Winter Wintalf-a-bet
Living in the northern states, and enjoying the winter, takes a certain mindset. While I do not live north of the US-Canada border, every sentiment and insight succinctly spewed (in the above Letterkenny three-minute video clip) isn't spurious and should satisfy. Seriously.
While 2021 has my spouse currently watching every season, I—on the other mitten—have caught a few clips and greatly appreciate its/it's amazing writing, but find some element of my brain's wiring prevents me from feeling almost all of the funny.
I don't think my sense of humor is governed by my Asperger's, but maybe some element of qualifying membership in nefnd holds my humor sensing device hostage behind my continual attempt to concentrate on catching every quip as they blur past my slow-on-the-uptake grey matter. This is not new to me. My comedic radar has been on a three-to-five second delay my entire life. I rarely am the first to get the joke and I'm absolutely never able to be quick-sarcastic or in lock-step with your double-entendres.
If the above clip happens to tickle your funny bone in a manner you find satisfying—then, allow this to be my "you're welcome"—there are 61 episodes available for you to binge (as of Dec 2020) on hulu.
'Don't have hulu,' you say? We're stream-cherry-pickers. We have (or have had) almost all of them. BUT. We pause, unsubscribe, and cancel them all on a rotating basis. I cancel Amazon Prime for months at a time and then re-subscribe. I cancel hulu every three months (3 months off / 1 month on). You get the picture. As soon as we spend too much time searching? Cancel. Paused. Unsubscribed. And then Uncancel/unpause/subscribe to a different "channel". I find this saves us about a c-note/benfranky/hunnabukz a month. Again, you are most welcome.
more:
Our ships—previously moored together—got severed on Jan 6th
My conservative
readers, neighbors, associates, friends and family members,
In the past, amicable respect for individual differences has been our standard operating procedure. Like most, we successfully maintained our relationship(s) by avoiding a few controversial topics of conversation. In my experience, this mutual behavior was a courtesy each of us bestowed on the other.
"Deep" conversations can be risky. Fragile egos can get seriously bruised when long-held opinions are examined using critical thinking skills. And, unfortunately, some of us store wishes and beliefs in boxes labeled 'facts'. So, as to avoid "getting in over our heads" or receiving bruised egos or having to sort thru facts, it's been simpler to keep conversations focused on our shared interests.
You and I may have ended many previous political debates with a cordial "we'll have to agree to disagree." That behavior will remain forever on the other side of the watershed of 6 Jan 2021. I can never again, in good conscience, politely agree to disagree with your political views because people you agree with, voted for, and support committed seditious, violent acts of insurrection in-and-around the US Capitol on Jan 6th.
Question time: What term would you use to describe the citizens of a foreign country—after a few thousand of that countries citizens attacked our country and a few hundred killed, injured, vandalized, and attempted to kidnap Americans? Would you refer to them as enemy sympathizers? Accessories before and after the fact?
Your fellow conservative Republicans attempted a coup d'état. As of the date of this open letter, their attempts were not successful. From my perspective, your silence on this matter looks exactly the same as what complicity looks like.
Are you familiar with the term 'Good German'? It was coined to describe the millions of German citizens
who didn't join the Nazi Party, kept their mouths shut, and went about
their lives in a business-as-usual manner while the Nazis took over
their country and murdered millions of their fellow countrymen.
Is 'Good Republican' what you're striving for?
In 1865, no
union soldier would have "agreed to disagree" when discussing
Lincoln's assassination with a confederate soldier. Nobody alive
today, with a functioning moral compass, would "agree to disagree"
if debating the 2001, Sep 11th attacks with a
member of Al-Qaeda. (You're the
confederate and Al-Qaeda in these metaphors.)
I can not help but see the mooring rope that once held our friendship together has been cut with a sharp instrument.
- The edge of that blade is comprised of hundreds of violent insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow the US Government. Enemies of the state who are neighbors are my enemies.
- Immediately behind that edge are the thousands of active supporters who cheered-on the insurrection (carrying a myriad of different flags, banners, patches, and slogans) followed Trump's guidance, marched to the US Capitol, but stopped short of committing crimes.
