How to Make Orphans

Gender and the roles and functions thereof are among the most chaotic children of our generation. The tragic fallacy of our era is not recognizing how important that is. But the whole notion is new to us, though it's been coming on since turn of the century Suffragettes (and not this century either). So it's high time we thought long and hard, as it affects everbuddy down to the very souls of our shoes.

How do I know this like the trees do (per the Buffy Sainte Marie song). Well, the thing about empirical evidence - you can see it to believe it. It's been about 25K years since we became hunter gatherers, give or take an era. Typical family groups consisted of a man, who's a forager; and a woman, who's a home-maker. Which is a logical plan due to the male being larger, and thus better able to hunt, kill, and drag it on home.

I won't bother to argue any attributes besides physical size, because things like aggression and athletic prowess might develop in the course of hunting (over the millennia). But the difference in male/female size was a likely precursor in determining domestic roles. And looking at these roles since Adam and Eve, they appear reasonable. But we have to look closer to see if it's true.

I know of this from directly observing those who raised me, which was my grandparents. My grandfather, Will, was a big strong fellow who homesteaded the Canadian wilderness. His wife Kay was like a mythical earth-mother who raised sons and grandchildren alike. They were the stuff legends are made of. But the importance of their roles might surprise and humiliate you. The essential part of the family is the children. By definition. Without children the family ceases to exist beyond its current state. (Duh...would be in order here.)

And the crucial care-giver, the one who raises the children, is the mother, the female. Again, that's obvious by observation. So the key is this - it is an immeasurable tragedy to assume that the most critical of all functions can be provided by nurseries, day care, and baby-sitters. Like - only the really stupid could believe that. 

I'll relay a parable. When I'se six or so, I spent the summer with cousins at their lake house. These sun-darkened kids and me with my fair Swedish skin. So after one amazing day in the sun and water and sand - in the evening after supper, my all-over sunburn became so unbearable I cried while my aunt tried to soothe and comfort me. But I implored her "I want my Grandma." And much later felt so foolish, realizing that she was my cousins' grandma too. I only lived with her cuz my mom had left us when I was a toddler. 

The point being, if raising the children is the critical function of family (in a way the whole point of family) then why in the name of holy fuck would you ever trust that to a stranger. Imagine coming home to find the kids have taken on the mores and habits of the nanny. Are those better or worse than yours. Idk, one thing certain - they're not yours. Your progeny talk like the nanny, act like her, even think like her. For all intents and purposes, they're her kids. The only thing you can be sure of - you fucked up - you let someone else raise your family.

While the howling protesters insist, demand, near riot - women have the absolute right to define themselves by their pursuits, same as a man. Goddamn it all to fucking hell. No doubt. Nothing's more important than self-defining your existence. Just repeat that - every moment you're scared and alone as a child while mum and dad are out self-defining. It's more important than you. Keep repeating it. Like bahaahaa, bleating while you follow the lead sheep over the cliff. 

Wrote a song 'bout my friend the actress who went to New York to pursue her career:

   you want to be your own child, you want to raise your self and have everything, 
   you want to be your own project, why don't you give it away to your children, why
   don't you make them your child, why don't your raise them and give them everything, 
   what makes you think you are better than they are.

Write Your Own Bible

In a binary sense we have two choices - read the Bible, or write your own. Either follow the teachings, or chart your own course. Though practically speaking, we're all influenced by what has come before us. So even the most ardent path blazer is following in the footsteps of others; many others, perhaps all others (I think that's maybe a Hegel idea, I dunno). But much or most of what we think, do, or say; has been done before (just not as well). That was joke by the way, nobody gets my jokes.

Anyway, everything we do has some large or small influence on everyone else. I think Jesus called it the pebble tossed into the water effect. Per Sartre - all our actions exemplify how we think everybody else oughtta act. I think everybody oughtta be nice, but most everyone thinks that, so aint original with me. Just sayin'. But there's a catch. 

The Bible is old testament and new. The old is largely discarded by Christians. And generally speaking it's not very well known - other than a few words about creation, the Adam & Eve story, and the Noah story. Which are often regarded as myths similar to other cultures' creation, flood and redemption tales. 

But the key for Christians is the New Testament where this guy goes around telling stories about how to be righteous and good - what some would call ethics and morality. But there's a kicker. While these stories are nice, maybe even profound, there's always room for doubt, or for going your own way. So (aping the old testament) re-tellers of Jesus added this: "uh...did I mention he's the son of God." What we'd call "argument ab auctoritate" to the ferkin' nth degree.

