make people do what you want in the name of this mysterious unknowable thing you represent.
I'm assuming the voiceless, in this context, also can't write, or nod their heads to indicate answers to yes-no questions.
Besides thinking for the thoughtless, I bring thrills on behalf of the un-thrilling--at least that's what your wife said. Doing for those who can't do it for themselves.
Beware those who presume to speak for those who allegedly cannot speak for themselves.
And beware of those who claim to represent those whose existence can't be seen or tested.
Perhaps you should advise your wife to beware as well.
.
It sounds so benevolent and righteous to "give voice to those who can't speak for themselves". I've heard it used in order to mess with others over animals, abortion, money. The sky is the limit when you convince people that you are the voice of those who have no voice. Who's going to prove otherwise?
"because the earth needs a good lawyer"...Holy SH**! Am I the only one who freaks out and screams out the window at this kind of absurdity?
Anyway, I think John Kerry said something about being the voice of the voiceless. Words similar enough to that. And I thought, "What does that mean?"
Obviously it is the same tactic used by priests of every culture for as long as we've had priests. Pretend to know what God, or a rock, or the earth, or an unborn human thinks and wants. Then get the king 'n 'em to use force (or do it yourself) to make people do what you want in the name of this mysterious unknowable thing you represent.
I'm assuming the voiceless, in this context, also can't write, or nod their heads to indicate answers to yes-no questions.
Besides thinking for the thoughtless, I bring thrills on behalf of the un-thrilling--at least that's what your wife said. Doing for those who can't do it for themselves.
Beware those who presume to speak for those who allegedly cannot speak for themselves.
And beware of those who claim to represent those whose existence can't be seen or tested.
Perhaps you should advise your wife to beware as well.
.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Another Thoughtful Comment; flattery is so compelling
Here it is, the latest from the insightful, ubiquitous Anonymous, an intellectual giant, humanitarian, and person of refined, discriminating taste:
I leave a response whenever I appreciate a post on a site or if I have something to contribute to the conversation.
Usually it is triggered by the passion communicated in
the article I read. And after this post "When Opportunity, He Knock".
I was actually moved enough to leave a comment
:-) I actually do have a couple of questions for you if it's allright. Could it be just me or does it appear like some of these comments look like they are left by brain dead visitors? :-P And, if you are writing on other places, I would like to keep up with anything new you have to post. Would you make a list every one of your public pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?
my site: network marketing forums --- (actual link removed)
I'm so humbled. To answer the thought provoking questions posed by this lovely person, It is just you. It looks like the comments are left by spam creeps trying to get people to hit their sites. Not you, Mr. and/or Ms. Anonymous, of course.
After feedback like that, who could possibly be down? Yippee, I'm pumped.
The internet, described by some as a bunch of tubes, is a wondrous thing. I hope it remains relatively free from regulation.
.update: already I hear again from anonymous.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Thoughtful Comment; flattery is so compell...":
Hi there, I found your blog by way of Google at the
same time as looking for a related subject, your website came up, it appears great.
I've bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
Hi there, simply become alert to your blog via Google, and found that it is really informative. I'm
gonna be careful for brussels. I will be grateful for those
who continue this in future. Lots of other folks will
probably be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Here is my site : easy affiliate programs --link deactivated for your convenience
.
I leave a response whenever I appreciate a post on a site or if I have something to contribute to the conversation.
Usually it is triggered by the passion communicated in
the article I read. And after this post "When Opportunity, He Knock".
I was actually moved enough to leave a comment
:-) I actually do have a couple of questions for you if it's allright. Could it be just me or does it appear like some of these comments look like they are left by brain dead visitors? :-P And, if you are writing on other places, I would like to keep up with anything new you have to post. Would you make a list every one of your public pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?
my site: network marketing forums --- (actual link removed)
I'm so humbled. To answer the thought provoking questions posed by this lovely person, It is just you. It looks like the comments are left by spam creeps trying to get people to hit their sites. Not you, Mr. and/or Ms. Anonymous, of course.
After feedback like that, who could possibly be down? Yippee, I'm pumped.
The internet, described by some as a bunch of tubes, is a wondrous thing. I hope it remains relatively free from regulation.
.update: already I hear again from anonymous.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Thoughtful Comment; flattery is so compell...":
Hi there, I found your blog by way of Google at the
same time as looking for a related subject, your website came up, it appears great.