- Behind them, are millions of quasi-silent Trump-supporting republicans who are sad the insurrection failed and would have been pleased if it were successful.
- The handle of that blade is supported by millions of 'Good Republicans' acting like toady's, joking, and commiserating with their equally-complicit fellow republicans.
-
That entire weapon is in the hand of over 70 million conservatives who
voted for Trump, donated money to him, and who (so far) lack the
requisite moral courage to admit they made many errors in judgement, (have yet to) distance themselves from the growing stain-of-association and (are reluctant to) take any positive action to rectify their complicity.
Everyone who's met me—or who's read a few of my essays—knows what I think about
hypocrites
and
hypocritical behavior. If you ever claimed to "support the rule of law" and you
now diminish, attempt to rationalize, qualify, act as an
insurrection-apologist, or make any excuse for all the events
surrounding Jan 6th, you're the absolute worst hypocrite it is possible to be.
veachglines@gmail.com
Toady's Crux: Pay Attention to Punctuation (and Spelling, too)
Definition of crux: The most important fulcrum-point of a complex issue on which a decision depends.
Example: Whether a visual pun is considered funny (or not) depends on a viewer's ability to quickly re-interpret relevant images into words. The crux of my visual pun hinges on knowing the difference between a frog and a toad, being aware stool is a synonym for poop, and what a toadstool is.
2:00-3:00pm, 6 Jan 2021—immediately following lame-duck-President Trump's very carefully worded speech (excitement without incitement) which was given after Trump-toady Giuliani encouraged "trial by combat"—thousands of marching flag-waivers cheered-on a core group of hundreds as they attempted a violent coup d'état of the US Capitol building.
Definition of coup d'état: French for 'strike-hit to state-government'; violent political change.
About two hours after this lame-duck-President's insurrection began (and, clear-to-all who were watching-in-real-time it was unsuccessful) Trump posted a brief video where he said:
I know your pain. I know your hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this, where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us. From me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election. But we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you, you’re very special. We’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know you how feel. But go home and go home in peace.
The crux of his message was not the 'Go Home' parts (highlights mine) but the calming: 'We Love You, You're Very Special, Others Are...So Bad and So Evil, Go...In Peace' larger section.
The next day (after rational minds began to debate The Best Way To Remove a Leader of a Failed-Coup) Press Secretary/Toady McEnany, made a verbal statement:
I am here to deliver this message on behalf of the entire White House (breath) Let me be clear, the violence we saw yesterday at our nation’s capitol was appalling, reprehensible and antithetical to the American way (breath) We condemn it, the President and this administration in the strongest possible terms (breath) It is unacceptable (breath) and those that broke the law should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...blah blah blah unimportant-shit blah blah...
The crux of her message—whether it was a verbal faux pas or an outright condemnation of the President—requires a close examination of punctuation.
The Press Secretary starting a statement with 'on behalf of the entire White House' is very unusual. Initially, I thought this phrase was appended to the beginning because it wasn't a statement President Trump wanted delivered. I no longer think that's the case. The purpose was to set up a point-of-view switch from first-person: "I am here..." to second-person: "...the violence we saw...". The switch in POV was necessary because, otherwise, it might sound like the president was condemning himself.
When searching for the official text of this 7 Jan 2021 message, you will find it is documented:
... the violence ... was appalling ... We condemn it — the President and this administration — in the strongest possible terms ...
If a speech writer wanted an explanatory phrase (contained within two m-dashes) to be understood correctly, it would have been written:
... the violence ... was appalling ... We—the President and this administration—condemn it in the strongest possible terms ...
But McEnany read it as if it had been written:
... the violence ... was appalling ... We condemn it, the president, and the administration, in the strongest possible terms ...
Deputy Press Secretary's write press releases. It's unknown who wrote this wondrous kerfuffle, however, Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews submitted her resignation during the turmoil of these events with her own statement: As someone who worked in the halls of Congress I was deeply disturbed by what I saw today. I’ll be stepping down from my role, effective immediately.