So yeah "y'aint disagreein' with God there, are ya bud" can be a compelling reason to read and heed. On the one hand, it falls down rather quickly in the face of reason. On the other, it's held up for two thousand years, so top that. Well, as the bug alien says in Men in Black, your proposal is acceptable.

I've my own ideas - as distilled from twenty-five thousand years of subtle influence by others. So nothing new to see. Just some thoughts you can maybe use or not. And a couple of things on that. I've no reason to con anyone. Lying and deceiving people gains me nothing. I've nothing much to sell, and nothing much to buy. 

A story 'bout my Uncle Doc. We called him that cuz he was doctor and we were real clever with nicknames. So my dad is talking to Doc about ways to increase his practice. And Doc says "why...I can't eat more...can't sleep more." So, what would be in it for him. He did his best to help heal people, and they paid him as best they could; a fair trade all 'round.

The other thing I wanted to mention - my dad was an artist and a writer, and the finest person I ever met. He'd grown up in the Depression when food and housing were not always certain for the family. His father responded with all-pervading angst. My dad responded with humor, cuz at least you could laugh at your troubles and thus diminish them. So, when it comes to dads, J-boy gots nuthin on me.

What Philosophy Is

Philosophy means love of knowledge. It's the first human endeavor. Imagine several cavemen huddled around their eldest - he's maybe 20-years old or so. They ask him, how'd you do that, how'd you live longer than anyone else. He tells them his secret - around here, you get smart or die. Admittedly, he was kind of a pompous fellow, with a knack for stating the obvious. So it's not surprising he's a relative of ours.

He was by definition, the first philosopher. I remember Poe's The Cask of Amontillado from his Complete Works, the first book I read, other than all the Hardy Boys books which my grandmother bought me, and all the Nancy Drew books she bought for my sister. I was in the fifth grade, I guess, and wanted to know stuff. 

Poe is difficult, he uses big words like he wants to impress you with them. It's very irritating when you don't know what they mean. Kind of a stupid thing for a writer to do. And it's also hard to figure out what he's trying to say. But to me, The Cask of Amontillado - where the rich old guy gets sealed away forever in the unknowing basement, meant this - ignorance is fatal. 

I like Orwell's take on that - ignorance is bliss - his description of evil mind control. What religion and government use to keep people in line. And I think of animals cuz we learn by observing what's around us (per Hannibal Lecter...and others). Do animals have the same fear of mortality that we do. Mick Brazel says they're all individuals, like us. And have the same degree of individual sensitivities that we do.

My oft-sleeping cat didn't seem to worry that someday she'd die of cancer. I suppose she couldn't have known, and thus wouldn't have spent time sweating the unknowable. She was housed, fed and loved, and thus per Maslowe, was doin okay. Better than me anyway. Maybe all those sleeping dreams were a fulfilling life for her. I hope so. She never complained anyway. 

But quite oddly, she didn't purr as a kitten. So I taught her, by imitating what I'd learned from other cats. And she's show off her newly acquired knowledge by hopping up on the couch late at night when I was trying to sleep, and thunder purring sounds into my ear. Well done kitty. Who needs to sleep, just to get to work on time. 

You could say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I don't know. When I'se little, my elders would sometimes spell out words rather than saying them, like Wash Hogwallop in the movie O Brother Where Art Thou. But like Wash's boy (and maybe Stewie Griffin) I determined to crack that code.

How to Read

Saw a note on Facebook - Marc Grossberg wanting folks to buy his book & it aint easy to get a review at NY Times. I'd read a few pages on Amazon's look inside, and thought it was pretty good. So I suggested he send a copy to Levi Asher - and if he likes it, well yeah, it just might get reviewed at NY Times. Years ago, Asher used to review the Times book reviews and offer his opinion of theirs. And constantly bitch about the high price of hardbound books which he had to buy in order to review the reviewers. But he goes to PEN World Voices and knows all those people. 

I've even sent him a couple of my books but never heard back, which I mentioned to Grossberg - contact him first, cuz he didn't like my books. Quick response from Levi Asher "please don't send me any more books! I don't have time to read them. And Mike, it wasn't that I didn't like your books, just too busy." Which tickled me. I said to Grossberg "okay, that was a bad idea" and to Asher "just teasing - don't be so serious." People always so serious alla time. We all gonna hit the big clicker some day, might's well have some fun in the meantime.