I've bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
Hi there, simply become alert to your blog via Google, and found that it is really informative. I'm
gonna be careful for brussels. I will be grateful for those
who continue this in future. Lots of other folks will
probably be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Here is my site : easy affiliate programs --link deactivated for your convenience
.
What Did I Say and Do, and Why?
Times are a little strained, but I believe it is a manifestation of the workings of my inner psyche, and the cumulative result of choices. The battle continues.
I had to check to even see what I last wrote here. Another diversion from what matters in my life. At least what directly matters. All kinds of things matter indirectly. Everything influences everything, supposedly.
Worrying about things like how inaugurations are treated like coronations will not straighten out my personal messes, or fix what ails me. I'm not setting a good example for myself. I fall short due to paralyzing mental blocks. Nothing new there. Obviously, self generated issues can be redirected toward a positive path. Why is that difficult?
I guess I have some assumptions about my place, purpose, and worth which do not result in feeling so grand. It comes in waves. Today that wave is almost drowning me. But it is not even a real thing as far as I know.
Remembering my resolution for this year, the immediate path is clear. I settled on a resolution which necessitates many small goals. Even if I don't feel the passion for the specific goal some of the time, it still holds the blueprint should I decide to finally build the life I think is right for me.
If I can make progress on the things involved in achieving the Big Goal, my value as friend and neighbor will be greatly enhanced. Otherwise, I waste away, go broke, and arrange to fall of the edge of the earth in sad resignation and surrender. That is not what I want.
.
I had to check to even see what I last wrote here. Another diversion from what matters in my life. At least what directly matters. All kinds of things matter indirectly. Everything influences everything, supposedly.
Worrying about things like how inaugurations are treated like coronations will not straighten out my personal messes, or fix what ails me. I'm not setting a good example for myself. I fall short due to paralyzing mental blocks. Nothing new there. Obviously, self generated issues can be redirected toward a positive path. Why is that difficult?
I guess I have some assumptions about my place, purpose, and worth which do not result in feeling so grand. It comes in waves. Today that wave is almost drowning me. But it is not even a real thing as far as I know.
Remembering my resolution for this year, the immediate path is clear. I settled on a resolution which necessitates many small goals. Even if I don't feel the passion for the specific goal some of the time, it still holds the blueprint should I decide to finally build the life I think is right for me.
If I can make progress on the things involved in achieving the Big Goal, my value as friend and neighbor will be greatly enhanced. Otherwise, I waste away, go broke, and arrange to fall of the edge of the earth in sad resignation and surrender. That is not what I want.
.
Friday, January 18, 2013
They Can't Help It
After viewing some of Danny Glover's latest brilliance, I realized how the Hollywood syndrome happens. You get a little acclaim because you look good, and your acting pleases people.
Then you realize people assume you have a brain and invite you to speak for causes, or just expound on your view of Utopia and its many big meanie enemies.
What are you going to do? It is unheard of for an actor to say, "Look, I don't know sh** from Shinola so let me remain silent on the greater philosophical and material implications of nuclear physics and nano-technology.
No, since the easy default position which satisfies peer pressure and approval is that of stubborn Luddite, and knee jerk reaction to whatever is labeled "right wing". I admit, it ca be tough to ferret out the kernes of truth and reason from the rhetoric of both right and left. But if we weren't conditioned to have a team to cheer and one to hate, what would we do?
All the while, these wealthy critics avail themselves of armed guards (carrying guns), convenient transportation, private jets, and climate controlled dwellings, all of which are targeted as being evil, bad for the earth, etc. by these hypocrites. It is the mentality of elitism. We know what's best for you.
Fame and adoration, and the appearance of respect are too hard to ignore. Since it is clear pretty much what angle gets the kudos, entertainers find new and unusual ways to parrot what their peers cast as rationale and brilliant thought. Mostly it is parrot droppings.
Danny thinks the 2nd amendment was inspired so that people could put down slave revolts ad kill American Indians-native Americans. (I'm a native of America, but that's different) And he is sure everyone is racist. Like Danny, when it comes to some topics, many high profile figures are woefully flawed in their logic and theories.
He also thinks there were only 2.5 million people on earth when he was born. Not sure what that had to do with anything, but I think we can safely say that there were more humans on earth than that during the 1940s.
It is so odd than one who should be so versed on slavery would not be raising hell about the places where it exists even now. Africa being a major player in that game. It is also odd that one who has achieved such financial and professional success, would claim that he lives in a place in which oppression of him is common.