Definition of toady: In French, flagorneuse /-r; a sycophant; a person who grovels/attempts to please for personal gain. Toady is also a common misspelling of the word today.
Dear careful reader: (who might-still be holding last month's portmanteau essay in the forefront of your mind) did you wonder why I provided the french word(s) to help define toady? If so—did you try to sound-it-out? Flagorneuse [feminine form; drop-e-add-r for masculine form] flag or neuse, flag or noose . . . the Trump-instigated domestic terrorists carried many different flags and they built a platform with a noose on the capitol grounds (reportedly, to hang Vice President Pence). Five people died. One of the dead carried the Don't Tread On Me flag as she marched to the US Capitol and later died of injuries sustained by being crushed under-foot by her fellow insurrectionists (which is a much more succinct example of irony than my "I survived shirt" essay, from last month). Allegedly, another terrorist died of a heart attack after a taser discharged in his front pants pocket while he was struggling to steal a portrait off a wall (which sounds too convoluted to be true; but self-tased testicles is funny, even though it's not irony).
more vocabulary essays:
Accidentally Being a Non-Conformist
How many people are you face-to-face friends with (versus twit-foller or fayzebuk-friends)? If you don't know the difference, this essay is significantly above your reading comprehension-level. Go away. Right now. Click away from here.
Allow me to go on a tangent, here, and I will - hopefully - explain (in the long run) how to efficiently sort the wheat from the chaff.
The difference between a conformist and a non-conformist is not who they listen to, but how they choose who they might eventually actively listen to, later-on. Which is a tricky enough sentence that it deserves its own paragraph.
Non-conformists seek-out and carefully screen for those who they'll maybe-eventually trust with putting words into their brain; conformists almost immediately allow people who they happen-to-meet because of proximity and random chance (neighbors, coworkers, parish priests, the google or YouTube algorithm, etc) to guide their future actions.
Deciding to be a non-conformist rarely-never leads to becoming a true non-conformist. (Usually, it just means choosing to adhere to a slightly different set of norms.)
Intentional Non-conformists (IN) choose to do something different because it's different. IN's are focused—first and foremost—with what people in their DeSoc think about them; intentionally looking different/acting differently is their goal. Being viewed (with pics/documentation) while "swimming against the current" is all that matters to an IN. They rarely consider their own happiness, comfort, personal growth, well-being or health as the primary reason to act or not take an action. End result: IN's just conform to a smaller slice of their specific DeSoc. (Best example from the last generation: hipsters.)
Accidental Non-conformists (AN) are doing something "outside their current societal norm" with no pre-thought or consideration given to how their actions will, later, be viewed by neighbors, friends, coworkers, and/or family members. Most AN's actions/inactions are taken because the AN wants to become smarter, happier, more comfortable, or they are/were attempting to improve their well-being or health. And then AN's discover—after time has passed—that they were, coincidentally, not conforming to an expected norm.
📢 Someone may become a professional artist/musician/actor if they create works of art (or public performances) until they are so proficient (or lucky) they catch the attention of a gallery/label/agent. Those who desire 'quality' rely on galleries/music publishers/film studios to act as their gatekeepers because they invest in artists who create works they believe will make them a profit.
In the 2020s, (which I’m typing from the very bottom-edge of) each of us belongs to a unique ‘Default Society.’ Every DeSoc [say Dee-Soach]—theirs, yours, and mine—is as different from the quaint, Mister Roger's Neighborhood definition of society {an organized group living in close proximity} as ‘cellphones’ are from their Alexander-Graham-namesake. DeSoc's are different from ‘Society’ not because we don’t listen to people physically near-by, like our parents and teachers (definitely not new), but because we no longer actively listen to anyone we don't choose to actively listen to.