I still get reveiw copies now and then; and recently an email from a publicist "what you think of the book." Damn, better read the thing first. So I start in, and it's pretty good - Home Making by Lee Matalone - the debut novel of the year. Coulda used that blurb for my book. Maybe change it a little - the debut novel of ten years ago! Sounds okay. Meanwhile I'm looking around the house for cousin Bill's book about the family homesteading in Canada, which is almighty interesting to me cuz them's my kinfolk, my progenitors. Who I am is what they were, to me anyway.

So I go up to the third floor, look around and find Images of Canada. But that's a pictorial history, similar to Dakota 125, an amazing book given to me by the author. Who's also publisher and former speaker of the house. Anyway, still looking looking around, I come across Tony O'Neill's book Sick City, which I'd also been reading on Amazon's look inside.

Geez, did I buy that; or did Tony send me a copy. I dunno, oughtta read that too. But then the library calls and says my copy of Losing My Cool by Thomas Chatterton Williams, has come in through interlibrary loan. So I fire up the old station wagon in the cold wind and snow, and go pick it up. So why not read all three books together, and see how that goes. Can't hurt. Next day, I get the mail, and there's a book by my friend William Trent Pancoast. Multi-tasking just got easier.

So I’m reading the four books, cleaning up the music room, trying to write and record a song, and watching Trump be impeached on TV, when on the ‘puter comes Buffy Sainte Marie singing Neil Young’s song Helpless. Stop everything. Listen to that amazing voice hitting those notes of that amazing song; and the marvellous musicians backing her. Wow, that’ll knock you off yer feet, even fifty years later. Music can captivate and hold better than any other form of communication when it’s done like that.

Geniuses at Work

Was watchising the geniuses at work this morning. Watchising like practicing (guitar or religion). And it occurs to me that whatever is in our sphere is essential - important cuz we use it everyday. And whatever is in the other feller's sphere is sorta theoretical, of some vague or secondary interest. It's just not that important to us. 

So the geniuses at Barrons are talking money. That's their world and what they do. And it makes everything go (in their view). To them, making money is what keeps the globe spinning. Which to a certain extent, is true enough. We use what little we have to buy what little we need. As Thoreau said "the value of a thing is the amount of life spent to acquire that thing."

Now at the same time as Barrons - on another channel - the geniuses of the Supreme Court are making law. Believing what they do directly impacts what everyone else does, or will ever do. Ah, Stephen Breyer, now there's a hero for all mankind to follow; a great man, a role model for everybody. Business has no such hero; at least none that come to mind, maybe King Gillette, but he's been dead near a century now.

But the Court is hearing arguments about state funding of religious schools. Within the larger context of separation of church and state. Which is a big deal to us. Saudi Arabia has no such separation. In that country, Wahhabism and Sharia Law are forced on the people by the authoritarian government. I almost said "citizens" but it wouldn't be how we think of the word. 

Anyway, both Barrons and the Court are on at the same time. And few of the billions of people directly affected by both, are watching either. Admittedly, I'm not going to use the information provided by Barrons. Not gonna buy $100,000 worth of stock hoping it'll go up 5% this year and yield me $5,000 on my risk. I don't have that kinda money to play with (or work with, per those peoples' sphere). Nor do most folks. 


So it's theoretical to us, thus mildly interesting at best. And the network (Fox) knows this too. But it's more devious than that. Their sphere is entertainment and influence. What they want us to take away is "y'see, big business gots this; it's all under control. So rest easy - smart people are keeping the globe spinning. And all y'gotta do is trust them. Cuz it's way beyond anything you could do about it, or even much understand what they're talking about." Their sphere is thought control.

My sphere, like Socrates, is to keep an eye on 'em. To crack their code and report back. So how we doing this fine morning. Whatcha got to say?

Language Says It All

Mikhail Iossel mentioned language; and I love it when people make me think. It’s valuable: useful, purposeful, fun. Makes me feel good, feel alive; like creating. Ask any artist - there are few rushes so good as the feeling of creating. But I digress (intentionally).

Language is an intergral part of being. I wish they'd taught Noam Chomsky when I'se in school - with all that eager yearning to know everything. But...missed out. Still alive tho, so let's have at it. Dr. Ronnie Shepherd's book Learning to Write, Writing to Learn postulates that writing and thinking are the same task. The organizational mind-working of writing a coherent sentence is the same mental function as forming a coherent thought.

I liked him, liked his book; thought he was really onto something. And while I won’t rehash Chomsky’s linguistic theories (cuz I don’t know them) perhaps we’ll brush up against them inadvertently, or advertently, who knows.