People love opportunities to play self righteous victim. I love watching multi-millionaires in the entertainment business embrace that role while giving lectures to the little people, who made it all impossible, about how they should live as we all march into some utopian slave state.
These are the lovers of Che, Castro and others, who never killed anyone they didn't want to kill. Worshippers of Mao and Stalin and others who weeded their nations of those who might not be good slaves. We're talking mass murderers, killing not to win a war but to control populations and eradicate dissent. And those are the type of people and philosophies the Danny Glovers of the world serve, on purpose or through pure stupidity.
He's not alone in that regard. And many of the alleged opponents of such philosophy are as prone to skewed facts and nonsense as the Hollywood crowd.
The real question the demagogues who are using and abusing the school shooting for their own ends should be asking is, "Would any of the suggested measures and grand stand plays have prevented this?". I feel certain the vast majority of discussion on the matter touches on nothing that would make anyone safer. Except those who would illegitimately seek power over others; criminals and governments. They seem to desire similar ends.
So, forgive you, Danny, you are just smart enough to sound good, and to act well, but not smart enough to know that you are an idiot.
Give a man a public soapbox and pretend he is wise in all matters and that man will find it hard to resist broadcasting his views, whether he knows the subject or not. Or woman. Hollywood women are equally smitten and they have the same Achilles heel--narcissism.
It is human nature. I'm not exempt. Few are.
The real issue at hand has to do with how much control and personal decision making by the state is desirable justified and effective. War on drugs worked out well. Terrorism is now extinct, and obesity is on the run. I'm sure that those who use guns to enforce everything from seat belt laws to milk regulation will do a cracker jack job in their war on gun violence.
One really cool method of debate these days is to use the technique of switching topics when cornered; What about the children? Yea, but what about blablabla off topic. I don't think I've ever seen blatant demagoguery so shamelessly performed. Never let a crisis go to waste. Crisis= golden power grab opportunity.
.
Then you realize people assume you have a brain and invite you to speak for causes, or just expound on your view of Utopia and its many big meanie enemies.
What are you going to do? It is unheard of for an actor to say, "Look, I don't know sh** from Shinola so let me remain silent on the greater philosophical and material implications of nuclear physics and nano-technology.
No, since the easy default position which satisfies peer pressure and approval is that of stubborn Luddite, and knee jerk reaction to whatever is labeled "right wing". I admit, it ca be tough to ferret out the kernes of truth and reason from the rhetoric of both right and left. But if we weren't conditioned to have a team to cheer and one to hate, what would we do?
All the while, these wealthy critics avail themselves of armed guards (carrying guns), convenient transportation, private jets, and climate controlled dwellings, all of which are targeted as being evil, bad for the earth, etc. by these hypocrites. It is the mentality of elitism. We know what's best for you.
Fame and adoration, and the appearance of respect are too hard to ignore. Since it is clear pretty much what angle gets the kudos, entertainers find new and unusual ways to parrot what their peers cast as rationale and brilliant thought. Mostly it is parrot droppings.
Danny thinks the 2nd amendment was inspired so that people could put down slave revolts ad kill American Indians-native Americans. (I'm a native of America, but that's different) And he is sure everyone is racist. Like Danny, when it comes to some topics, many high profile figures are woefully flawed in their logic and theories.
He also thinks there were only 2.5 million people on earth when he was born. Not sure what that had to do with anything, but I think we can safely say that there were more humans on earth than that during the 1940s.
It is so odd than one who should be so versed on slavery would not be raising hell about the places where it exists even now. Africa being a major player in that game. It is also odd that one who has achieved such financial and professional success, would claim that he lives in a place in which oppression of him is common.
People love opportunities to play self righteous victim. I love watching multi-millionaires in the entertainment business embrace that role while giving lectures to the little people, who made it all impossible, about how they should live as we all march into some utopian slave state.
These are the lovers of Che, Castro and others, who never killed anyone they didn't want to kill. Worshippers of Mao and Stalin and others who weeded their nations of those who might not be good slaves. We're talking mass murderers, killing not to win a war but to control populations and eradicate dissent. And those are the type of people and philosophies the Danny Glovers of the world serve, on purpose or through pure stupidity.
He's not alone in that regard. And many of the alleged opponents of such philosophy are as prone to skewed facts and nonsense as the Hollywood crowd.
The real question the demagogues who are using and abusing the school shooting for their own ends should be asking is, "Would any of the suggested measures and grand stand plays have prevented this?". I feel certain the vast majority of discussion on the matter touches on nothing that would make anyone safer. Except those who would illegitimately seek power over others; criminals and governments. They seem to desire similar ends.