A generation ago, depending on how one measures a generation *whisper: 25 years*, in order to get information about any routine-anything one needed to first locate a physical collection of information (it was normally referred to as a local library), which might-probably would lead them to searching for a more comprehensive collection of information (distant university's library) and, possibly-eventually, to talking with a subject matter expert. Unfortunately, that was determined waaay back then in the before-before times by quantity of books published and/or courses taught, in the aforementioned libraries or university (rather than quality of those books or lectures). [If you're interested in understanding more about the reason 'quantity was valued over quality' read the 📢 paragraphs below.]
Today we have total and immediate access to almost every word in every book in every library, and to millions of people willing to provide their opinion (all for the low-low price of a keyboard/screen and WiFi connection—free at local libraries). But . . . how does one identify real subject-matter experts (with high-quality information) and not engage with the ubiquitous multitude of underwhelming attention-zombies?
Allow me to go on a tangent, here, and I will - hopefully - explain (in the long run) how to efficiently sort the wheat from the chaff.
The difference between a conformist and a non-conformist is not who they listen to, but how they choose who they might eventually actively listen to, later-on. Which is a tricky enough sentence that it deserves its own paragraph.
Non-conformists seek-out and carefully screen for those who they'll maybe-eventually trust with putting words into their brain; conformists almost immediately allow people who they happen-to-meet because of proximity and random chance (neighbors, coworkers, parish priests, the google or YouTube algorithm, etc) to guide their future actions.
Deciding to be a non-conformist rarely-never leads to becoming a true non-conformist. (Usually, it just means choosing to adhere to a slightly different set of norms.)
Intentional Non-conformists (IN) choose to do something different because it's different. IN's are focused—first and foremost—with what people in their DeSoc think about them; intentionally looking different/acting differently is their goal. Being viewed (with pics/documentation) while "swimming against the current" is all that matters to an IN. They rarely consider their own happiness, comfort, personal growth, well-being or health as the primary reason to act or not take an action. End result: IN's just conform to a smaller slice of their specific DeSoc. (Best example from the last generation: hipsters.)
Accidental Non-conformists (AN) are doing something "outside their current societal norm" with no pre-thought or consideration given to how their actions will, later, be viewed by neighbors, friends, coworkers, and/or family members. Most AN's actions/inactions are taken because the AN wants to become smarter, happier, more comfortable, or they are/were attempting to improve their well-being or health. And then AN's discover—after time has passed—that they were, coincidentally, not conforming to an expected norm.
In January of 2021—at the beginning edge of a new decade (for those who don't begin counting at zero) there are more-n-more people deciding to Leave Social Media *dun dun duunn.* Droves of people are claiming they left Twitter, deleted their instaccount, and have chosen to close their fayzebuk forever. Some say they're going to "only keep one" (and the one they decide to keep usually depends on their generation/DeSoc). Because so many people say they're planning on unplugging from social media (it's unknown how many follow thru) they are all, now, joining a group of IN's.
To follow this example to its logical conclusion, an AN would be someone who never joined any of the social media platforms because way-back-in-the-before-times they suspected the time-suck would be detrimental to their well-being.
So. Back to my premise of how to find actual, real, subject-matter experts (remember? that was the set-up for this essay!) Yea, I know; that was nine paragraphs ago. Everyone who's either intentionally or accidentally lost their ability to follow a slightly complex train of thought, or to read more than a headline, or to concentrate on more than a couple of simple sentences, have long stopped reading this essay. Those with twit-tok-face-agram induced ADD clicked away before they looked at the above image of a hundred bland-white nearly-identical balls surrounding a single, heavily-timeworn, but still slightly spherical object with a complex surface.
The simple prerequisites for identifying a subject matter expert are two-fold: First, one must have an ability to understand enough about the subject to recognize they want to learn more - and - a capability to read and comprehend complex sentences. And then one must weed out the IN (who routinely claim they possess expertise on YouTube) and find an AN.
📢 Someone may become a teacher if they study/practice a skill (or series of tasks) until they are so proficient they can teach others. Highly qualified teachers may become university professors. Because university administrators aren't experts in every subject their schools teach, they rely on book publishers to act as their gatekeepers. Publishers invest in authors whom they believe will sell enough books for them to make a profit.