Language is the most essential part of each of us. It defines us, especially to others. We

are - what we can communicate ourselves to be. People only know us through how we present in words and actions. My immediate reaction to Iossel was - some folks present as very limited verbally. So...are they equally limited mentally. Because if you think in words, how much you know affects how much you can think - a mathematical variable equation.

But uneducated people aren’t doomed. Anyone can learn, grow and expand thought-making through an increase in words and knowledge. I took Reader’s Digest - it pays to increase your word power - to heart; and did pretty well in Stanford-Binet testing. But it struck me watching the Scripps spelling bee, that those kids know so much because they’re so thoroughly versed in the linguistics of word origin. If you know root words (and a few suffixes and prefixes) you have the key to the beginnings of knowledge. The Etymological Dictionary is an essential tool - knowing of how words were developed.

But there’re other chasms besides the educated and the un (even within those). Iossel says his native language is Russian, and his English is acquired. Not bad, he teaches English at university. But think of the significance - like the Tower of Babel - one of our truly amazing myths. If everyone thinks in their own language...well, every language is different in structure. Some mildly, some greatly. We write - right to left; Muslims write left to right. We write in letters, Orientals in pictures. Russians and many others have a different alphabet than ours. So how do we ever communicate. How can we ever be even mildly assured that what we meant is what “the other” heard, in the way we meant it - re-Sartre “we can never truly know the other”. 

One of the nice things about studying philosophy (and science) is the demand for precision.

When studying why we exist, what we should do, and how we should treat others - it’s best

to be exact, specific. Which is why Heidegger’s demand for “the ground” is so necessary.

And while we can’t grow beyond “self” unless we communicate with others, there’s no point

in trying to communicate unless we’re all “speaking the same language” that is - we all

adhere to agreed upon facts and truth. Life is kind of a Catch-22.

Why is Rupert Murdoch Killing Us?

They say near a billion critters will die in the bush fires of Australia. That you can hear them screaming from the brush as the fire closes in. It's terrible news. People blame PM Scott Morrison for ignoring the warning signs of climate change - for favoring the coal industry over the lives of people and animals, over the decline and demise of the Great Barrier Reef.

They also blame Rupert Murdoch for installing conservative governments in Australia, the United States, and the UK. Which makes me wonder, why would Murdoch want to kill us, along with all the innocent creatures across the land and oceans of the world, and destroy the whole planet? 

Former Labor PM Kevin Ruud claims that Murdoch media controls public opinion. And in large swaths of the free world - from India to China, Australia, America, and back again - he has enough clout to sway the elections. But how did this happen, right in front of us, and nobody even noticed?

Seems Murdoch slithered out of Australia in 1968 like an invasive species and was soon infesting England with his right wing propaganda, helping to elect Maggie Thatcher. He began by taking over British tabloid newspapers...and ended up controlling cable television with his Sky TV network. Then he set his sights on America. I remember, back in '95 or so...

Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. And how'd this little nobody from Georgia get such a prestigious position? By organizing - money. He re-invented GOPAC, where any filthy rich scumbag could send their dollars to Washington by way of Newt. Clever, no? Yes...and Murdoch was there with his moneybags; a good investment, it turns out. 

Together, Murdoch and Gingrich launched their contract on America, a hit-job to take power from the people and put it in the hands of the top 1% where it belongs. They were determined to root out evils like social security and public health care; and to focus on the problems at hand - like flag burning, school prayer, and inheritance tax - conservatism for America and around the world. 

Today we know it as Trumpism - nationalism, populism, fascism, or whatever name you call it by. Means simply the rich get richer and the poor get conned out of their last thin dime. The bottom line - big business is more important than you are. But I still don't get it. What's in it for Rupert? I've tried to pin him down: he invests a bit in Genie Oil & Gas, but it's not a big money maker for him. He doesn't seem to really favor Tories over Labor; or least straddles the fence when suits him. So what's his goal, why promote global death & destruction?

Well, it seems Murdoch is kinda like that William Randolph Hearst fellow, who started a war in Cuba with one aim in mind - sell papers and get richer - by inventing chaos. Apparently Rupert doesn't much care who wins or loses as long as it's sensational. As long as wars or raging fires make headlines - people gonna watch. People gonna turn on Fox News, Sky News, Murdoch News to watch the madness and mayhem and witness their own self- destruction. And as long as they do, Murdoch gonna cash in on it and gleefully watch it burn.