So, forgive you, Danny, you are just smart enough to sound good, and to act well, but not smart enough to know that you are an idiot.
Give a man a public soapbox and pretend he is wise in all matters and that man will find it hard to resist broadcasting his views, whether he knows the subject or not. Or woman. Hollywood women are equally smitten and they have the same Achilles heel--narcissism.
It is human nature. I'm not exempt. Few are.
The real issue at hand has to do with how much control and personal decision making by the state is desirable justified and effective. War on drugs worked out well. Terrorism is now extinct, and obesity is on the run. I'm sure that those who use guns to enforce everything from seat belt laws to milk regulation will do a cracker jack job in their war on gun violence.
One really cool method of debate these days is to use the technique of switching topics when cornered; What about the children? Yea, but what about blablabla off topic. I don't think I've ever seen blatant demagoguery so shamelessly performed. Never let a crisis go to waste. Crisis= golden power grab opportunity.
.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Cooking With Hotplates
My stove is a countertop appliance than plugs into a regular wall outlet. Like a lamp. It consists of two "burners", each of which is a metal disc.
The idea is that the metal disc will eventually get hot enough to cook something. I've learned to turn the thing up as high as it goes, and use a large frying pan with a lid. Not a heavy cast iron pan. That might take forever.
Here's what you do. You put whatever it is on the pan, add the upside down large stainless bowl that serves as lid, turn control up to high, go do something else. Like write here, read an article, start a show on hulu. Practice playing when you are in that mood. Right now, I am not very interested in playing music.
A clever trick is to place a small piece of butter here and there. It serves as a temperature report when you check to see how things are.
In some ways this cooking system is a time saver. If the burners actually burned like real burners do, I'd have to keep a close eye on it. This set up can be left for awhile; take a shower, go to the next step in changing the oil in the car, turn on computer and see what's up, etc.
Now that I think of it, this is the picture of an idiot who has gone too long without getting married again. Not necessarily legally and all that. Often there is no point, at a certain stage, in bringing the state and/or the church into it. That probably means commitment. No wonder I am here now.
The idea is that the metal disc will eventually get hot enough to cook something. I've learned to turn the thing up as high as it goes, and use a large frying pan with a lid. Not a heavy cast iron pan. That might take forever.
Here's what you do. You put whatever it is on the pan, add the upside down large stainless bowl that serves as lid, turn control up to high, go do something else. Like write here, read an article, start a show on hulu. Practice playing when you are in that mood. Right now, I am not very interested in playing music.
A clever trick is to place a small piece of butter here and there. It serves as a temperature report when you check to see how things are.
In some ways this cooking system is a time saver. If the burners actually burned like real burners do, I'd have to keep a close eye on it. This set up can be left for awhile; take a shower, go to the next step in changing the oil in the car, turn on computer and see what's up, etc.
Now that I think of it, this is the picture of an idiot who has gone too long without getting married again. Not necessarily legally and all that. Often there is no point, at a certain stage, in bringing the state and/or the church into it. That probably means commitment. No wonder I am here now.
Age of Hypocrisy
European types have experienced a number of eras to which they gave labels; the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, etc.
This era may stand out as the Hypocritical Madness. Either you get or you don't. Not sure expounding on it is worth the trouble.
I was thinking how I am not a fan of basketball. It is OK, I guess, but doesn't appeal to me. On top of that I do not agree with Obama's view of the USA, the role of government in general, and federal power specifically. This would easily land me the label of "racist" among those who lend non-critical support to anything the president does.
Yet, my views are not formulated using race as a factor in the equation. Oh well. Label away.
One statement which defines our difference in viewpoint was made during Obama's first inauguration. I paraphrase but I think the essence is intact. He stated that the size and scope of government is not an issue, only whether it works.
How one defines what "works" means in that assertion is less and less a mystery every day. It is not comforting that some close to the president, supporters in the Congress, have stated that China's government "works". It is a slippery slope.
My idea of a government that works would be one in which individual rights are protected, and one's freedom is maximized as much as possible; personal freedom, and economic freedom. That is not a system under which citizens are subjects and businesses are running the state through convoluted regulations, cronyism, and competition killing measures.
My ideal place is not one in which the immediate answer to anything bad is to curtail the natural rights of individuals.
So, that is why I don't support the would-be king, and most of the others who live large while stealing, and seeking to control the lives of those whom they view as "the masses".