📢 Someone may become a professional artist/musician/actor if they create works of art (or public performances) until they are so proficient (or lucky) they catch the attention of a gallery/label/agent. Those who desire 'quality' rely on galleries/music publishers/film studios to act as their gatekeepers because they invest in artists who create works they believe will make them a profit.
📢 Today, 'authors/artists' unable to make it thru the gatekeeper system, can self-publish and attempt to self-market {sell their products online}. Or. They can invest their own money to open a gallery, music venue, or to produce a film.
more philosophy reading:
Valuable Values Are Values Adhered To
As this won't-be-missed year comes to an end, I thought it might help to explain (to myself) how philosophy reading might have provided an actual, recognizable, benefit. I began by writing about values (mine) and ended with a better (bitter?) awareness of hypocrisy.
Before posting this, I needed a relevant image. For grist, I cut/pasted the entire third paragraph of this essay into a search engine and randomly selected an image. [I suspect the primary reason a page from the US Senate's 1988 record topped my search results is my paragraph contains several dots (⏺) and the page has an incongruous annotation about bullet points at the bottom.] The entire page of the congressional record is filled with hypocrisy: from the existence of an opening prayer (not much separation of church & state visible here) to its content (family values)—to its faux concern regarding the popularity of the USSR's then-president Gorbachev—to complimentary words regarding ex-US President Nixon (impeached/resigned 14 years earlier)—to statements about US's support of 'guerrillas' fighting against the then-USSR in Afghanistan.
I have "discovered" that reading
philosophical writings can help put today's routine, normal, questions into a
"deep-time framework" because most theo-philosophizers of yester-century
and/or yester-millenia asked themselves questions which are eerily similar to
those we ask ourselves today.
- Whathefucq is happening in this ugly world?
- How can I get along with all the terrible humans who share this planet with me?
- Where did we come from?
- Where does all of mankind go from here?
- I know what I am, but what are you?
They were
one or more of the following:
- Complex thinkers who enjoyed learning from others.
- Orators getting paid to give speeches.
- Authors attempting to become famous.
- Diary-writers writing for their own benefit.
- Letter-writers hoping to mentor or teach their frequent correspondents.
- All. very. ignorant. men.
Ignorant in an
unable-to-imagine-tomorrow's-question, kinda-way—not in an unable-to-excel-in-school-or-teach-the-class, kinda-way.
Almost all of these wise idiots were also, in some way hamstrung or constrained by their:
- geographical location
- relative, chronological, placement in history
- cultural/societal/religious hierarchies
- individual privileges and prejudices
Although many of these men were aware of the
limits of their knowledge, some thought (and wrote and then proclaimed aloud) that their writings
were the best and final answer—without a hint of sarcasm or awareness of hubris.
I am aware of my insignificance.
Doubly daunting when considering this documentation of my thoughts—relative to the magnitude of thoughts to be found on the internet—and then
more-so when contemplating the exponential growth of the internet over
the coming centuries/millenia (where these words will be digitally housed until who
knows how long). I could go on with 'triply so...'
but to what end?
There is, maybe,
an infinite magnitude of questions which I will never be wise enough to
think of. Describing the unknown-unknown is paradoxically as simple
as writing the two hypenated unk-unk words, and as complex as thinking
about their definition.
I am at-this-moment attempting to get
a mental grasp of all the ways that my being a:
- cis-male
-
Caucasian
- US citizen
- alive in the "burgeoning information age" of the late-20th and early-21st centuries
-
lower-middle class (relative to my contemporaries)
- politically progressive (whatever that means)
- intentionally possessing no obvious superstitions
- unintentionally possessing several situational privileges
This logical description of how I identified a personal value explains why I adhere to it:
- I despise hypocrites who intentionally behave in a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do and/or a 'holier than thou' manner.
- Even observing recordings and/or listening to accounts of hypocrites words/actions can cause me to feel uncomfortable.
-
If
I find myself in a situation where I have to interact with people
whom I despise, I feel various levels of anger and distrust toward
them.
- I never want to mentally wrestle with feelings of self-anger or hatred.