  

Lose the Race

I was thinking about race, a favorite subject of mine. Seems like the ultimate oxymoron (a self-defining word). How can we all be united as human race, yet all be divided by race. Wheerd. And what annoys the holy hell outta me is when folks say "your people" or "my people" when referring to Americans of different skin shade, like we're a different species or some-thing. 

I reckon maybe it's slavery that got us all divided. That fool Max Kellerman calls it "America's original sin" as if perpetuating some kind of phony mea culpa that has no meaning, makes things better. Doesn't he know America didn't invent slavery or racial discrimi-nation. Encouraging this absurdity only makes things worse. Makes for divides that shouldn't be, and don't have to be.

Slavery was gradually abolished in Europe over many centuries, finally ending in Russia 1679, forty years after the Mayflower. But it was still rampant in Africa. This was a concern of the wealthy, as common people had few rights prior to 1600. Most were uneducated field workers. Europe was ruled by monarchs whose families intermarried, creating a mutual interest in self-preservation and the established order.

But outside Europe, there wasn't much you could do with conquered peoples - except kill or enslave them. That is, if you didn't want them doing the same to you, some day soon. So reforms came about very gradually, not because the average person is evil or prone to original sin. But because the average person wasn't even considered human by the ruling classes. For example, Native Americans received "human" status by a 1928 Act of Congress. I guess Max doesn't read much, and figures yall don't either.

Slavery in the Caribbean put sugar on the table in Europe. Now that's terrible - working people to death in horrible conditions. But understand the time frame, it was a tough old world. Working people to death - in fields, on ships, and later in factories, was as common as butchering hogs. Except hogs were harder to come by, and thus more highly valued. Human life, the life of working or enslaved poor, meant next to nothing in the bad old days.

The abuse of Africans as slaves has a simple explanation. As Carnegie might've put it "capitalists out to make money." Add to that - locale and available resources - and you get ships from Europe sailing to Brazil and Caribbean to export sugar, cocoa, and other food products back to Europe. En route, they stopped along the African coast to buy slaves - to do the dangerous, often deadly work of producing those products. The same principle (or lack thereof) applies to slavery in America.

The Atlantic slave trade was a three-hundred year process, roughly 1500 to 1800, but the history of enslavement is as old as mankind. That doesn't diminish the evils but it's helpful to identify origins so we aren't confused. Africans were captured and used as slaves because it was handy to do so, not because of racial hatred. That came about later, as a way to justify or excuse the use slaves in America. Similar to the excuses for genocide in the American west and many other parts of the world throughout history. 

So I'll tell you a story 'bout my friends. Was deactivating from the military in Italy, and Al says his Masonic Lodge is having a party and he needs another bartender. So I volunteer. "You sure" he asks. Why not, I used to be a bartender, and it oughtta be fun. And anyway, Al had let me drive one of his cars for the many weeks after mine was shipped home, so I owe him, more than I can repay. But is also funny, here's this lieutenant serving drinks to the enlisted men and their wives, which in the Air Force in 1985 was unusual.

But you still don't get the joke. I'm interested in hanging around with Masons, finding out what they're like; and how else would I ever get an invite. But the real reason I'm there (and there's also a young Italian guy, Lorenzo, who was a civilian co-worker of ours, who desperately wanted to come to America) and we're there - to wait 'til midnight, as usual, when Sheila shows up in her white leather skirt & jacket. She smiles at us seated 'round the table; with everyone else gone home by now, sits down for a drink, and then leaves.

But you see, Sheila was a fun person to be around, with a great dry sense of humor. During the two-week NATO exercises with full chem gear and gas masks in 12-hour overnight shifts waiting for the sirens, she'd entertain, acting out her impressions of James Brown "jump back...kiss myself" and Eddie Murphy "hey Naughton, hey Naughton, I know you wanna come down here and fuck me up the ass..." the whole routine from memory. And quoting Sgt Dudley "when the Russians attack, I'm headin for the hills with everybody else." She was funny, and clever, and also just flat out gorgeous. And you could tell that - by just looking at her.













 http://mertsahinoglu.com/.../indentured-servitude.../

Cult is the New Normal

We are horrified by the behavior of Trump supporters w/o realizing we'd do the same damn thing. John Kennedy - a charming charismatic leader who made people want to believe in him. I remember in '62 Perry Como doing a "jogging motif" on his TV show cuz Kennedy said everyone oughtta get out & exercise more. That simple concept - Kennedy says it - so it's something we all oughtta do, is an essential & crucial element of human behavior.