A totalitarian system can be said to work, if your goal is unfettered control over the individual. Of course those in charge assume they know best. One benefit of being older is that one may have glimpsed a freer time, and observed as the political world created crises and wars, then pretended to address the issues by closing the grip on the citizens. Over and over and over again.
Create a problem, tout a worthless fix, spout ay irrelevant lie needed, over and over until people buy it for rational, or include some inducement which will quiet people's better sense. Then do it again. The result is incrementally more responsibilities for government, more money spent, more erosio of rights and liberty.
One key is the casting of the crumbs. nother is convincing people that only the evil, label of the month to hate, group is affected. Like "the rich", the "1%", NRA, Oil, this that the other. Wow, I get a phone or some other perk while my lords stick it to the rich or some ethic group who is out of style. Yippee.
And the truth is, the evil whoever is probably not phased. Especially the echelon of that group which is very much in bed with the powers that be. Often the public face of the relationship is a total facade to project a adversarial impression. If you have never had cause to discover such deception first had, you may think this sounds like paranoia and fantasy.
I assure you it is not. I was bit pretty hard one time due to this phenomenon in our federal government. I'm sure it occurs on every level to some degree. Anyway, there was no doubt about the truth. My discovery was the result of pure coincidence and being in the right place at the right time. Or wrong time, depending upon how you look at it.
I'm just venting. It is all true and right, but...never mind. I know this is a worthless waste of time. I like to write such things down. I'd say, "so sue me", but I'm not sure you won't, ad not sure you wouldn't win.
.
This era may stand out as the Hypocritical Madness. Either you get or you don't. Not sure expounding on it is worth the trouble.
I was thinking how I am not a fan of basketball. It is OK, I guess, but doesn't appeal to me. On top of that I do not agree with Obama's view of the USA, the role of government in general, and federal power specifically. This would easily land me the label of "racist" among those who lend non-critical support to anything the president does.
Yet, my views are not formulated using race as a factor in the equation. Oh well. Label away.
One statement which defines our difference in viewpoint was made during Obama's first inauguration. I paraphrase but I think the essence is intact. He stated that the size and scope of government is not an issue, only whether it works.
How one defines what "works" means in that assertion is less and less a mystery every day. It is not comforting that some close to the president, supporters in the Congress, have stated that China's government "works". It is a slippery slope.
My idea of a government that works would be one in which individual rights are protected, and one's freedom is maximized as much as possible; personal freedom, and economic freedom. That is not a system under which citizens are subjects and businesses are running the state through convoluted regulations, cronyism, and competition killing measures.
My ideal place is not one in which the immediate answer to anything bad is to curtail the natural rights of individuals.
So, that is why I don't support the would-be king, and most of the others who live large while stealing, and seeking to control the lives of those whom they view as "the masses".
A totalitarian system can be said to work, if your goal is unfettered control over the individual. Of course those in charge assume they know best. One benefit of being older is that one may have glimpsed a freer time, and observed as the political world created crises and wars, then pretended to address the issues by closing the grip on the citizens. Over and over and over again.
Create a problem, tout a worthless fix, spout ay irrelevant lie needed, over and over until people buy it for rational, or include some inducement which will quiet people's better sense. Then do it again. The result is incrementally more responsibilities for government, more money spent, more erosio of rights and liberty.
One key is the casting of the crumbs. nother is convincing people that only the evil, label of the month to hate, group is affected. Like "the rich", the "1%", NRA, Oil, this that the other. Wow, I get a phone or some other perk while my lords stick it to the rich or some ethic group who is out of style. Yippee.
And the truth is, the evil whoever is probably not phased. Especially the echelon of that group which is very much in bed with the powers that be. Often the public face of the relationship is a total facade to project a adversarial impression. If you have never had cause to discover such deception first had, you may think this sounds like paranoia and fantasy.
I assure you it is not. I was bit pretty hard one time due to this phenomenon in our federal government. I'm sure it occurs on every level to some degree. Anyway, there was no doubt about the truth. My discovery was the result of pure coincidence and being in the right place at the right time. Or wrong time, depending upon how you look at it.
I'm just venting. It is all true and right, but...never mind. I know this is a worthless waste of time. I like to write such things down. I'd say, "so sue me", but I'm not sure you won't, ad not sure you wouldn't win.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- John0 Juanderlust
- Ballistic Mountain, CA, United States
- Like spring on a summer's day