-
Because I never want to think of myself as a hypocrite, I am vigilant of behaviors which might result in a dichotomy or
require justification of negative behavior to myself.
This—Never Be A Hypocrite In My Own Eyes—is one of my (maybe my largest) core value.
My ability to meet my own standards
pleases me. Makes me happy. Or, to be more specific, I am so
much more content with my life when I do not have any cognitive dissonance
to contend with. When I compare who I want to be with who I
actually am and never need to, then, explain to myself why the
jigsaw puzzle pieces do not smoothly and easily fit together . . . I feel virtuous in my own head.
not sated? here's more:
Stick a Pin In It
for those planning to waste it on a PS5
 |
| altruism: re-gifting your stimulus money to someone you know needs it for food, rent or heat |
staying with "the season":
Three Ways to Identify a Vulnerable (covert) Narcissist Vampire
still in the vein of
serendipity due dah day unfolds in a beneficial way
Does this phrase catchold due to an ancient echo from the zip-a-dee-doo-dah song? As a result of the simple rhyme? Maybe it's thanks to also being a seventeen-syllable haiku, or because—with nine words—it plants a cheesily remembered definition of serendipitous events.
For those following along in your lesson-book at home, please reexamine the above paragraph and answer these two questions from last week's homework: How many portmanteaux did you notice? Any malapropisms (and, if so, what were the words you expected)? [My answer is in the comment section.]
Serendipity is best understood by providing negative examples. Like explaining that the lyrics of the song Ironic, by Alanis Morissette, contains absolutely no ironic phrases . . . is exactly where its irony exists (the song's chock-a-block with misfortunes, examples of poor planning, and whatever idiotic needle-in-a-haystack label fits for: looking for a knife in a spoon factory).
Luck does not have anything to do with serendipity. And, serendipity is definitely not eventual success after an exacerbating period of failure. Serendipity never occurs as a result of intuitive reasoning or struggle or guile or cunning.
Sere is a Latin prefix found in words like serene, serenity, and serenade - calm, quiet, evening.
End and Pity are the core words (which need no explanation).
The primary element to a real serendipitous event is that it must never have been part of the plan, can not have been expected, and can not have been factored into the expectations of any of those who eventually benefited by its occurrence.
When frail, Grampa Jang-n-the-beanstalk (with his cow) meandered along at the most opportune moment and saved my day (career) in a very miraculous way, that was serendipity (full story here).
But, when we moved to Vermont last year "garage" was on my "desires list" so we looked at several apartments/houses with attached and unattached garages. Eventually "affordable" bumped "garage" off the list (along with "fireplace" and "guest room") and then two months ago . . . after my neighbor lost her job and their garage became our garage (because we could afford the additional rent) her bad luck became our good luck. Not serendipity.
I just remembered a good example of irony from my past (just when you thought I was finished kicking that unread horse).
In the early 1990s, while stationed at Ft Benning, GA, as an agent with Army CID, I got a call to respond to a drive-by shooting with one injured victim. This was a rare occurrence on military installations (and a first for me). The crime scene was an outdoor picnic/fishing recreation area, where a large group of soldiers and their family members had been celebrating their return from deployment. I talked to some witnesses, looked for empty bullet casings, and then went to the hospital to talk with the victim.
He was in good spirits, had no idea who shot at the crowd (or why it was his bad luck to 'catch a round') and told me that the bullet must have been a dud because it only pierced his stomach muscle less than an inch deep. He said, "I walked into the ER and the nurse asked how she could help me, so I said 'I just got shot in the stomach' and she looked down, laughed, and said, 'Very funny, what can I really do for you?' which was when I realized I was wearing this shirt."
Then he opened his jacket and I saw he was wearing a t-shirt with: 'I Survived Operation Desert Storm' above a line of bleeding bullet holes. And there was one small actual hole, near his belly button, with much more real blood below and around it.
Irony. Returning unscathed from the first Gulf War and getting shot in the stomach at the welcome home party while wearing this shirt (and not remembering the shirt until the admissions nurse laughed).
more similar stories:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