All people want to belong. The existential questions are: why am I here; what am I supposed to do here; do I belong, and so forth. If you've answered these questions, you feel like you belong. If you haven't answered them, you're in a world of shit, to quote Private Joker. The only thing worse than belonging to a self-destructive group, is to not belong at all. Believe me, I've tried. Reminds me of a song by The Grass Roots. Imagine, county fair in warm soft summer, all the perty girls, and riding on the Zipper w great school chums, listening to that carny's tape of marvellous music. Like a book I wrote about that feeling. 

Belonging or not, is the only question we'll answer in our adult lives. Camus said "once you've answered the question of suicide, everything else is easy." Or as Herman Hesse said in his book Steppenwolf - your life is like a chessboard, and you can arrange the pieces anyway you like. Now maybe that's easier said than done, but before dismissing it, give it a try. You might like it.

So the natural way to find belonging is to find a group to belong to. "Group" is a basic survival mechanism. "Us" provides greater odds of survival than just "me" alone. And there're other benefits. We join groups of common interest as a means of furthering self-interest - people who think like me, reinforce my own beliefs. They are the perfect sounding board for affirming that my existence matters. But the key essential for any thriving group is an attractive leader. 

Jesus is the perfect example. He attracts followers. The more followers, the bigger the group. And the bigger the group, the easier it is to want to join. Cuz the biggest group offers the best chance of survival. This may sound quite simplistic, but the real horror is - I'm describing the world as it is. Like my old friend Sonny used to say "if I'd be a damn fool to think that way, then everybody would." 

The one great champion of "self" over "group" Friedrich Nietzsche, lived a lonely tragic life; which hardly exemplifies his astounding insights. Perhaps a more attractive example is John Lennon, who wrote the lines: 

"a working class hero is something to be; keep you doped with 
religion & sex & tv; but you're all fucking peasants as far as I can see."

If A Frog Had Wings

.......he wouldn't bump his ass so much. 

Rich Lowery on Cspan talking about nationalism and American culture, which he fumbled and mumbled about. Like a test - that which doesn't exist is hard to define cuz aint no such thing. Heidegger's principle: what is the ground. What is the basis of your belief on which everything else depends.

I was talking with Ben Myers about housing in England, cuz in the US, Republicans say that home ownership defines you. Liberals are renters, conservatives are home owners. The concept of permanency, and being innately invested in your own property. If you own it, you take care of it, preserve it, maintain and improve it. If you rent, you can do the same…or trash it til unlivable, and move someplace else.

But they miss the flaw in the ointment, the buzzing fly. Conservatism’s ground is small business ownership, similar to home ownership. And here’s the rub. Most people don’t own their own business. In fact, it’s organizationally impossible - we can’t all be olive oil salesman cuz who’d we sell to - other olive oil salesmen? So maybe ten people work for every one owner. Well, maybe a hundred, maybe thousands. But the overwhelming majority don’t work for themselves. And they haven’t the same feeling of belonging or ownership of “the company” cuz obviously, they don’t own it.

For example, a great little company I worked for - the largest seed & nursery in the world. A secretary there would answer the phones, and say “no, he’s no longer with the company; no, I can’t say anything more, that’s company policy.” Which sums up your life. People would just be disappeared from the rolls of the workforce. No particular reason, no discussion, just “he’s no longer with the company.” Rather smug; a sort of a pride and superiority - I’m here, I belong; you don’t. About a year or so later, the guy who owned the company sold it, and suddenly everyone’s out of a job. So it goes, and kinda hard to be smug.

Cuz y’see, if you don’t own the company, then you’re just a worker. And in a “right to work state” (funny use of double-speak) you have no rights about your work status. You can be fired without cause, anytime. Just “disappeared” from the rolls; and bye bye. Sure, they’d like you to think of it as "your company." To be available to work overtime whenever needed; to work seven days a week to harvest and process plants before the frost. Bundle up in insulated coveralls and heavy gloves, follow the tractor with the floodlights and work the freezing ground late into the dark night. Cuz the company needs to get this done; profit, and survival maybe, depends on it.

That’s all fine, I liked that company, liked working there, was a really cool place. But as John McCabe tells the joke in the movie “An eagle swoops down and swallows up a frog. And as the frog is working his way through the eagles insides, the birds soars away, higher and higher. Finally the frog gets all the way through to the end and is peeking out the eagle's asshole. He looks down, amazed and a little bit scared. Says to the eagle ‘how high up y’think we are?’ Eagle says ‘bout a mile, I guess.’ Frog says ‘you wouln’t shit me now, would you?’’

A Meme For All Seasons

When the missionary was killed trying to bring Christianity to the remote people of North Sentinel Island, he gave his life for what he believed in. Similarly, the islanders took his life for what they believe in. Whether you see him as martyr or invasive specie depends on you, on what you believe in. Same for Qasem Soliemani.

The insidious capacity of Republicans in congress and the White House to designate some group as “terrorist” is no different than the Spanish Inquisition. A blank check to justify killing your enemies. For the really simple-minded it’s what Fox News calls “the good guys” and “the bad guys.” Religions connote this as - us versus them. We the true believers, everyone else, the heretics, ie, killable scum.

Reagan, the Bushies, and now Trump have used this “feeble-mindedness” of the masses to justify their objectives. The same way Joe McCarthy used the red scare, “a breathing commie, is one commie too many.” The same way westward expansion declared - the only good Indian, is a dead Indian. Even the stupid may not truly believe these things, but we can use them to feel better about what we know (in our hearts) are crimes against humanity. Like the holocaust, same difference, only the names are changed to forget the innocent.

We’re told of 240 US marines killed in Beirut in 1983. So Hezbollah are terrorists. We’re not told of between 450-800 Shia civilians killed a year earlier in the Sabra/Chantila massacre following Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. Nor of the US role in that invasion. Why? Is it easier just to designate someone or some group “terrorist” than it is to know the truth. Are we comforted in labelling “the other” as killable scum, just so we feel better about it. Rest assured, the other has labels for us too. 

In WWII US General Curtis LeMay waged a scorched earth policy of firebombing all the Japanese cities he could. His advisor, Robert McNamara asked if this was good policy. LeMay responded “well, if we don’t win, they'll hang us as war criminals.” Following the Inquisition, Spanish invaders and Catholic missionaries exterminated the Aztec and Mayan civilizations, in the name of God. In 2018 the Sentinelese killed John Chau for the survival of their people. Same difference.

My dad used to say - Louis XVI wore high-heeled boots to make himself taller, but the people cut off his head to make him shorter.

Deadly Sand Trap Wars

So we’re at war, no surprise. Lot’s a reasons: The coup staged by the Dulles brothers (to save British Petroleum), the hostage crisis that Jimmy Carter screwed up, the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us of. But mostly war is big money, alla way ‘round. Like Little Orphan Annie’s benefactor, Daddy Warbucks; where’d he get his bucks from?

Bush VP Dick Cheney’s old company Halliburton been feeding at the federal trough (defense contracts) since Pharoh. Little buddy (and Betsy DeVos brother) Eric Prince parlayed his tiny Blackwater company into a global empire. All thanks to Bushie’s Iraq War. But it only cost American citizens the equivalent of goofy ideas like Bernie’s free college or Liz’s free health care. So which would you rather have - wars or college or health? Idk...anyone could have a boat, but you don’t know what’s in the box.

That’s bad enough, enough to make you sick (w/o healthcare) but what pushes you over the edge is going to the clinic during that war; and my little granddaughter staring/pointing at the photo the receptionist has on her desk. So I ask the lady about it (a pleasant older woman). “Oh” she says to my little girl “you must be in daycare with my granddaughter.” So to be polite, I ask her about the others in the photo. Turns out the man is her son. He’s in Minneapolis now; was wounded in Iraq. No, it was a head injury, he’s never coming home, never going to recover.

So what the hell have we been fighting for? Later that year I see in the newspaper: local youth visited by President in Army hospital. I ask my daughter if she knew him. Yeah, they were in the same classes since grade school. They were both 19, but now he’s dead. That’s a big difference. So I wrote a book about that, and I guess it didn’t matter cuz nobody read it.

But right now we have 13,000 US troops in Kuwait, guarding...oil, I guess. Well somebody has to do it. About 70% of Kuwait’s population is foreigners working there on...oil, I guess. So while folks in Iran burn our flag and shout death to America, we starve their people with crippling economic sanctions and shout death to the Iriquois!

Cuz...face it, we don’t know much about history or geography. To us, Soleimani was a terrorist. Which never includes Americans cuz as Fox puts it: we’re the good guys. Orwell couldn’t have said it better. But to the Brits, Benny Arnold was a hero; to the Ruskies, the Rosenberg’s were. It all kinda depends on your point of view. How hard is that to understand?

In ‘64 Lydon Stupid Johnson was on tv saying “my fellow ‘Murricans, nasty rotten commie bastards attacked our boats in Tonkin Gulf.” At the time, no one knew he was lying, but my grandmother started to cry. She’d lived through through three wars, and had several grandsons who were draft age. Not me, but I remember serving funeral mass when a boy came home in a box.

And no surprise here - we’re at war with ourselves. Democrats cussin Republicans cussin back. But imagine all my school friends whose grampa’s fought the Huns in WWI. In our little German-American town in north Nebraska, most a them boys still spoke Deutscher at home in 1917. Even taught it in my high school, so I learned it better’n some of my friends who were Hochsteins and Kleinschmidts and Koenigs, with older brothers coming back from the Nam.

One of my favorite movies: Jeffrey Hunter in Hell to Eternity - an orphaned kid adopted by Japanese Americans gets to go kill Japs in Saipan in WWII. Even knows what they’re saying cuz he grew up talkin the talk with the people who took him in. Lotta stories like that from lotta wars.

On my tv stand there’s a beautiful gift from the lovely girl who used to run the Chinese restaurant down the street. She’d give me little gifts every Christmas when I delivered packages. One summer she and her husband got to go home for a visit, after months of planning and applications. So she brought me back a little porcelain temple from Saigon. But that sweet happy girl died young, and that’s very sad.

I coulda been in Vietnam in ‘72, if I’d wanted to. Coulda killed gooks, if I’d wanted to. Coulda maybe killed that girl who gave me that present. But goddamn… I never wanted to. 

Spittin' Image

Things have changed since I was away these past 6-7 years. Not just obvious things, but things you wouldn't otherwise notice. Like when you age around friends & family, nobody notices. But see someone you haven't seen for a long time; and there might be big differences. eg, I was at federal law enforcement training center, in Brunswick GA, and I mention to this fellow that I used to work near El Toro "out by where the orange groves are." He said "there're no orange groves around El Toro anymore." So it goes. And having gone, won't be back again. And varied songs swirl thru my little mind. My Buddy...days have gone since you've been away. And...now that you've gone, all I have left is a band of gold. And...pave paradise, put up a parking lot.

The examples compound themselves, as things do in our world, or in our minds tracking of it - that federal training center isn't in Brunswick anymore either. So, what struck me (no, not a truck) was chatting on Facebook, lo these many years. I'd thought it was a place to post announcements and so forth. But in my return I see that it's all things to all people. There're wonderful family stories & pics about kids; and sad stories too. There're ads; didn't use to be. All this dogshit I don't want, don't wanna buy, don't want cluttering up everything; but they're there. And politics, that's what struck me the most. People want to share their feelings. In this open place - another song (one I wrote) I'm out there in the nothingness, watching the planets go by; I'm all alone in my empty room, watching the girls go by...

But Facebook, this open place with everyone watching - people express feelings, and they so much want others to agree, to feedback friendship; love I guess. All of us so desperately wanting to be loved, appreciated, acknowledged. I live - I'm sure I do, I got liked on Facebook. And equally, there is hating, of anyone anything that doesn't agree with us. I don't get that, not sure of it. Perhaps our group-self is an infant. It knows to what extent it's arms, hands, feet extend. But beyond that is foreign, strange; could be harmful; must be contained, quarantined, or unfriended. That is - eliminated. And that's a problem.

How is this infant group-self to grow beyond what it is now. A funny here... in a barbershop in Dakota, someone mentions Nebraska, and a guy says "dumb sand lizards." A few days later, in a shop or bar in Nebraska, someone mentions Dakota, and a guy says "dumb sand lizards." So funny, to me. If folks on either side of the river gonna insult each other, can't they at least have their own insult-words. But that's the ticket, on Facebook (as I'm writing this) Republicans and Democrats are disparaging the other with the exact same foul words, for the exact same reasons, and accusing the other of being too f**ing stupid to understand anything so why bother.

I tried chatting with my Republican friends. Well, I wanted to show them the error of their ways. And I was told to stfu; and eventually unfollowed. Then I notice a Republican trying the same approach and was told by a Democrat to stfu, and was unfollowed. So imagine this - Steve McQueen in The Great Escape - bouncing the baseball off the walls in the cooler. Or our little groups pinging their own yes-es back & forth to one another. Is there any point to either. I guess it makes us feel better, feel like we belong, and belonging has to mean some exclusivity where we're special and non-belongers aren't. But there's another thing, just like that pseudo-fight between Nebraskans & Dakotans, we're the same. We're mirrors of each other, identical twins. An outsider would look at this and say "I get it, I understand completely - you hate because the other is...a sand lizard."